14 ms·

Mission Creep: When Everything Is Terrorism

270 points by nealabq 13y ago

jacques_chester 13y ago
PJ O'Rourke once observed that "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". No matter how noble the intentions, no matter how vociferously the teenage boys swear, swear that their motives are and shall remain unimpeachably pure ... it eventually goes wrong. I'm what you might think of as an ex-libertarian, not quite so rule-bound as I used to be. But on the topic of continuously fighting the granting of powers and capabilities I think they're right: the historical examples just pile on top of each other. Governments can't resist mission creep. You need to prevent the rot before it starts.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Governments can't resist mission creep. True, but it's not like people or corporations are that much better at resisting it, is it? Show me a big organization, and I will show you a whole lot of fingers in a whole lot of unrelated pies.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Agreed. However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules. Special cases deserve special treatment. edit: it's a small world, I recognise your username from LP.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      It's not as if private companies or entrepreneurial off-books pharmaceutically-oriented import-export fraternal organizations haven't resorted to violence. And they're hardly the only ones. Standard Oil literally blew up the competition. Homestead Steel hired the Pinkertons to bash heads (and kill a few). Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Aetna kill indirectly by denying shelter, access to finances, or healthcare coverage. The Libertardian arguments are getting more than a little tired, and we've heard them repeated a few too many times.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        Is this a relevant line of argument? Yes, historically, companies have acted violently and even taken on state-like roles (I listed the EIC as an example elsewhere in this thread). But these case are remarkable because they are rare, not common. And because in all such cases they predate the settlement of an uncontested government monopoly on violence in some geographical area. I suppose you are mistaking me for a Rothtard, an anarcho-capitalist who believes in a free market in violence. Not so; it's been pretty well shown by now that centralising the social violence function is, on the whole, a better strategy. But it comes with the downside that you've centralised a lot of power and it needs particular supervision and constraint.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        Is this a relevant line of argument? Well, let's refer to your initial claim: "However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules." Now, either you're tautalogically defining any organization which sets rules and exacts violence in pursuit of its ends as a government (which is a meaningless distinction), or you're making a nonsense argument. Actually, both are nonsense arguments. Note too that I've included a number of other organizations other than state-registered corporations, though I include those. Yes, historically, companies have acted violently Sure. Where historically was: July 6 when Montreal Maine & Atlantic declared total war on the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-idUSBRE96E0U520130715 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-i... April 17, when West Fertilizer Company declared war on West, Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos... Ongoing corporate war through the 2000s carried out by the Gulf Cartel subsidiary Los Zetas in Neuvo Lardo, Mexico, with death tolls running to the 100s annually: http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html Ongoing petro-religious corporate warfare in Iraq, with a death toll in the 10s to 100s of thousands: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-attacks-around-iraq-kill-9-people/2517543/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-a... May 15,2 2013, Wells Fargo's war against individuals who were not even its mortgage holders: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wrongful-foreclosure-kills-elderly-homeowner/ https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wron... November 25, 2012, war on behalf of American and other clothing manufacturers and retailers against Bangladeshi garment workers: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-fire/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-... December 2-3, 1984, war by Union Carbide against the citizens of Bhopal, India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster All of these are cases in which violence was used by companies directly or through conscious and deliberate disregard for human safety and consequences in the aim of profit. The use of force to secure control or direct gains. Or perhaps you'd like to address companies such as Blackwater (now Xe), armed affiliates of oil, gas, mineral, and diamond operations, forestry operators, and others, who transact directly in death and force? The distinction you're drawing simply doesn't exist.
    - falk 13y ago
      Are you familiar with Blackwater? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Yes, but governmental violence is also used in the furthuring of private profit, and I'm not sure private profit off government policy is just a side effect and not also a symbiotic relationship. Bombs are expensive, rebuilding is expensive, terahertz scanners may do nothing for "security" but do wonders for bank accounts; and many of the costs to tax payers ultimately end up in private hands. Historically, governments have a lot more horrible things under their belt, but I'm still worried we now simply have an additional problem. I don't see much of a difference between power for the sake of power and profit for the sake of profit, and they make a great couple, too. (That must be someone else, since I never used this nick before this account and don't even know what LP is. The Libertarian Party?)
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        Larvatus Prodeo, a website that I host. One of the authors uses Pavlov's Cat as the nom de plume.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Corporations don't make War and enlist people to fight for them. The comparison does not make sense. And corporations can die and go bankrupt. Governments will make everyone else die or go poor before they do.
    - pfisch 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure corporations have done both of these things. Also Governments die all the time....
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Corporations, making war? Like what, millions of people backing them up? Any source to share to back your argument up ? At most you can say that corporations have been influencing governments to go to War, but a single corporation has not enough leverage to hire hundred of thousands of soldiers to fight. Ultimately War needs State involvement. Governments dying all the time? Like where? You mean in small countries? I'm talking about developed countries here, with big governments in place. They are very unlikely to die any time soon.
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        The East India Company behaved like an independent state, complete with an army, civil service and diplomatic corps. As for countries dying, even great powers, consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8
        ekianjo 13y ago
        Wow, great, you could come up with a SINGLE example for a company with State-like powers, and that was 200 years ago. And they never waged war on large regions at a time. And let's not forget their expansion was blessed by their own government. Do you have any recent example of super-powerful corporation waging war around the world by themselves? Any example of corporation launching WW1 or WW2, or even something remotely big as the Vietnam war, all by themselves ? It's fairly obvious that no corporation nowadays has the financial means to wage war by themselves. It takes 100 billions to wage war in Iraq. Top tier companies make that much in REVENUE, not even profit. How would you expect them to spend so much? Your point does not make sense.
- rhizome 13y ago
  You need to prevent the rot before it starts. Let's not get too ahistorical here, a lot of what we have today was implemented (if not established) in the freaked-out aftermath of 9-11. Yes, I know, Clinton rendered/tortured, etc. but it wasn't institutionalized through the PATRIOT act and associated mechanisms yet. There were certain people who used, intentionally, the hair-on-fire emotions of the times to expand government powers to the insane degree we are dealing with now.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Expansion in times of crisis, real or perceived, is an old pattern.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Right, which is why prelapsarianism is not a useful strategy. It's impossible to prevent rot before it starts, because it has always already started.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        I don't know why I bother with common turns of phrase on HN, someone always reduces it symbolic logic and springs an a-ha on me. Yes. Of course it's "always started". That doesn't render my point completely empty, because there is always a before to take as a starting point.
        rhizome 13y ago
        Common turns of phrase wouldn't be so troublesome if they were simply avoided in favor of direct language and makings of actual points. "We have to fight these things when they come up, but we tend not to," or whatever, instead of defensive profundity. Language is a lossy codec for thought, metaphor doubly so.
        visakanv 13y ago
        Agreed. Best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, next best time is now, etc
- coldtea 13y ago
  >PJ O'Rourke once observed that "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". Sure, but he said that because he is an uncorrigable neocon. He would be totally OK with giving the same "money and power" to big corporations.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Of course he would. Big corporations can buy things and sell things, but they can't legally send out men with guns and dogs to simply take what they decide they need. There is a necessity for someone to have the men, guns and dogs -- even if they only figurative. But men with guns and dogs are dangerous and so whoever has them needs to be strictly controlled and supervised. The ability to acquire more such men, guns and dogs needs to be resisted as much as possible, because it is very hard to claw back.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >Of course he would. Big corporations can buy things and sell things, but they can't legally send out men with guns and dogs to simply take what they decide they need. No, they can just buy media to influence public opinion or buy politicians and influence policy, and have them send the men with guns. But I think we mostly agree with that. Only I don't think the solution is less government (a smaller government is even easier for big corporations to have power on), but more vigilant citizens participating in politics.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        I personally suspect that there are no strategies that are stable over multiple generations. Otherwise one would have emerged. Basically that there is a kind of political thermodynamics that destroys all nations, no matter how great. Peter Turchin has developed an interesting family of theories about the rise and fall of great powers. He wrote a popular account, War and Peace and War, which I reviewed here: http://chester.id.au/2012/05/14/review-war-and-peace-and-war/ http://chester.id.au/2012/05/14/review-war-and-peace-and-war... As a footnote, I found why he used the term 'Asabiya'. It comes from an earlier historian, Ibn al-Khaldun.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  You need to change the legislative branch. If you don't have vague or broad laws it is hard to be interpreted in secret. Every government program should have precise mission statement, realistic expectation and measurements. And limited lifespan.
zeteo 13y ago
While I'm not claiming that the US is currently close to totalitarianism, there are some comparisons that have become quite disturbing: 1. A regime that justifies itself by claiming to protect the populace from a vague but grave danger. The USSR had the specter of returning robber barons; Nazi Germany, the Jews; and current-day US, terrorists. 2. A secret police that collects everyone's metadata and uses it to investigate suspicious activity. (Stasi didn't record everything all the time; they kept files of who communicated with whom, and assigned surveillance assets to the most promising leads.) 3. A heavy-handed, militarized regular police that apprehends nonviolent suspects with overwhelming force. I could go on, but the combination of these three is more than enough cause for worry.
- conformal 13y ago
  a couple quotes come to mind: - 1984 - "War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength ,Freedom is Slavery" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
  - personlurking 13y ago
    - Yuri Bezmenov - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo
    - speeder 13y ago
      I find it really sad when people REFUSE to believe this guy, but he said himself people would not believe him anyway :( Here in Brazil, this plan was also implemented, part of it for example was the creation of our no-fault divorce laws with help of TV Soap Operas. Later, the author of the soap opera that pushed for no-fault divorce (and indeed, it worked, no-fault divorce was made law in the same year as his soap opera) made even a book writing on how he is a communist and how he uses TV to manipulate society toward communist objectives, and even if you point Yuri interview and this guy book, people refuse to believe it, they think that society changed because it was 100% their choice and that the changes were 100% good and whoever say the opposite is crazy.
vermontdevil 13y ago
Politicians like to speak in generalities to justify mass overreach in terms of law enforcement: 1) think of the children 2) think of the movie/music industry jobs 3) think of our national security 4) think of common decency (lenny bruce/george carlin were persecuted for their raunchy comedy for example 5) the sanctity of marriage and so on.
revscat 13y ago
A thought that is worth possibly spreading: despite protests to the contrary, terrorism does not pose an existential threat. Governments use terrorism to justify almost anything, on the basis that if they don't then the terrorists will destroy everything. This is ridiculous. They're criminals, and should be treated as such. This modern security state is ridiculous.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Yes, it's funny how badly perspectives have been skewed. The USSR was a much more serious threat. Either they could've participated in a nuclear war leading to billions of deaths, or precipitated a land war in Europe that would have led to mere tens of millions of deaths the old-fashioned way. Terrorists simply don't have that kind of destructive capacity. It requires a modern industrial state; they don't have that. And once a modern industrial state is acquired, governing elites are curiously reluctant to sacrifice it on the altar of pure ideology. So why more money is spent on terrorists than communists is a bit of a mystery to me.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > So why more money is spent on terrorists than communists is a bit of a mystery to me. That's because terrorism is used as an excuse to further push the Power of the State.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      That, and because terrorism works: it causes terror, and people want to be protected from this terrifying threat, even if in reality it's not a very big threat.
  - tippytop 13y ago
    As the US is the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon against another, the long-view of the empire's historical narrative would be interesting to see.
  - krichman 13y ago
tnuc 13y ago
I enjoy statistics :) Toddlers Killed More Americans Than Terrorists Did This Year. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-more-americans-terrorists-did-year http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-...
- gordaco 13y ago
  Gives a new meaning to "won't somebody please think of the children?"
geoka9 13y ago
I hope USG does not take cue from their Russian colleagues; they routinely prosecute all kinds of political activists as "extremists". While not the same, that word does sound as sinister as "terrorists" does in Russian.
- pyre 13y ago
  The US government already considers certain groups that challenge the status quo to be terrorists. For example, animal rights activists. There is a lot of money in the livestock/meat business, in addition to all of the large corporations that rely on animal testing (not just medical, but cosmetics, etc). I've heard of lawyers that specialize in defending animal rights activists get harassed incessantly by the police (e.g. getting pulled over, forced to sit there for 30 minutes as more police cars show up, then told they can go; no explanation as to why). Also, look at all of the cases of police sending agent provocateurs into protest groups to encourage radical and/or violent behaviour.
  - pekk 13y ago
    "Challenge the status quo" does include "try to get their way politically by resorting to tactics which target civilians in order to cause terror". The animal rights movement certainly has been involved in that kind of "challenge" on a number of occassions. It's not merely a matter of declaring people criminals for having a political goal, but also when they are indeed committing crimes in the name of animal rights or the rights of the unborn or whatever.
    - Sharlin 13y ago
      So, if there are some people who try to "challenge the status quo" by unlawful means, it gives the government the right to harass, spy on, etc. other activists who stay strictly in the bounds of the law? That's exactly the oldest trick in the book - you define the "enemy" so vaguely that soon everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "suspected terrorist" and subject to random harassment or worse.
    - pyre 13y ago
ck2 13y ago
The problem is every little thing is now being escalated on purpose. Even small local crime, many times police try to escalate it on purpose as much as possible to get more funding. This is why the TSA and the NSA will never be defunded, they claim they are stopping all the invisible elephants from attacking us and politicians are afraid to say no. Meanwhile the "security" industry grows to the point where it's too big to fail and the taxpayers have to fund it forever.
- perlpimp 13y ago
  "follow the money" usually works for me. unintended consequences may be baffling though.
- oleganza 13y ago
  The reason of ever-growing state enterprise is the absence of real market feedback. Any private enterprise (business or charity) has only its own money to burn and gets new money from volunteers. In case of government, new money is guaranteed to flow in because it is extracted from people by force. So there is no way any government agency can ever "feel" they are spending resources on something which people don't like.
conformal 13y ago
consider that the FBI considers potential alternatives to the US Dollar to be a matter of "domestic terrorism": http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/30/bitcoin-fbi-admits-to-engaging-in-infiltration-disruption-and-dismantling-of-competing-currencies/ http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/30/bitcoin-fbi-admits... yeah, that seems like a reasonable application of the word "terrorist" :P
- Roboprog 13y ago
  Hey, if it frightens "our" government's corporate clients, then it's terrorism. Can't have corporate persons messing their corporate shorts now, can we?
gadders 13y ago
Any laws like this should always have a sunset clause, otherwise they are open to abuse. For instance in the UK local councils have used terrorist powers to see if people are trying to game the school catchment system to get into a better school [1]. And also used to spy on Fisherman [2]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights
coldcode 13y ago
I wonder if the Wayback Machine can get content from the NSA.

270 points by nealabq 13y ago

PJ O'Rourke once observed that "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". No matter how noble the intentions, no matter how vociferously the teenage boys swear, swear that their motives are and shall remain unimpeachably pure ... it eventually goes wrong. I'm what you might think of as an ex-libertarian, not quite so rule-bound as I used to be. But on the topic of continuously fighting the granting of powers and capabilities I think they're right: the historical examples just pile on top of each other. Governments can't resist mission creep. You need to prevent the rot before it starts.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Governments can't resist mission creep. True, but it's not like people or corporations are that much better at resisting it, is it? Show me a big organization, and I will show you a whole lot of fingers in a whole lot of unrelated pies.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Agreed. However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules. Special cases deserve special treatment. edit: it's a small world, I recognise your username from LP.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    It's not as if private companies or entrepreneurial off-books pharmaceutically-oriented import-export fraternal organizations haven't resorted to violence. And they're hardly the only ones. Standard Oil literally blew up the competition. Homestead Steel hired the Pinkertons to bash heads (and kill a few). Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Aetna kill indirectly by denying shelter, access to finances, or healthcare coverage. The Libertardian arguments are getting more than a little tired, and we've heard them repeated a few too many times.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      Is this a relevant line of argument? Yes, historically, companies have acted violently and even taken on state-like roles (I listed the EIC as an example elsewhere in this thread). But these case are remarkable because they are rare, not common. And because in all such cases they predate the settlement of an uncontested government monopoly on violence in some geographical area. I suppose you are mistaking me for a Rothtard, an anarcho-capitalist who believes in a free market in violence. Not so; it's been pretty well shown by now that centralising the social violence function is, on the whole, a better strategy. But it comes with the downside that you've centralised a lot of power and it needs particular supervision and constraint.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        Is this a relevant line of argument? Well, let's refer to your initial claim: "However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules." Now, either you're tautalogically defining any organization which sets rules and exacts violence in pursuit of its ends as a government (which is a meaningless distinction), or you're making a nonsense argument. Actually, both are nonsense arguments. Note too that I've included a number of other organizations other than state-registered corporations, though I include those. Yes, historically, companies have acted violently Sure. Where historically was: July 6 when Montreal Maine & Atlantic declared total war on the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-idUSBRE96E0U520130715 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-i... April 17, when West Fertilizer Company declared war on West, Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos... Ongoing corporate war through the 2000s carried out by the Gulf Cartel subsidiary Los Zetas in Neuvo Lardo, Mexico, with death tolls running to the 100s annually: http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html Ongoing petro-religious corporate warfare in Iraq, with a death toll in the 10s to 100s of thousands: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-attacks-around-iraq-kill-9-people/2517543/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-a... May 15,2 2013, Wells Fargo's war against individuals who were not even its mortgage holders: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wrongful-foreclosure-kills-elderly-homeowner/ https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wron... November 25, 2012, war on behalf of American and other clothing manufacturers and retailers against Bangladeshi garment workers: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-fire/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-... December 2-3, 1984, war by Union Carbide against the citizens of Bhopal, India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster All of these are cases in which violence was used by companies directly or through conscious and deliberate disregard for human safety and consequences in the aim of profit. The use of force to secure control or direct gains. Or perhaps you'd like to address companies such as Blackwater (now Xe), armed affiliates of oil, gas, mineral, and diamond operations, forestry operators, and others, who transact directly in death and force? The distinction you're drawing simply doesn't exist.
  - falk 13y ago
    Are you familiar with Blackwater? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Yes, but governmental violence is also used in the furthuring of private profit, and I'm not sure private profit off government policy is just a side effect and not also a symbiotic relationship. Bombs are expensive, rebuilding is expensive, terahertz scanners may do nothing for "security" but do wonders for bank accounts; and many of the costs to tax payers ultimately end up in private hands. Historically, governments have a lot more horrible things under their belt, but I'm still worried we now simply have an additional problem. I don't see much of a difference between power for the sake of power and profit for the sake of profit, and they make a great couple, too. (That must be someone else, since I never used this nick before this account and don't even know what LP is. The Libertarian Party?)
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      Larvatus Prodeo, a website that I host. One of the authors uses Pavlov's Cat as the nom de plume.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Corporations don't make War and enlist people to fight for them. The comparison does not make sense. And corporations can die and go bankrupt. Governments will make everyone else die or go poor before they do.
  - pfisch 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure corporations have done both of these things. Also Governments die all the time....
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Corporations, making war? Like what, millions of people backing them up? Any source to share to back your argument up ? At most you can say that corporations have been influencing governments to go to War, but a single corporation has not enough leverage to hire hundred of thousands of soldiers to fight. Ultimately War needs State involvement. Governments dying all the time? Like where? You mean in small countries? I'm talking about developed countries here, with big governments in place. They are very unlikely to die any time soon.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        The East India Company behaved like an independent state, complete with an army, civil service and diplomatic corps. As for countries dying, even great powers, consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8
        ekianjo 13y ago
        Wow, great, you could come up with a SINGLE example for a company with State-like powers, and that was 200 years ago. And they never waged war on large regions at a time. And let's not forget their expansion was blessed by their own government. Do you have any recent example of super-powerful corporation waging war around the world by themselves? Any example of corporation launching WW1 or WW2, or even something remotely big as the Vietnam war, all by themselves ? It's fairly obvious that no corporation nowadays has the financial means to wage war by themselves. It takes 100 billions to wage war in Iraq. Top tier companies make that much in REVENUE, not even profit. How would you expect them to spend so much? Your point does not make sense.
rhizome 13y ago
You need to prevent the rot before it starts. Let's not get too ahistorical here, a lot of what we have today was implemented (if not established) in the freaked-out aftermath of 9-11. Yes, I know, Clinton rendered/tortured, etc. but it wasn't institutionalized through the PATRIOT act and associated mechanisms yet. There were certain people who used, intentionally, the hair-on-fire emotions of the times to expand government powers to the insane degree we are dealing with now.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Expansion in times of crisis, real or perceived, is an old pattern.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Right, which is why prelapsarianism is not a useful strategy. It's impossible to prevent rot before it starts, because it has always already started.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      I don't know why I bother with common turns of phrase on HN, someone always reduces it symbolic logic and springs an a-ha on me. Yes. Of course it's "always started". That doesn't render my point completely empty, because there is always a before to take as a starting point.
      - rhizome 13y ago
        Common turns of phrase wouldn't be so troublesome if they were simply avoided in favor of direct language and makings of actual points. "We have to fight these things when they come up, but we tend not to," or whatever, instead of defensive profundity. Language is a lossy codec for thought, metaphor doubly so.
      - visakanv 13y ago
        Agreed. Best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, next best time is now, etc
coldtea 13y ago
>PJ O'Rourke once observed that "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". Sure, but he said that because he is an uncorrigable neocon. He would be totally OK with giving the same "money and power" to big corporations.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Of course he would. Big corporations can buy things and sell things, but they can't legally send out men with guns and dogs to simply take what they decide they need. There is a necessity for someone to have the men, guns and dogs -- even if they only figurative. But men with guns and dogs are dangerous and so whoever has them needs to be strictly controlled and supervised. The ability to acquire more such men, guns and dogs needs to be resisted as much as possible, because it is very hard to claw back.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Of course he would. Big corporations can buy things and sell things, but they can't legally send out men with guns and dogs to simply take what they decide they need. No, they can just buy media to influence public opinion or buy politicians and influence policy, and have them send the men with guns. But I think we mostly agree with that. Only I don't think the solution is less government (a smaller government is even easier for big corporations to have power on), but more vigilant citizens participating in politics.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      I personally suspect that there are no strategies that are stable over multiple generations. Otherwise one would have emerged. Basically that there is a kind of political thermodynamics that destroys all nations, no matter how great. Peter Turchin has developed an interesting family of theories about the rise and fall of great powers. He wrote a popular account, War and Peace and War, which I reviewed here: http://chester.id.au/2012/05/14/review-war-and-peace-and-war/ http://chester.id.au/2012/05/14/review-war-and-peace-and-war... As a footnote, I found why he used the term 'Asabiya'. It comes from an earlier historian, Ibn al-Khaldun.
venomsnake 13y ago
You need to change the legislative branch. If you don't have vague or broad laws it is hard to be interpreted in secret. Every government program should have precise mission statement, realistic expectation and measurements. And limited lifespan.

zeteo 13y ago

While I'm not claiming that the US is currently close to totalitarianism, there are some comparisons that have become quite disturbing: 1. A regime that justifies itself by claiming to protect the populace from a vague but grave danger. The USSR had the specter of returning robber barons; Nazi Germany, the Jews; and current-day US, terrorists. 2. A secret police that collects everyone's metadata and uses it to investigate suspicious activity. (Stasi didn't record everything all the time; they kept files of who communicated with whom, and assigned surveillance assets to the most promising leads.) 3. A heavy-handed, militarized regular police that apprehends nonviolent suspects with overwhelming force. I could go on, but the combination of these three is more than enough cause for worry.

conformal 13y ago
a couple quotes come to mind: - 1984 - "War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength ,Freedom is Slavery" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- personlurking 13y ago
  - Yuri Bezmenov - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo
  - speeder 13y ago
    I find it really sad when people REFUSE to believe this guy, but he said himself people would not believe him anyway :( Here in Brazil, this plan was also implemented, part of it for example was the creation of our no-fault divorce laws with help of TV Soap Operas. Later, the author of the soap opera that pushed for no-fault divorce (and indeed, it worked, no-fault divorce was made law in the same year as his soap opera) made even a book writing on how he is a communist and how he uses TV to manipulate society toward communist objectives, and even if you point Yuri interview and this guy book, people refuse to believe it, they think that society changed because it was 100% their choice and that the changes were 100% good and whoever say the opposite is crazy.

vermontdevil 13y ago

Politicians like to speak in generalities to justify mass overreach in terms of law enforcement: 1) think of the children 2) think of the movie/music industry jobs 3) think of our national security 4) think of common decency (lenny bruce/george carlin were persecuted for their raunchy comedy for example 5) the sanctity of marriage and so on.

revscat 13y ago

A thought that is worth possibly spreading: despite protests to the contrary, terrorism does not pose an existential threat. Governments use terrorism to justify almost anything, on the basis that if they don't then the terrorists will destroy everything. This is ridiculous. They're criminals, and should be treated as such. This modern security state is ridiculous.

jacques_chester 13y ago
Yes, it's funny how badly perspectives have been skewed. The USSR was a much more serious threat. Either they could've participated in a nuclear war leading to billions of deaths, or precipitated a land war in Europe that would have led to mere tens of millions of deaths the old-fashioned way. Terrorists simply don't have that kind of destructive capacity. It requires a modern industrial state; they don't have that. And once a modern industrial state is acquired, governing elites are curiously reluctant to sacrifice it on the altar of pure ideology. So why more money is spent on terrorists than communists is a bit of a mystery to me.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > So why more money is spent on terrorists than communists is a bit of a mystery to me. That's because terrorism is used as an excuse to further push the Power of the State.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    That, and because terrorism works: it causes terror, and people want to be protected from this terrifying threat, even if in reality it's not a very big threat.
- tippytop 13y ago
  As the US is the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon against another, the long-view of the empire's historical narrative would be interesting to see.
- krichman 13y ago

tnuc 13y ago

I enjoy statistics :) Toddlers Killed More Americans Than Terrorists Did This Year. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-more-americans-terrorists-did-year http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-...

gordaco 13y ago
Gives a new meaning to "won't somebody please think of the children?"

geoka9 13y ago

I hope USG does not take cue from their Russian colleagues; they routinely prosecute all kinds of political activists as "extremists". While not the same, that word does sound as sinister as "terrorists" does in Russian.

pyre 13y ago
The US government already considers certain groups that challenge the status quo to be terrorists. For example, animal rights activists. There is a lot of money in the livestock/meat business, in addition to all of the large corporations that rely on animal testing (not just medical, but cosmetics, etc). I've heard of lawyers that specialize in defending animal rights activists get harassed incessantly by the police (e.g. getting pulled over, forced to sit there for 30 minutes as more police cars show up, then told they can go; no explanation as to why). Also, look at all of the cases of police sending agent provocateurs into protest groups to encourage radical and/or violent behaviour.
- pekk 13y ago
  "Challenge the status quo" does include "try to get their way politically by resorting to tactics which target civilians in order to cause terror". The animal rights movement certainly has been involved in that kind of "challenge" on a number of occassions. It's not merely a matter of declaring people criminals for having a political goal, but also when they are indeed committing crimes in the name of animal rights or the rights of the unborn or whatever.
  - Sharlin 13y ago
    So, if there are some people who try to "challenge the status quo" by unlawful means, it gives the government the right to harass, spy on, etc. other activists who stay strictly in the bounds of the law? That's exactly the oldest trick in the book - you define the "enemy" so vaguely that soon everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "suspected terrorist" and subject to random harassment or worse.
  - pyre 13y ago

ck2 13y ago

The problem is every little thing is now being escalated on purpose. Even small local crime, many times police try to escalate it on purpose as much as possible to get more funding. This is why the TSA and the NSA will never be defunded, they claim they are stopping all the invisible elephants from attacking us and politicians are afraid to say no. Meanwhile the "security" industry grows to the point where it's too big to fail and the taxpayers have to fund it forever.

perlpimp 13y ago
"follow the money" usually works for me. unintended consequences may be baffling though.
oleganza 13y ago
The reason of ever-growing state enterprise is the absence of real market feedback. Any private enterprise (business or charity) has only its own money to burn and gets new money from volunteers. In case of government, new money is guaranteed to flow in because it is extracted from people by force. So there is no way any government agency can ever "feel" they are spending resources on something which people don't like.

conformal 13y ago

consider that the FBI considers potential alternatives to the US Dollar to be a matter of "domestic terrorism": http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/30/bitcoin-fbi-admits-to-engaging-in-infiltration-disruption-and-dismantling-of-competing-currencies/ http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/30/bitcoin-fbi-admits... yeah, that seems like a reasonable application of the word "terrorist" :P

Roboprog 13y ago
Hey, if it frightens "our" government's corporate clients, then it's terrorism. Can't have corporate persons messing their corporate shorts now, can we?

gadders 13y ago

Any laws like this should always have a sunset clause, otherwise they are open to abuse. For instance in the UK local councils have used terrorist powers to see if people are trying to game the school catchment system to get into a better school [1]. And also used to spy on Fisherman [2]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights

coldcode 13y ago

I wonder if the Wayback Machine can get content from the NSA.