3 ms·

Historically we tend to react badly in the initial phases of response to a new issue, then self-correct. What troubles me is that those mechanisms don't seem to

by s_q_b 13y ago

Historically we tend to react badly in the initial phases of response to a new issue, then self-correct. What troubles me is that those mechanisms don't seem to be working this time around. But I don't believe this is the best America can do. We lost our cool temporarily. It's time to get back on track.

sneak 13y ago
Yes, it's time, but it's not happening. Every country hasn't had a military coup... until it's had a military coup.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  We're not nearly at that point. Don't forget, we've had what were essentially emergency fiat governments, often with pervasive surveillance, indefinite detention, suspension of freedom of speech, etc. at least twice in our history: the Civil War, and the Great Depression/World War II. Hell, for most of our history half the population of the South lived in a de facto police state. This isn't as bad as it looks on first blush. The courts still function. Civil rights are largely intact. There aren't breadlines, riots, or gas rationing. Traffic lights still run, electricity still flows, and water still comes out of the tap. We're not in bug out territory yet. It's starting to happen. This is it. Right here. Right now.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I think if there isn't a successful legal challenge before 2016, or a successful political challenge in 2014 or 2016, the course is irrevocable. The direction has been negative for a long time, but the pace is accelerating. If it's not improving (or just getting worse much more slowly, but with a good second or third derivative) by midway through 2017, it's pretty much not going to be fixed, and the right choice would be long-term disinvestment and disengagement from the US, to the extent possible. The US started from a great position in 1912, so it's got a long way to fall, but... The difference between the Civil War and WW2/FDR was that those had fairly clear end states, and the end of the war/change of leadership was sufficient to fix. Obama was about as distinct from GWB as a politician can be, on the way in, and has essentially been the third and fourth terms in every meaningful way.
    - sneak 13y ago
      > I think if there isn't a successful legal challenge before 2016, or a successful political challenge in 2014 or 2016, the course is irrevocable. Can you cite any time in history where, in any location, a military power grab as far-reaching as this NSA surveillance thing has been successfully rolled back? > and the right choice would be long-term disinvestment and disengagement from the US, to the extent possible Preliminary testing suggests that that's a huge screaming bitch. :(
      - rdl 13y ago
        1) There have been countries which had military coups (even more overt than what has happened to the US since Civil War, Prohibition, WW2/Cold War, fall of the USSR, and 9/11) which rolled back. In fact, the US actually rolled back pretty well after the Civil War. We probably never really recovered from the nexus of progressives/suffrage/temperance/federal reserve/income tax/ww1/prohibition/nfa/gangsters/newdeal/ww2 though. The biggest real changes we've had since the Cold War were probably black civil rights/ending Jim Crow (which was a huge thing for black people, but not as huge a thing for me personally), the fall of Nixon, the Reagan Revolution, and probably 1994 (and, on the purely-bad side, 9/11 and the response to it). Rolling back NSA to spy on foreign governments/military/terrorist mercilessly, foreign commercial and civilians to a very minimal level, and US persons with no terrorist involvement at a law enforcement standard, is probably a change on par with ending Jim Crow, but nationwide, and for all people. Maybe less than the progressive changes at the beginning of the century. More than Reagan/80 or Gingrich/94 or Johnson's Great Society. 2) I agree, fleeing from the US is hard. Germany, Switzerland, somewhere in Eastern Europe, Hong Kong, and New Zealand seem like the most viable general solutions; for specific reasons I think Chile, China, Thailand, and Japan might be viable too, at least for some time period. I don't have much hope for seasteading or anything. Probably the best approach would be to have a US company which sets up a foreign office in one of those places, has a lot of experience working with people there, relocate there yourself, and then eventually either do a new business or relocate the company entirely. Tiny marginal states really don't interest me anymore. There's some bitcoin related guy (Idnan) doing a new free trade zone, location to be announced in November 2013, which might be interesting. I think it's on the border of 2 central american countries.

by s_q_b 13y ago

sneak 13y ago

Yes, it's time, but it's not happening. Every country hasn't had a military coup... until it's had a military coup.

s_q_b 13y ago
We're not nearly at that point. Don't forget, we've had what were essentially emergency fiat governments, often with pervasive surveillance, indefinite detention, suspension of freedom of speech, etc. at least twice in our history: the Civil War, and the Great Depression/World War II. Hell, for most of our history half the population of the South lived in a de facto police state. This isn't as bad as it looks on first blush. The courts still function. Civil rights are largely intact. There aren't breadlines, riots, or gas rationing. Traffic lights still run, electricity still flows, and water still comes out of the tap. We're not in bug out territory yet. It's starting to happen. This is it. Right here. Right now.
- rdl 13y ago
  I think if there isn't a successful legal challenge before 2016, or a successful political challenge in 2014 or 2016, the course is irrevocable. The direction has been negative for a long time, but the pace is accelerating. If it's not improving (or just getting worse much more slowly, but with a good second or third derivative) by midway through 2017, it's pretty much not going to be fixed, and the right choice would be long-term disinvestment and disengagement from the US, to the extent possible. The US started from a great position in 1912, so it's got a long way to fall, but... The difference between the Civil War and WW2/FDR was that those had fairly clear end states, and the end of the war/change of leadership was sufficient to fix. Obama was about as distinct from GWB as a politician can be, on the way in, and has essentially been the third and fourth terms in every meaningful way.
  - sneak 13y ago
    > I think if there isn't a successful legal challenge before 2016, or a successful political challenge in 2014 or 2016, the course is irrevocable. Can you cite any time in history where, in any location, a military power grab as far-reaching as this NSA surveillance thing has been successfully rolled back? > and the right choice would be long-term disinvestment and disengagement from the US, to the extent possible Preliminary testing suggests that that's a huge screaming bitch. :(
    - rdl 13y ago
      1) There have been countries which had military coups (even more overt than what has happened to the US since Civil War, Prohibition, WW2/Cold War, fall of the USSR, and 9/11) which rolled back. In fact, the US actually rolled back pretty well after the Civil War. We probably never really recovered from the nexus of progressives/suffrage/temperance/federal reserve/income tax/ww1/prohibition/nfa/gangsters/newdeal/ww2 though. The biggest real changes we've had since the Cold War were probably black civil rights/ending Jim Crow (which was a huge thing for black people, but not as huge a thing for me personally), the fall of Nixon, the Reagan Revolution, and probably 1994 (and, on the purely-bad side, 9/11 and the response to it). Rolling back NSA to spy on foreign governments/military/terrorist mercilessly, foreign commercial and civilians to a very minimal level, and US persons with no terrorist involvement at a law enforcement standard, is probably a change on par with ending Jim Crow, but nationwide, and for all people. Maybe less than the progressive changes at the beginning of the century. More than Reagan/80 or Gingrich/94 or Johnson's Great Society. 2) I agree, fleeing from the US is hard. Germany, Switzerland, somewhere in Eastern Europe, Hong Kong, and New Zealand seem like the most viable general solutions; for specific reasons I think Chile, China, Thailand, and Japan might be viable too, at least for some time period. I don't have much hope for seasteading or anything. Probably the best approach would be to have a US company which sets up a foreign office in one of those places, has a lot of experience working with people there, relocate there yourself, and then eventually either do a new business or relocate the company entirely. Tiny marginal states really don't interest me anymore. There's some bitcoin related guy (Idnan) doing a new free trade zone, location to be announced in November 2013, which might be interesting. I think it's on the border of 2 central american countries.