9 ms·

The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Neither Democrats nor Republicans will change this. Du

by junto 13y ago

The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Neither Democrats nor Republicans will change this. Due to the way that the political system works, a third party isn't possible. In the UK we have a Conservative/Liberal coalition, where traditionally Liberals were strong privacy advocates, but now turn a blind eye to the massive Orwellian/Huxley-esque society growing like hydra's heads in front of their very eyes. The complaints are muted. The mass media looks the other way. Why? To me this means: - the system is broken - the current political framework (especially in the US) is a fabrication, designed to make you believe that you have a choice, but in reality your vote is meaningless and your choice an empty vassal. The red pill is just a blue pill painted red. The problem is that the intrusions so far, do not impact the majority in such a way as to hinder their daily quality of life. The change from a private world to a 'all-seeing government' is slow, but it is sustained. At some point we will reach a tipping-point, and then the only option is revolution, because by that point, the system will have enveloped the public fabric of life so tightly, that there will be no way to gently extricate ourselves. It is your (US) own great thinker and do-er that said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin The irony is that the 'little temporary safety' may well have been a ruse. Even if Al-Qaeda is a real and present danger to the US at home, I doubt that the scale of that threat is worth the loss of liberty and the billions of dollars spent on funding the 'fight against terror'.

ytodo 13y ago
> Al-Qaeda is a real and present danger to the US at home, [Ironic AND O/T again] are you afraid in a way like - "The children, the children...": http://i.imagebanana.com/img/zls9q7uh/xmas.2013.jpg http://i.imagebanana.com/img/zls9q7uh/xmas.2013.jpg or: http://i.imagebanana.com/img/yl4f26zr/SANTA_web.jpg http://i.imagebanana.com/img/yl4f26zr/SANTA_web.jpg
jseliger 13y ago
The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Greens or libertarians, which I have been doing for a long time. Real change starts at the ballot box.
- junto 13y ago
  Which is great and I would even good as far to say 'noble', but in a political system like the United States, your vote is wasted, because your vote is not proportionally represented in the House of Representatives. It means you face an ever-challenging battle against almost impossible odds in order to get your green or libertarian candidate into the House of Representatives.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    Here in germany the system is a bit more complicated but there's also candidates that get selected by a majority vote and it used to be that people said "if you're giving your vote to the greens, the vote is wasted." That used to be true since nobody wanted to waste his vote - until enough people did so. Now there's three strong parties contesting. Even if the greens/liberals/whatever don't get elected, showing that there is a growing support for their positions sends a message. It's better than not voting or supporting the lesser of two evils.
    - ksrm 13y ago
      At least you have some degree of proportionality in your voting system though. It's something people have been campaigning for for decades in the UK and it hasn't happened. I fear it might never happen.
  - jseliger 13y ago
    your vote is wasted I beg to differ: if enough people vote for candidates who don't affiliate with the Republicans or Democrats, we'll see real change. Every vote counts. Hell, if Republicans and Democrats start seeing 10% of the votes going to greens or libertarians, they'll pay real close attention.
    - javert 13y ago
      But in asking people to vote libertarian, you're asking people to suffer mightily in the short term for a thin possibility of gain in the very long term. Because you're saying, "Don't vote for the lesser of two evils; vote for this other candidate who can't get elected, just to send a message." And then the more evil candidate gets elected, because the better people vote libertarian. And then it's not even clear if there will _be_ a long term.
roc 13y ago
> "who the hell do you vote for?" Primary challengers who uphold the other values you personally share, but also share our values on the subject of privacy, the 4th amendment, reigning in the expanding police/surveillance state, etc.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  And not just at the national level. A lot of the organization of both parties involves state-level politicians.
rayiner 13y ago
Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care, and your conclusion is that the system is broken? As far as I can tell, the system is working fine. Polls of the public at large show mixed results, but I bet if you polled actual voters (skewing older) you'd find comfortable support for the status quo. Essentially, the privacy issues don't affect people's quality of life but people worry that terrorism will. Who are you to say that the system is broken because it reflects the priorities of the majority of voters, just because you disagree with those priorities? If you had to personify the American polity, they'd be my mom, not you or me. She supports aggressive policing to keep drugs illegal (she'd probably vote to make alcohol illegal if that were on the ballot). She's pretty skeptical of Snowden, and would say "what do you have to hide?" but also thinks the government holds up her check deposits because she's got a foreign last name. She might argue with the details, but she supports the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, etc. She's a little skeptical of unions. She supported Hilary Clinton. She's a bright woman. She works as an interior designer, but has a masters degree in chemistry from her home country. My mom votes, in every election. I don't vote regularly, nor (statistically) do other people in my age group, but my mom does. I can't look at her, and at the status quo, and say: "the government does not represent the views of Americans."
- graedus 13y ago
  > Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. But in the never ending search for ever increasing profits that is built into their structure by law, they, like the major political parties are "just giving people what they want" too by chasing ratings in order to gain larger market share and increase advertising revenue. So both intertwined systems, the political system and the mainstream media, are working fine, right?
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    So long as the majority of people believe they have the means to butter their slice of bread while being entertained by the circus… "Believe some say the neon signs by the loudspeakers repeating that everything is fine"
ahallock 13y ago
Don't vote. Spend time with your family, effect change locally, do something that makes a difference. I'm spreading peaceful parenting, the NAP, and philosophy. This is where real change will happen. Involving yourself in quasi-religious political rituals, getting caught up in a politician's silver-tongued promises and the destructive divisiveness of political ideologies is exactly what the oligarchy feeds off.
pvdm 13y ago
Noam Chomsky has written about this for decades. The purpose of the entire "political framework" is for "Manufacturing Consent".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
malandrew 13y ago
TBH, I just want a political party whose sole platform is fixing corruption, mandating transparency, and putting fixes in place to make sure we don't get back in this place. Think of it as a temporary political party. For every issue that is not core to these changes, the official stance is to defer those votes until the next election when someone from a different party gets into power. Basically, the platform would be "We don't care about gun rights, we don't care about religion, pro choice, pro-life, etc. For every one of these debates we will shelve or delay every bill so the status quo is maintained. None of these typical party issues will be considered at all. This is the everything political stays the same platform. The only thing we will address is the revolving door, regulatory capture, transparency, etc." One thing I would love happen with respect to transparency is to have every single penny the government pays paid from a common purse that is searchable by any citizen and everything goes back to one individual who is accountable. Every single project that money is never disbursed to any organization to then manage the finances. Instead they get a set of cryptographic keys that allow them to make payments from the government account to every single supplier. Every single person spending a tax dollar can have their entire spending history reviewed. No secrecy anywhere. For every single entity you pay, you would have to declare whether you know personally (i.e. outside of work socially) any officer, owner or individual with a vested interest in that organization. All that is disclosed by penalty of perjury. If you lie some citizen will find out. That's the kind of government we need.
- rdl 13y ago
  That's essentially what Lessig has been arguing for.
dalek_cannes 13y ago
And a later and lesser thinker said (according to article): "Trust but verify" - Ronald Reagan
fetbaffe 13y ago
It's the cost of being a global superpower together with open borders. If you seriously want to reduce surveillance at least one of these must be changed, but probably both. However both are politically impossible to change for any party. The democrats and republicans act and sound the same because of issues of national security. If the US where to go into isolation mode it could drastically reduce it's threat level against it. However of course isolation would lead to other problems (similar to the one prior to WW2) However I believe that these changes will not come as a change of policy from either party, rather through a huge crisis and a downfall of the US political system. The UK has a similar problem as a regional power. Edit: Added extra paragraph.

by junto 13y ago

ytodo 13y ago

> Al-Qaeda is a real and present danger to the US at home, [Ironic AND O/T again] are you afraid in a way like - "The children, the children...": http://i.imagebanana.com/img/zls9q7uh/xmas.2013.jpg http://i.imagebanana.com/img/zls9q7uh/xmas.2013.jpg or: http://i.imagebanana.com/img/yl4f26zr/SANTA_web.jpg http://i.imagebanana.com/img/yl4f26zr/SANTA_web.jpg

jseliger 13y ago

The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Greens or libertarians, which I have been doing for a long time. Real change starts at the ballot box.

junto 13y ago
Which is great and I would even good as far to say 'noble', but in a political system like the United States, your vote is wasted, because your vote is not proportionally represented in the House of Representatives. It means you face an ever-challenging battle against almost impossible odds in order to get your green or libertarian candidate into the House of Representatives.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Here in germany the system is a bit more complicated but there's also candidates that get selected by a majority vote and it used to be that people said "if you're giving your vote to the greens, the vote is wasted." That used to be true since nobody wanted to waste his vote - until enough people did so. Now there's three strong parties contesting. Even if the greens/liberals/whatever don't get elected, showing that there is a growing support for their positions sends a message. It's better than not voting or supporting the lesser of two evils.
  - ksrm 13y ago
    At least you have some degree of proportionality in your voting system though. It's something people have been campaigning for for decades in the UK and it hasn't happened. I fear it might never happen.
- jseliger 13y ago
  your vote is wasted I beg to differ: if enough people vote for candidates who don't affiliate with the Republicans or Democrats, we'll see real change. Every vote counts. Hell, if Republicans and Democrats start seeing 10% of the votes going to greens or libertarians, they'll pay real close attention.
  - javert 13y ago
    But in asking people to vote libertarian, you're asking people to suffer mightily in the short term for a thin possibility of gain in the very long term. Because you're saying, "Don't vote for the lesser of two evils; vote for this other candidate who can't get elected, just to send a message." And then the more evil candidate gets elected, because the better people vote libertarian. And then it's not even clear if there will _be_ a long term.

roc 13y ago

> "who the hell do you vote for?" Primary challengers who uphold the other values you personally share, but also share our values on the subject of privacy, the 4th amendment, reigning in the expanding police/surveillance state, etc.

dllthomas 13y ago
And not just at the national level. A lot of the organization of both parties involves state-level politicians.

rayiner 13y ago

Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care, and your conclusion is that the system is broken? As far as I can tell, the system is working fine. Polls of the public at large show mixed results, but I bet if you polled actual voters (skewing older) you'd find comfortable support for the status quo. Essentially, the privacy issues don't affect people's quality of life but people worry that terrorism will. Who are you to say that the system is broken because it reflects the priorities of the majority of voters, just because you disagree with those priorities? If you had to personify the American polity, they'd be my mom, not you or me. She supports aggressive policing to keep drugs illegal (she'd probably vote to make alcohol illegal if that were on the ballot). She's pretty skeptical of Snowden, and would say "what do you have to hide?" but also thinks the government holds up her check deposits because she's got a foreign last name. She might argue with the details, but she supports the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, etc. She's a little skeptical of unions. She supported Hilary Clinton. She's a bright woman. She works as an interior designer, but has a masters degree in chemistry from her home country. My mom votes, in every election. I don't vote regularly, nor (statistically) do other people in my age group, but my mom does. I can't look at her, and at the status quo, and say: "the government does not represent the views of Americans."

graedus 13y ago
> Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. But in the never ending search for ever increasing profits that is built into their structure by law, they, like the major political parties are "just giving people what they want" too by chasing ratings in order to gain larger market share and increase advertising revenue. So both intertwined systems, the political system and the mainstream media, are working fine, right?
- cinquemb 13y ago
  So long as the majority of people believe they have the means to butter their slice of bread while being entertained by the circus… "Believe some say the neon signs by the loudspeakers repeating that everything is fine"

ahallock 13y ago

Don't vote. Spend time with your family, effect change locally, do something that makes a difference. I'm spreading peaceful parenting, the NAP, and philosophy. This is where real change will happen. Involving yourself in quasi-religious political rituals, getting caught up in a politician's silver-tongued promises and the destructive divisiveness of political ideologies is exactly what the oligarchy feeds off.

pvdm 13y ago

Noam Chomsky has written about this for decades. The purpose of the entire "political framework" is for "Manufacturing Consent".

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

malandrew 13y ago

TBH, I just want a political party whose sole platform is fixing corruption, mandating transparency, and putting fixes in place to make sure we don't get back in this place. Think of it as a temporary political party. For every issue that is not core to these changes, the official stance is to defer those votes until the next election when someone from a different party gets into power. Basically, the platform would be "We don't care about gun rights, we don't care about religion, pro choice, pro-life, etc. For every one of these debates we will shelve or delay every bill so the status quo is maintained. None of these typical party issues will be considered at all. This is the everything political stays the same platform. The only thing we will address is the revolving door, regulatory capture, transparency, etc." One thing I would love happen with respect to transparency is to have every single penny the government pays paid from a common purse that is searchable by any citizen and everything goes back to one individual who is accountable. Every single project that money is never disbursed to any organization to then manage the finances. Instead they get a set of cryptographic keys that allow them to make payments from the government account to every single supplier. Every single person spending a tax dollar can have their entire spending history reviewed. No secrecy anywhere. For every single entity you pay, you would have to declare whether you know personally (i.e. outside of work socially) any officer, owner or individual with a vested interest in that organization. All that is disclosed by penalty of perjury. If you lie some citizen will find out. That's the kind of government we need.

rdl 13y ago
That's essentially what Lessig has been arguing for.

dalek_cannes 13y ago

And a later and lesser thinker said (according to article): "Trust but verify" - Ronald Reagan

fetbaffe 13y ago

It's the cost of being a global superpower together with open borders. If you seriously want to reduce surveillance at least one of these must be changed, but probably both. However both are politically impossible to change for any party. The democrats and republicans act and sound the same because of issues of national security. If the US where to go into isolation mode it could drastically reduce it's threat level against it. However of course isolation would lead to other problems (similar to the one prior to WW2) However I believe that these changes will not come as a change of policy from either party, rather through a huge crisis and a downfall of the US political system. The UK has a similar problem as a regional power. Edit: Added extra paragraph.