5 ms·

>"It's hard to have a debate about the reasonableness of the government's actions — or Lavabit's response, for that matter — when we don't know what we're debat

>"It's hard to have a debate about the reasonableness of the government's actions — or Lavabit's response, for that matter — when we don't know what we're debating." I'd say that actually simplifies the situation quite nicely. It is unreasonable. Period. The end.

oleganza 13y ago
It's pure evil, not "unreasonable". Not only you have to suffer from a person holding a gun, you also should not even try to ask for help. You are a hostage in the hands of an armed sadistic monster. That's what it is.
- snitko 13y ago
  There's only one way to fix things: voting and participating in a political process. You solve nothing by calling government a sadistic monster. The fact that each new politician elected turns out to be a scumbag and nothing really changes, doesn't mean there's a better way to run society than a democracy. The fact that they use everyone's tax money to kill and detain innocent people all over the world and spy on everyone doesn't really mean it's a bad system. You know, the world is not all black and white, you radical.
  - 3825 13y ago
    >you radical I wonder how words like "socialist", "radical", or "reactionary" become insults. are these trends cyclical like fashion and seasons or perhaps not accurately predictable like day-to-day weather?
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      Reactionary has always been an insult.
      - jmaygarden 13y ago
        If you are referring to its origins in the French Revolution, then you could say the same for "conservative" and "right." I personally don't consider any of the aforementioned terms as derogatory. They are sometimes useful categorizations of views on specific topics.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        I don't think anyone has characterized their own views as "reactionary" unless it was part of a self-deprecating joke, sarcasm, or rhetorical flourish. It's like Chauvinism - implying that you are a thoughtless defender of something.
        jmaygarden 13y ago
        You've obviously never read any Mencius Moldbug [1]. [1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Downvoters didn't notice sarcasm.
    - Symmetry 13y ago
      Or thought that he was using sarcasm to register opinions that would have been better supported by actual arguments.
      - oleganza 13y ago
        There is one argument only: violence is being hidden under lies that supposedly justify it without any proof. Therefore it's evil. The ideas of government, democracy, monarchy and obedience to the pope are all evil for one simple reason: those who invested in them want you to blindly believe "it's for your own good" while instead of peacefully arguing with you, they bully and threaten. Mathematicians would never accept bullying as a proof. Scientist with an opinion does not expect that people would simply believe him and follow his ideas. He has to waste as much time as needed to prove he's right. And if he cannot make people voluntarily trust him, he'd simply go home, not to the Congress to pass a law. Politician, pope or abusive parent do not do that. They bully you directly, bribe people around to bully you, bully other people to discourage you from following their steps and so on. Then, after enough bullying and brainwashing generations of children in state-organized schools, folks have impression that "that's how we signed our social contract". The usual response to this red-pill knowledge is "you are too radical, the world is not black and white". So here I am. The world is indeed not black and white. And that's precisely why we cannot have any blind beliefs in a centralized violent institution. You don't trust random unarmed stranger. Why would you EVER trust a group of well-motivated trained, and armed, and protected professional killers? The only way out of this hell is to acknowledge that violence is never justified. Even in case of a self-defense. In the latter case, the most you can count on is being understood and forgiven by people around you. But both you, they and your victim would be better off if you didn't end up in that situation. That's why people use insurance, locks, video cameras, boycott, identification, thick walls instead of training for being all-powerful supermen. We prevent issues to avoid "solving" them by force. Plain simple. Government is entirely opposite of what methods we use in our private lives with our fellow friends and neighbours.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    I can't believe this post was downvoted. The sarcasm in the last sentence ought to have been obvious to all.
  - mkramlich 13y ago
    Except that it is their political process, one for which they've designed all the rules and systems in place to carry it out. It is prone to the "rigged game" phenomenon.
- avoutthere 13y ago
  Well, said. This simply can't be allowed to continue, especially in America which holds liberty as its central value.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    "America" doesn't not hold anything. There are actual individuals out there. Some of them believe they live in a magical part of the globe with some values within its geography. Others use abstractions like "liberty", "democracy", "national borders" etc to justify bullying some people at expense of other people (and never at their own expense - which is important!). "America", "Russia", "government", "police", "justice", "court", "nation" - all are made-up words used to justify kicking everyone's ass. People can agree on more peaceful ways to define property rights and protect each other and their environment, then simply believe that existing mafia has a mandate to solve all these problems under "public watch". If you compare modern pro-government rhetoric with theology of 13th century, you'll find a lot of parallels. Simply replace "god" with "society". "Without religion and church there's no morality" => "without government we'll have anarchic apocalypses" "You must trust pope because he's set here by God" => "You must trust mr. president because there is society that elected him" "If god does not exist, who created everything?" => "Without government how would we build roads and fly to the moon?" "The Bible says what's good and what's bad" => "The constitution defines our rights." Etc.

oleganza 13y ago

It's pure evil, not "unreasonable". Not only you have to suffer from a person holding a gun, you also should not even try to ask for help. You are a hostage in the hands of an armed sadistic monster. That's what it is.

snitko 13y ago
There's only one way to fix things: voting and participating in a political process. You solve nothing by calling government a sadistic monster. The fact that each new politician elected turns out to be a scumbag and nothing really changes, doesn't mean there's a better way to run society than a democracy. The fact that they use everyone's tax money to kill and detain innocent people all over the world and spy on everyone doesn't really mean it's a bad system. You know, the world is not all black and white, you radical.
- 3825 13y ago
  >you radical I wonder how words like "socialist", "radical", or "reactionary" become insults. are these trends cyclical like fashion and seasons or perhaps not accurately predictable like day-to-day weather?
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Reactionary has always been an insult.
    - jmaygarden 13y ago
      If you are referring to its origins in the French Revolution, then you could say the same for "conservative" and "right." I personally don't consider any of the aforementioned terms as derogatory. They are sometimes useful categorizations of views on specific topics.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        I don't think anyone has characterized their own views as "reactionary" unless it was part of a self-deprecating joke, sarcasm, or rhetorical flourish. It's like Chauvinism - implying that you are a thoughtless defender of something.
        jmaygarden 13y ago
        You've obviously never read any Mencius Moldbug [1]. [1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com
- oleganza 13y ago
  Downvoters didn't notice sarcasm.
  - Symmetry 13y ago
    Or thought that he was using sarcasm to register opinions that would have been better supported by actual arguments.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      There is one argument only: violence is being hidden under lies that supposedly justify it without any proof. Therefore it's evil. The ideas of government, democracy, monarchy and obedience to the pope are all evil for one simple reason: those who invested in them want you to blindly believe "it's for your own good" while instead of peacefully arguing with you, they bully and threaten. Mathematicians would never accept bullying as a proof. Scientist with an opinion does not expect that people would simply believe him and follow his ideas. He has to waste as much time as needed to prove he's right. And if he cannot make people voluntarily trust him, he'd simply go home, not to the Congress to pass a law. Politician, pope or abusive parent do not do that. They bully you directly, bribe people around to bully you, bully other people to discourage you from following their steps and so on. Then, after enough bullying and brainwashing generations of children in state-organized schools, folks have impression that "that's how we signed our social contract". The usual response to this red-pill knowledge is "you are too radical, the world is not black and white". So here I am. The world is indeed not black and white. And that's precisely why we cannot have any blind beliefs in a centralized violent institution. You don't trust random unarmed stranger. Why would you EVER trust a group of well-motivated trained, and armed, and protected professional killers? The only way out of this hell is to acknowledge that violence is never justified. Even in case of a self-defense. In the latter case, the most you can count on is being understood and forgiven by people around you. But both you, they and your victim would be better off if you didn't end up in that situation. That's why people use insurance, locks, video cameras, boycott, identification, thick walls instead of training for being all-powerful supermen. We prevent issues to avoid "solving" them by force. Plain simple. Government is entirely opposite of what methods we use in our private lives with our fellow friends and neighbours.
- lutusp 13y ago
  I can't believe this post was downvoted. The sarcasm in the last sentence ought to have been obvious to all.
- mkramlich 13y ago
  Except that it is their political process, one for which they've designed all the rules and systems in place to carry it out. It is prone to the "rigged game" phenomenon.
avoutthere 13y ago
Well, said. This simply can't be allowed to continue, especially in America which holds liberty as its central value.
- oleganza 13y ago
  "America" doesn't not hold anything. There are actual individuals out there. Some of them believe they live in a magical part of the globe with some values within its geography. Others use abstractions like "liberty", "democracy", "national borders" etc to justify bullying some people at expense of other people (and never at their own expense - which is important!). "America", "Russia", "government", "police", "justice", "court", "nation" - all are made-up words used to justify kicking everyone's ass. People can agree on more peaceful ways to define property rights and protect each other and their environment, then simply believe that existing mafia has a mandate to solve all these problems under "public watch". If you compare modern pro-government rhetoric with theology of 13th century, you'll find a lot of parallels. Simply replace "god" with "society". "Without religion and church there's no morality" => "without government we'll have anarchic apocalypses" "You must trust pope because he's set here by God" => "You must trust mr. president because there is society that elected him" "If god does not exist, who created everything?" => "Without government how would we build roads and fly to the moon?" "The Bible says what's good and what's bad" => "The constitution defines our rights." Etc.