10 ms·

That doesn't mean we should trust trust them not to decrypt the trafic though.

by Seigmen 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago
We shouldn't, but that's besides the point, which is that the point in the article is wildly illogical.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I love Popehat, and Ken in particular, but any issue that intersects with his politics tends to get the same semilogical hyperbolic treatment. The "Buckyball" magnet thing was, if anything, even worse.
  - thecoffman 13y ago
    I rather liked the Buckyball article personally, but I wanted to note that Ken, while probably the best author on Popehat, isn't the only one and the Buckyball article wasn't him; it was Clark. Clark's articles are often the explicitly libertarian ones.
mpyne 13y ago
Just like we shouldn't have to trust the cops not to bust my door down, right? It sounds snarky but it cuts to the core of the peoples' relationship with government. How much do you trust the government? How much can you trust the government? That's why libertarians are generally logically consistent when they oppose the NSA, and entitlement programs, and giant government services, etc., because they're the ones who will tell you that a government big enough to give you $FOO is big enough to take it away from everyone else.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  If the police in my town were Federal agents, then yes, I would expect to have a somewhat different relationship with them. My town would feel "occupied," just as my computer now does.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well there are many towns where if the police were Federal agents, it would actually be an upgrade over the corruption and abuse the citizens normally see. So I don't understand any intuitive reason why the agency supplying the cops would necessarily make you feel differently, except perhaps for inherent biases.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      >So I don't understand any intuitive reason why the agency supplying the cops would necessarily make you feel differently, except perhaps for inherent biases. If you don't like what the cops in your town are doing then you can campaign for local political candidates who will rein them in and have some hope of actually affecting the election outcome. Getting anything similar done at the federal level seems to require some combination of mass fatalities that incense the public and a box truck filled with hundred dollar bills to grease the wheels, which is obviously outside the control and ability of most normal humans.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > If you don't like what the cops in your town are doing then you can campaign for local political candidates who will rein them in and have some hope of actually affecting the election outcome. That's a good point, but local civil servants enjoy due process too, so it's not always a matter of simply hiring the right politician, as the politician may not be able to simply fire or replace offending staff. Especially when we're talking about first responders, who typically enjoy strong union protection.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      If I don't like the local cops, I can move. Another libertarian principle that's worth defending.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Yes, the libertarian principle that it's OK to do whatever in a certain city as people who don't like it can always move away. Great principle. :P Either way though, your logic applies just as much to Federal cops as it does to local ones. Think the FBI dudes around your city are a bunch of dicks? Move to the other coast, maybe they'll be better. Hell, you can even pick an entirely different nations' cops, if you want.
- etherael 13y ago
  > Just like we shouldn't have to trust the cops not to bust my door down, right? Sure, if it were possible to stop the government from doing anything at all I would be in favour of that, letalone obviously positive things like not spying on everybody or busting down their doors. Of course, there are no doors that require more energy than that available in the universe to forcibly enter. That's not the case for cryptography so it makes sense to exploit that. What am I missing here? > It sounds snarky but it cuts to the core of the peoples' relationship with government. How much do you trust the government? How much can you trust the government? This sounds like it is supposed to be some kind of profound question, but the answer is consistent and obvious in both cases, not at all. > That's why libertarians are generally logically consistent when they oppose the NSA, and entitlement programs, and giant government services, etc., because they're the ones who will tell you that a government big enough to give you $FOO is big enough to take it away from everyone else. Sure, I'd tell you that, I don't see why it's inconsistent to believe that and simultaneously want to dismantle the government? Isn't it actually pretty much the only logically consistent position?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Sure, I'd tell you that, I don't see why it's inconsistent to believe that and simultaneously want to dismantle the government? Isn't it actually pretty much the only logically consistent position? It is one logically consistent position, yes. I happen to disagree that it is the only logically consistent position, which is one reason I've been poking so hard at the notion that people need to examine under what logical basis government operates at all before they go 'rah rah government bad!'. Much like a corporation is the legal stand-in for the will of the collective shareholders, a government is the societal stand-in for the will of the people at large. A society that tries to maintain no government, or very limited government, is at an unstable point. In the best case it will collapse from internal conflict but be left alone from there (e.g. Somalia, tribal areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan). In the normal case the society will simply be eventually overrun by those who choose to organize (e.g. USA vs. the Native Americans, Hitler vs. the appeasers), but a government will spring up again one way or another.
    - etherael 13y ago

That doesn't mean we should trust trust them not to decrypt the trafic though.

by Seigmen 13y ago

That doesn't mean we should trust trust them not to decrypt the trafic though.

rayiner 13y ago

We shouldn't, but that's besides the point, which is that the point in the article is wildly illogical.

tptacek 13y ago
I love Popehat, and Ken in particular, but any issue that intersects with his politics tends to get the same semilogical hyperbolic treatment. The "Buckyball" magnet thing was, if anything, even worse.
- thecoffman 13y ago
  I rather liked the Buckyball article personally, but I wanted to note that Ken, while probably the best author on Popehat, isn't the only one and the Buckyball article wasn't him; it was Clark. Clark's articles are often the explicitly libertarian ones.

mpyne 13y ago

Just like we shouldn't have to trust the cops not to bust my door down, right? It sounds snarky but it cuts to the core of the peoples' relationship with government. How much do you trust the government? How much can you trust the government? That's why libertarians are generally logically consistent when they oppose the NSA, and entitlement programs, and giant government services, etc., because they're the ones who will tell you that a government big enough to give you $FOO is big enough to take it away from everyone else.

CamperBob2 13y ago
If the police in my town were Federal agents, then yes, I would expect to have a somewhat different relationship with them. My town would feel "occupied," just as my computer now does.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well there are many towns where if the police were Federal agents, it would actually be an upgrade over the corruption and abuse the citizens normally see. So I don't understand any intuitive reason why the agency supplying the cops would necessarily make you feel differently, except perhaps for inherent biases.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    >So I don't understand any intuitive reason why the agency supplying the cops would necessarily make you feel differently, except perhaps for inherent biases. If you don't like what the cops in your town are doing then you can campaign for local political candidates who will rein them in and have some hope of actually affecting the election outcome. Getting anything similar done at the federal level seems to require some combination of mass fatalities that incense the public and a box truck filled with hundred dollar bills to grease the wheels, which is obviously outside the control and ability of most normal humans.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > If you don't like what the cops in your town are doing then you can campaign for local political candidates who will rein them in and have some hope of actually affecting the election outcome. That's a good point, but local civil servants enjoy due process too, so it's not always a matter of simply hiring the right politician, as the politician may not be able to simply fire or replace offending staff. Especially when we're talking about first responders, who typically enjoy strong union protection.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    If I don't like the local cops, I can move. Another libertarian principle that's worth defending.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Yes, the libertarian principle that it's OK to do whatever in a certain city as people who don't like it can always move away. Great principle. :P Either way though, your logic applies just as much to Federal cops as it does to local ones. Think the FBI dudes around your city are a bunch of dicks? Move to the other coast, maybe they'll be better. Hell, you can even pick an entirely different nations' cops, if you want.
etherael 13y ago
> Just like we shouldn't have to trust the cops not to bust my door down, right? Sure, if it were possible to stop the government from doing anything at all I would be in favour of that, letalone obviously positive things like not spying on everybody or busting down their doors. Of course, there are no doors that require more energy than that available in the universe to forcibly enter. That's not the case for cryptography so it makes sense to exploit that. What am I missing here? > It sounds snarky but it cuts to the core of the peoples' relationship with government. How much do you trust the government? How much can you trust the government? This sounds like it is supposed to be some kind of profound question, but the answer is consistent and obvious in both cases, not at all. > That's why libertarians are generally logically consistent when they oppose the NSA, and entitlement programs, and giant government services, etc., because they're the ones who will tell you that a government big enough to give you $FOO is big enough to take it away from everyone else. Sure, I'd tell you that, I don't see why it's inconsistent to believe that and simultaneously want to dismantle the government? Isn't it actually pretty much the only logically consistent position?
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Sure, I'd tell you that, I don't see why it's inconsistent to believe that and simultaneously want to dismantle the government? Isn't it actually pretty much the only logically consistent position? It is one logically consistent position, yes. I happen to disagree that it is the only logically consistent position, which is one reason I've been poking so hard at the notion that people need to examine under what logical basis government operates at all before they go 'rah rah government bad!'. Much like a corporation is the legal stand-in for the will of the collective shareholders, a government is the societal stand-in for the will of the people at large. A society that tries to maintain no government, or very limited government, is at an unstable point. In the best case it will collapse from internal conflict but be left alone from there (e.g. Somalia, tribal areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan). In the normal case the society will simply be eventually overrun by those who choose to organize (e.g. USA vs. the Native Americans, Hitler vs. the appeasers), but a government will spring up again one way or another.
  - etherael 13y ago