7 ms·

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance.

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important it was in a democracy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell-brand-vote-and-make-mps-notice-you-says-think-tank-8930949.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell... http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for-suckers/ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for... http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-webb-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-web... ... but really, what's the point? I know there are big differences between the parties, and that voting will make a difference. But so many of the places where their policies are identical are the ones I care about. I wish this post wasn't coming from a place of deep frustration, but the only way I can imagine this working is as described by Daniel Ellsberg, where learning top secret knowledge changes people: "... it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself. "You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours." http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-... But if politicians always believe they know better on this subject, what does that say about democracy? And how does this line up with the same people happily admitting they don't understand modern technology?

rst 13y ago
Likewise in the US --- Obama campaigned, to some extent, on a rollback of this stuff, but he's been gung-ho in favor of it once in office.
rwmj 13y ago
Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government. "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.
- summerdown2 13y ago
  Could you expand on why it's important to vote, because at the moment I can't see it. Arguably, lots of voting has got us to where we are now. The main problem I see is that the winning party uses voting numbers to claim a mandate.I'm currently reaching the conclusion that the only way to get meaningful change is for enough people to avoid voting that any idea of mandate becomes ludicrous and the disillusion has to be addressed directly.
  - emess 13y ago
    From the perspective of who wins, voting does seem pretty pointless if you disagree with all candidates who have a chance. People will often claim that to vote for a candidate who can't win is to throw away your vote. I disagree. Voting for any person that you don't want to see in office is throwing away your vote because no matter what happens, you'll be unhappy with the outcome. Not voting at all will mean politicians assume a mandate to do as they think best. They'll assume most people are content with the status-quo. Elections are a platform for national debate and the candidate you support is your spokesperson. The winners do claim a mandate, but that mandate won't be so strong if 25% of the population votes for the candidate who runs on an anti-surveillance platform. If your "throwaway" candidate is a good speaker and can convey their ideals effectively, supporting them is an opportunity to spread your message to people who haven't heard it in a way that they will connect with (if they've heard at all). Voting is good, but supporting the campaign financially or through volunteer work is even better. It also demonstrates to those who share your point of view that, although they may be in the minority, they aren't alone. I try not to focus on who wins the next election, instead focusing on the long term goal of sharing ideals thereby shifting public opinion. It's most frustrating when there isn't even a decent third party candidate. I suppose at that point all you can do is run yourself or find someone more qualified and encourage them to run.

rst 13y ago

Likewise in the US --- Obama campaigned, to some extent, on a rollback of this stuff, but he's been gung-ho in favor of it once in office.

rwmj 13y ago

Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government. "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

summerdown2 13y ago
Could you expand on why it's important to vote, because at the moment I can't see it. Arguably, lots of voting has got us to where we are now. The main problem I see is that the winning party uses voting numbers to claim a mandate.I'm currently reaching the conclusion that the only way to get meaningful change is for enough people to avoid voting that any idea of mandate becomes ludicrous and the disillusion has to be addressed directly.
- emess 13y ago
  From the perspective of who wins, voting does seem pretty pointless if you disagree with all candidates who have a chance. People will often claim that to vote for a candidate who can't win is to throw away your vote. I disagree. Voting for any person that you don't want to see in office is throwing away your vote because no matter what happens, you'll be unhappy with the outcome. Not voting at all will mean politicians assume a mandate to do as they think best. They'll assume most people are content with the status-quo. Elections are a platform for national debate and the candidate you support is your spokesperson. The winners do claim a mandate, but that mandate won't be so strong if 25% of the population votes for the candidate who runs on an anti-surveillance platform. If your "throwaway" candidate is a good speaker and can convey their ideals effectively, supporting them is an opportunity to spread your message to people who haven't heard it in a way that they will connect with (if they've heard at all). Voting is good, but supporting the campaign financially or through volunteer work is even better. It also demonstrates to those who share your point of view that, although they may be in the minority, they aren't alone. I try not to focus on who wins the next election, instead focusing on the long term goal of sharing ideals thereby shifting public opinion. It's most frustrating when there isn't even a decent third party candidate. I suppose at that point all you can do is run yourself or find someone more qualified and encourage them to run.