4 ms·
> That may be, but the US government certainly is large. I believe you have equated size with capability/control, which is a fallacy. Size allows for capabilit
by jared314 13y ago
> That may be, but the US government certainly is large.
I believe you have equated size with capability/control, which is a fallacy. Size allows for capability, but neither, of the two, can be causally linked. The US government can do with 10 people, what previously required 100 or 1,000 people in the recent past. Total control of the population is no longer required to obtain total surveillance. So, the difference now is how it no longer requires a "large" government to do it.
- angersock 13y agohttp://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm Something like 1 in 10 people is employed by the government (state, federal, or local) directly, countless more indirectly. The .gov actually is large, in the strictest sense of the word.
- jared314 13y agoI believe you are speaking past my point. The total size, in number of people employed, does not directly relate to capability. The US government can do with 10 people, what previously required 100 or 1,000 people in the recent past. Total control of the population is no longer required to obtain total surveillance. So, the difference now is how it no longer requires a "large" government to do it.
- angersock 13y agoThat is true, but again, the government is large on top of that.
- JohnnyBrown 13y agoI believe you are speaking past my point. [repeats point]
- whatevsbro 13y agoYou were suggesting that with modern technology, surveillance is within even small governments' capabilities. I don't disagree with this, but just wanted to point out that the US government is large too. At least there's a correlation between a government being large and a government being oppressive, right? A small government simply has less influence in the general populace's everyday lives.