5 ms·

So we all want an open internet and personal freedoms - but not for the people who choose to be on the side of the state? I'm no state fanboy, but you can't ha

So we all want an open internet and personal freedoms - but not for the people who choose to be on the side of the state? I'm no state fanboy, but you can't have it both ways.

vdaniuk 13y ago
I am curious what exactly are you trying to say. Care to elaborate?
- lorddoig 13y ago
  So the LA police have made an app that relies on voluntary contributions from free citizens to further their goals. There's no coercion here, people either choose to help the cops or not. But this article and the comments are critical in a manner congruent with the criticism levied at mass surveillance et al. True freedom is not about keeping down the oppressors forever - that's just a power inversion. Freedom is about having choices, and there's no restriction of that here.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    Thank you for clarification. I don't agree but this is a philosophical discussion that depends on semantics too much. And I don't want to engage in that.
    - lorddoig 13y ago
      Don't get me wrong I see at least as much bad coming from this as good, I just find directing anger at the technology to be illogical and think it'd be more lucrative to direct such emotions to the root issue here which is that the police as a concept is inherently problematic. Solving those problems solves this one for free, and prevents its reoccurrence to boot.
coldtea 13y ago
>I'm no state fanboy, but you can't have it both ways. You very much can. Wanting something does not mean you have to accept it wholesale, in any quantity, by any entity and in extreme doses. The notion behind your argument makes everything a false dichotomy, between "not wanting something at all" and "fully wanting it 1000%". We are very much capable of wanting something in moderation and with certain provisions. And we are very much capable of wanting open internet and personal freedoms, and, at the same time, not want people give full access to information to the state. I'm not even sure where this notion that personal freedoms and not wanting anybody to assist a police state are incompatible comes from.
- lorddoig 13y ago
  If you go for something other than wholesale freedom - 'freedom with restrictions' - then you find yourself in the position where there is going to have to be somebody who creates and polices those restrictions. Even if there was a full-scale revolution and everything we consider to form 'the state' fell, the people who thereafter created and policed any restrictions would be the de facto state, and I'd bet there'd be people on forums like this criticising them too, just maybe not you. And we're back to square one. Edit: And freedom is a binary choice unless you restrict the problem domain from 'life' to some subset of life, in which case all such subsets must be 'free' in order so say one is free. If one is not free there logically must be oppressors. You see? All we've done is reshuffle things.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >If you go for something other than wholesale freedom - 'freedom with restrictions' - then you find yourself in the position where there is going to have to be somebody who creates and polices those restrictions Yes, and this is what civilization has done since time immemorial. Where did I argued against this as a practice? What I said boild down to that people that recognize this need for "policing" can also recognize a need to restrict the powers and information given to those doing the policing, and that there's nothing contradictory about it. >And freedom is a binary choice unless you restrict the problem domain from 'life' to some subset of life, in which case all such subsets must be 'free' in order so say one is free. I don't think it's a binary choice. In some ontological, philosophical way maybe you're right, but people understand that it's perfectly fine to call you "free" is you are not a slave and can say whatever you want, even if you're free to, say, drink and drive. This "restricting the problem domain from life to a subset" has always been the case for freedom. You don't have the freedom to come and kill me, for example. >If one is not free there logically must be oppressors. You see? All we've done is reshuffle things. What we did is far more impactful that reshuffling, we changed the scale of constaints. And quantitative change also brings qualitative change at some point (like water after some temperature starts to become vapor). In this case, we went from 20% freedom (say in medieval times), to 70% freedom. Suddenly, you got something there.

So we all want an open internet and personal freedoms - but not for the people who choose to be on the side of the state? I'm no state fanboy, but you can't have it both ways.

vdaniuk 13y ago

I am curious what exactly are you trying to say. Care to elaborate?

lorddoig 13y ago
So the LA police have made an app that relies on voluntary contributions from free citizens to further their goals. There's no coercion here, people either choose to help the cops or not. But this article and the comments are critical in a manner congruent with the criticism levied at mass surveillance et al. True freedom is not about keeping down the oppressors forever - that's just a power inversion. Freedom is about having choices, and there's no restriction of that here.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Thank you for clarification. I don't agree but this is a philosophical discussion that depends on semantics too much. And I don't want to engage in that.
  - lorddoig 13y ago
    Don't get me wrong I see at least as much bad coming from this as good, I just find directing anger at the technology to be illogical and think it'd be more lucrative to direct such emotions to the root issue here which is that the police as a concept is inherently problematic. Solving those problems solves this one for free, and prevents its reoccurrence to boot.

coldtea 13y ago

>I'm no state fanboy, but you can't have it both ways. You very much can. Wanting something does not mean you have to accept it wholesale, in any quantity, by any entity and in extreme doses. The notion behind your argument makes everything a false dichotomy, between "not wanting something at all" and "fully wanting it 1000%". We are very much capable of wanting something in moderation and with certain provisions. And we are very much capable of wanting open internet and personal freedoms, and, at the same time, not want people give full access to information to the state. I'm not even sure where this notion that personal freedoms and not wanting anybody to assist a police state are incompatible comes from.

lorddoig 13y ago
If you go for something other than wholesale freedom - 'freedom with restrictions' - then you find yourself in the position where there is going to have to be somebody who creates and polices those restrictions. Even if there was a full-scale revolution and everything we consider to form 'the state' fell, the people who thereafter created and policed any restrictions would be the de facto state, and I'd bet there'd be people on forums like this criticising them too, just maybe not you. And we're back to square one. Edit: And freedom is a binary choice unless you restrict the problem domain from 'life' to some subset of life, in which case all such subsets must be 'free' in order so say one is free. If one is not free there logically must be oppressors. You see? All we've done is reshuffle things.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >If you go for something other than wholesale freedom - 'freedom with restrictions' - then you find yourself in the position where there is going to have to be somebody who creates and polices those restrictions Yes, and this is what civilization has done since time immemorial. Where did I argued against this as a practice? What I said boild down to that people that recognize this need for "policing" can also recognize a need to restrict the powers and information given to those doing the policing, and that there's nothing contradictory about it. >And freedom is a binary choice unless you restrict the problem domain from 'life' to some subset of life, in which case all such subsets must be 'free' in order so say one is free. I don't think it's a binary choice. In some ontological, philosophical way maybe you're right, but people understand that it's perfectly fine to call you "free" is you are not a slave and can say whatever you want, even if you're free to, say, drink and drive. This "restricting the problem domain from life to a subset" has always been the case for freedom. You don't have the freedom to come and kill me, for example. >If one is not free there logically must be oppressors. You see? All we've done is reshuffle things. What we did is far more impactful that reshuffling, we changed the scale of constaints. And quantitative change also brings qualitative change at some point (like water after some temperature starts to become vapor). In this case, we went from 20% freedom (say in medieval times), to 70% freedom. Suddenly, you got something there.