4 ms·
No. First up, I agree 100% with the idea that this sort of thing is systematically wiping out both freedom and the illusion of freedom. Of course we all know t
by alan_cx 12y ago
No.
First up, I agree 100% with the idea that this sort of thing is systematically wiping out both freedom and the illusion of freedom. Of course we all know that over time it will close in getting worse and worse until we become little more than controlled cattle. However.....
Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want. The mass population simply doesn't care, since they know that it probably won't ever affect them. And if it does, well, the mass population won't care, they'll just see it as a bit of bad luck, happening to someone they don't know, who is not them, their family, friend or colleague.
What I don't see anywhere, US, here in the UK, or anywhere else is any form of mass objection. When you look at the numbers, protesters/population, petitioners/population, and so on, you'll see it is a small minority who actually care. As a politician, I'd be concerned about the mass population and their votes. Thats where the power is, not with a loud(ish) minority.
Im with you, I really am. I actually suffer minor anxiety symptoms as I read and think about this stuff. It really creeps me out. But the tragic fact is, the vast majority don't give a toss.
This will only change when majorities show signs of really caring about the issue.
- fulafel 12y ago) Government has every right to think its what people want. What? Why? You don't justify this bold claim in any way.
- weego 12y agoHe didn't make that claim. He stated that apathy could be construed as people not being against something which is a valid notion. More importantly it can be key to getting programmes funded and extended ie if there is no large scale public disapproval then there is no risk to anyone's political career in signing off on something.
- rm445 12y agoParent post is extremely clear in its meaning. You have taken half a thought, the entirety of which is a clear argument, and demanded explanation. It suggests either intellectual dishonesty or simple laziness in reading. The shortest part of that statement that it would be reasonable to quote alone is: "Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want." You don't have to agree with this at all. But it is a single self-contained idea that can be comprehended and understood, before attempting to justify or refute it.