19 ms·

You can both support building a tool to give people healthcare and be against government surveillance. Most people are able to compartmentalize their support o

You can both support building a tool to give people healthcare and be against government surveillance. Most people are able to compartmentalize their support or opposition for various government policies and do not see the doing of one thing they don't like as a reason not to support any other thing the government does.

pdeuchler 12y ago
That's kind of my question though, is how do you compartmentalize that? This may be a personal character flaw, but I definitely wouldn't be able to. The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others), and illegal surveillance that has steadily eroded many of our God given* rights and liberties. On top of that, this is something the administration has wholeheartedly supported and gotten in bed with, and shows no signs of turning back (beyond token political acts that will in the end accomplish very little, if anything). So, wouldn't you question further actions by someone who has proven themselves to act against you so wholeheartedly? Myself, while I normally would have been overjoyed at a healthcare overhaul in this country, am now extremely suspicious of the motivations behind it. Why would this administration act in our favor when they have been acting against us for so long? Thus, my question to brandonb :) *as per the Declaration of Independence Edit: I would say a good analogy would be: Assuming I were Charlie Brown, at what point do I begin to doubt Lucy's psychiatric advice when she's pulled the football out from under me so many times?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jsun 12y ago
  Well... I'm pragmatically there's things I'm going to agree with and things I'm going to disagree with for every. single. administration. So the choices are either working within the context of the system that exists today, or anarchy. Working within the context of the system includes reinforcing the things that can positively affect people's lives (healthcare) and fighting things that can negative affect them (spying). Fighting "the system" as a whole is paramount to advocating anarchy.
- tunesmith 12y ago
  The government isn't one thing. It might be worth doing some reading on systems thinking, for instance some of the writing by Donella Meadows. People inhabit a government system and they either set boundaries for themselves, or have those boundaries asserted onto them; boundaries between their area of influence and other areas of the system they consider out of bounds. If they didn't, no one would be able to focus and get things done. People often think that the failings of a system are chiefly because of the motivations of the actors in the system. But what's more accurate is that the failings are often because of the structure of the system, and the inhabitants often don't feel they have the ability to change the structure. The least effective way to change the behavior of a system is to twiddle the various buttons and knobs that each inhabitant has ready access to. The most effective way to change the behavior of a system is to change the overall goal of the system, which would necessitate a complete restructuring. So that's why it is easy to believe that various NSA wrongdoings aren't entirely because of nefarious motivations (although that is probably part of it), and very much driven by system structure (log and analyze data) that simply weren't "checked" as their technological tools and abilities increased over time. What many of us have failed to realize is that our own personal security has been a form of security-through-obscurity in the past. We can put personal data up on a website and not tell anyone, and before search spiders, it might have stayed private. But we can't expect such a website to stay private these days, because of how technology has increased. It's the same with our private data, and how our browsing habits can be mined to create freakishly accurate personal profiles. There was never any privacy protection there to begin with other than obscurity, and we just convinced ourselves it was there by believing in social mores that hadn't been challenged until technology increased too much. Meanwhile, the health system was about constructing an entirely new structure/system for health insurance, benefits, and penalties. So... I wouldn't say it is a matter of compartmentalizing. It's more a matter of appreciating that the government is a huge collection of disparate systems and motivations, and that there can be simultaneous breakdowns and successes.
  - pdeuchler 12y ago
    First, thanks for the book recommendation... the quickest way to my heart is giving me something interesting to read. While I mostly agree with you, it's important to realize that a single administration (speaking directly of the President, his close advisors, and officials he has put in place) has both encouraged the NSA in their actions and also produced the ACA. At what point do we write off the machinations of a political machine as the intricacies of a complicated system, or vice versa? Do we merely ignore common threads that point to a single motive as conspiratorial thinking, or do we act assuming the worst? I'm not so naive as to think the NSA has become what it is through the directions of a single person or group. I mostly agree that you hit the nail on the head, but the fact remains that many people in our current administration were given a high level overview of current processes, projects, and operations and gave the O.K. to not only continue in the current direction, but intensified efforts, brushing aside the consequences and ramifications that only a stupid person would have ignored. And I refuse to believe that these people got to where they are via stupidity.
- pbreit 12y ago
  If you fell so strongly about it, how can you remain a citizen? Thought so.
  - brownbat 12y ago
    While a bit brusque, this comment does illustrate that we're all compartmentalizing to some extent. Even pdeuchler, who suggests that same's lack of ability to compartmentalize may even be a character flaw... It isn't, you're doing it already. Living and working here, paying taxes, it all supports the state to some extent. You can't escape these dilemmas and still interact with the world in basically any way. Take any product. Money that buys avocados will inevitably support Mexican cartels. Widespread guac boycotts would just starve the farmers trying to claw towards legitimacy through economic growth. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303277704579349283584121344 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230327770... We're all hypocrites given enough scrutiny. And there are some reasonable defenses for it. Jeremy Lott wrote a whole book on that topic, "In Defense of Hypocrisy," http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595550526/kevinholtsber-20/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595550526/kevinholts... Other arguments offered in this review: http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2006_11_010195.php http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2006_11_010195.php (This is, of course, assuming this is hypocritical, as not everyone finds the spying out of bounds, difficult as that may be to conceive. Entirely separate discussion there though, one that's been trod to death on these boards.)
- tzs 12y ago
  > The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others) When was it shown that this was not for our good but for the good of others? I think you may be confusing the ends and the means. If the means turned out to not be good for us, that does not mean the ends they were trying to achieve weren't for our good. It just means they failed.
Alupis 12y ago
technically it's not giving healthcare to anyone... but rather providing a means to charge for a base-level. the healthcare law doesn't give any free handout's, even to people who can't afford the "affordable" fees the gov't charges for the base-level healthcare. (just saying, it matters to be correct on this topic)

pdeuchler 12y ago

That's kind of my question though, is how do you compartmentalize that? This may be a personal character flaw, but I definitely wouldn't be able to. The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others), and illegal surveillance that has steadily eroded many of our God given* rights and liberties. On top of that, this is something the administration has wholeheartedly supported and gotten in bed with, and shows no signs of turning back (beyond token political acts that will in the end accomplish very little, if anything). So, wouldn't you question further actions by someone who has proven themselves to act against you so wholeheartedly? Myself, while I normally would have been overjoyed at a healthcare overhaul in this country, am now extremely suspicious of the motivations behind it. Why would this administration act in our favor when they have been acting against us for so long? Thus, my question to brandonb :) *as per the Declaration of Independence Edit: I would say a good analogy would be: Assuming I were Charlie Brown, at what point do I begin to doubt Lucy's psychiatric advice when she's pulled the football out from under me so many times?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jsun 12y ago
Well... I'm pragmatically there's things I'm going to agree with and things I'm going to disagree with for every. single. administration. So the choices are either working within the context of the system that exists today, or anarchy. Working within the context of the system includes reinforcing the things that can positively affect people's lives (healthcare) and fighting things that can negative affect them (spying). Fighting "the system" as a whole is paramount to advocating anarchy.
tunesmith 12y ago
The government isn't one thing. It might be worth doing some reading on systems thinking, for instance some of the writing by Donella Meadows. People inhabit a government system and they either set boundaries for themselves, or have those boundaries asserted onto them; boundaries between their area of influence and other areas of the system they consider out of bounds. If they didn't, no one would be able to focus and get things done. People often think that the failings of a system are chiefly because of the motivations of the actors in the system. But what's more accurate is that the failings are often because of the structure of the system, and the inhabitants often don't feel they have the ability to change the structure. The least effective way to change the behavior of a system is to twiddle the various buttons and knobs that each inhabitant has ready access to. The most effective way to change the behavior of a system is to change the overall goal of the system, which would necessitate a complete restructuring. So that's why it is easy to believe that various NSA wrongdoings aren't entirely because of nefarious motivations (although that is probably part of it), and very much driven by system structure (log and analyze data) that simply weren't "checked" as their technological tools and abilities increased over time. What many of us have failed to realize is that our own personal security has been a form of security-through-obscurity in the past. We can put personal data up on a website and not tell anyone, and before search spiders, it might have stayed private. But we can't expect such a website to stay private these days, because of how technology has increased. It's the same with our private data, and how our browsing habits can be mined to create freakishly accurate personal profiles. There was never any privacy protection there to begin with other than obscurity, and we just convinced ourselves it was there by believing in social mores that hadn't been challenged until technology increased too much. Meanwhile, the health system was about constructing an entirely new structure/system for health insurance, benefits, and penalties. So... I wouldn't say it is a matter of compartmentalizing. It's more a matter of appreciating that the government is a huge collection of disparate systems and motivations, and that there can be simultaneous breakdowns and successes.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  First, thanks for the book recommendation... the quickest way to my heart is giving me something interesting to read. While I mostly agree with you, it's important to realize that a single administration (speaking directly of the President, his close advisors, and officials he has put in place) has both encouraged the NSA in their actions and also produced the ACA. At what point do we write off the machinations of a political machine as the intricacies of a complicated system, or vice versa? Do we merely ignore common threads that point to a single motive as conspiratorial thinking, or do we act assuming the worst? I'm not so naive as to think the NSA has become what it is through the directions of a single person or group. I mostly agree that you hit the nail on the head, but the fact remains that many people in our current administration were given a high level overview of current processes, projects, and operations and gave the O.K. to not only continue in the current direction, but intensified efforts, brushing aside the consequences and ramifications that only a stupid person would have ignored. And I refuse to believe that these people got to where they are via stupidity.
pbreit 12y ago
If you fell so strongly about it, how can you remain a citizen? Thought so.
- brownbat 12y ago
  While a bit brusque, this comment does illustrate that we're all compartmentalizing to some extent. Even pdeuchler, who suggests that same's lack of ability to compartmentalize may even be a character flaw... It isn't, you're doing it already. Living and working here, paying taxes, it all supports the state to some extent. You can't escape these dilemmas and still interact with the world in basically any way. Take any product. Money that buys avocados will inevitably support Mexican cartels. Widespread guac boycotts would just starve the farmers trying to claw towards legitimacy through economic growth. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303277704579349283584121344 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230327770... We're all hypocrites given enough scrutiny. And there are some reasonable defenses for it. Jeremy Lott wrote a whole book on that topic, "In Defense of Hypocrisy," http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595550526/kevinholtsber-20/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595550526/kevinholts... Other arguments offered in this review: http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2006_11_010195.php http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2006_11_010195.php (This is, of course, assuming this is hypocritical, as not everyone finds the spying out of bounds, difficult as that may be to conceive. Entirely separate discussion there though, one that's been trod to death on these boards.)
tzs 12y ago
> The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others) When was it shown that this was not for our good but for the good of others? I think you may be confusing the ends and the means. If the means turned out to not be good for us, that does not mean the ends they were trying to achieve weren't for our good. It just means they failed.

Alupis 12y ago

technically it's not giving healthcare to anyone... but rather providing a means to charge for a base-level. the healthcare law doesn't give any free handout's, even to people who can't afford the "affordable" fees the gov't charges for the base-level healthcare. (just saying, it matters to be correct on this topic)