5 ms·

That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed" mindset, th

by woodman 12y ago

That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed" mindset, then the government is the "collective effort". If you recognize the fact that your consent is not asked or required for governance, than you also likely recognize the fact that the state will continue to expand - as that is the nature of bureaucracies. I can only think of one area that the state leaves alone, religion, it has its finger in every other pie. What are you actually suggesting, that companies should voluntarily be backdooring software and handing over keys to the government? Or are you suggesting that they should be monitoring all their customers and informing on them, in the attempt to preserve privacy?

datashovel 12y ago
I definitely wouldn't say I am certain I have a foolproof answer, otherwise the solution would probably already be apparent. What I am saying is, certainly, the problem is a difficult one. I think the idea behind '1984', the book, (before I understood what terrorism was) only seemed a flippant idea propositioned as the plot of a fictional book. Surely no human being would ever consciously choose to govern the world (or their nation) in such a way, and even so they would likely be cut off early in the process if they tried. Now with more life experience and knowledge of the current state of the world, I can only reason that '1984' makes complete and total sense once the concept of "terrorism" is understood to be the catalyst of such a movement. Here are some basic scenarios: 1) Terrorism scares citizens and thus, as a knee-jerk reaction, wish to empower their government with omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent powers. The kinds of powers that any subsequent (corrupt) government could easily take advantage of. 2) Terrorism scares citizens, and as such citizens decide to be proactive to collaborate with their government to help prevent terrorists from causing harm to their nation and to make them as effective as they can possibly be, while at the same time working to preserve basic human rights such as the right to privacy. 3) Terrorism scares citizens. Knowing that entrusting their government with the kinds of powers they would need in order to act against terrorism would be overreaching, as such citizens decide their government should have no such powers and decide not to give their government God-like powers, while also deciding not to collaborate and blaming all failures on their government, and so citizens continue to live in a world of constant alertness and fear worrying that their next trip to the city could be their last... Just like the Goldilocks fairy tale, I think the world is not looking for a solution that is "too hot" or "too cold". Rather we're all looking for the solution that is "just right". The specific solution I can't say I have the answer, but with continuous iteration and improvement I'm certain smart people can come to a sane (but more than likely imperfect) solution that does not violate any single group and their goals / objectives / rights. And at the same time does not necessarily handicap future generations with rules and regulations that are almost insurmountable should they find themselves ruled by a corrupt / power-hungry government.
- woodman 12y ago
  It isn't really complicated as all that, it helps to define terms. Problem: Reduce terrorism to zero while maximizing individual freedom. So we'd have to define "terrorism" and "freedom". That is going to be pretty difficult, as the the goal posts on terrorism have shifted from what was once an activity that fell within the spectrum of warfare, and therefor outside the realm on nonstate actors, to where it is at today - criminal activity that upsets people. I have no doubt that the goal posts will continue to shift. Freedom is even more difficult to define, as many feel they are entitled to freedoms that necessitate the reduction of other's freedoms: freedom from hunger, sickness, etc. So you aren't likely to find consensus on a definition for that. It isn't a difficult problem, it is an impossible problem, because it isn't even possible to define the terms. That is, unless you accept the idea of universal preference, then it becomes pretty simple - as you'd be able to fix both variables. But then this conversation would be completely pointless, as universal preference invalidates the supposed justifications for the existence of government :) The only reasonable action is to do nothing. The costs outweigh the gains by a tremendous margin.
dllthomas 12y ago
From a "consent of the governed" mindset, government is one kind of collective effort. There are collective efforts that are not "a part of government", and certainly there is a difference between individual action and further empowering police or the armed services. From a pure "the government will expand regardless and pay no heed to anything the populace does or says" standpoint, there's not much point in discussing any action of any sort. But backing off that just a little, if the popular mindset at least helps determine how that bureaucracy expands then privately limiting terrorism might help push the growth along less harmful avenues. What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion - I think we agree that companies adding backdoors, monitoring and informing is a bad approach and I don't think it's what the parent meant to suggest.
- woodman 12y ago
  > ...government is one kind of collective effort. Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really doesn't like it. > ... privately limiting terrorism might help ... You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, would be a tremendous misallocation of resources. That leaves the effort firmly in the state's hands - where operating in the red is the norm. Private individuals can't continuously operate in the red because they'd eventually starve. > What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion... Yeah, I'd love to hear some ideas that aren't insane - but I won't be holding my breath.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    You seem to be thinking of this as a parallel military/policing effort. I was thinking individual/social. Things of low cost, and hopefully with other benefits - such as keeping community members feeling engaged and included, providing an environment conducive to less violent memes, things of that vein...
    - woodman 12y ago
intangible 12y ago
> I can only think of one area that the state leaves alone, religion I actually wouldn't say that... Consider how we've munged together religion and laws relating to Marriage.

by woodman 12y ago

datashovel 12y ago

I definitely wouldn't say I am certain I have a foolproof answer, otherwise the solution would probably already be apparent. What I am saying is, certainly, the problem is a difficult one. I think the idea behind '1984', the book, (before I understood what terrorism was) only seemed a flippant idea propositioned as the plot of a fictional book. Surely no human being would ever consciously choose to govern the world (or their nation) in such a way, and even so they would likely be cut off early in the process if they tried. Now with more life experience and knowledge of the current state of the world, I can only reason that '1984' makes complete and total sense once the concept of "terrorism" is understood to be the catalyst of such a movement. Here are some basic scenarios: 1) Terrorism scares citizens and thus, as a knee-jerk reaction, wish to empower their government with omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent powers. The kinds of powers that any subsequent (corrupt) government could easily take advantage of. 2) Terrorism scares citizens, and as such citizens decide to be proactive to collaborate with their government to help prevent terrorists from causing harm to their nation and to make them as effective as they can possibly be, while at the same time working to preserve basic human rights such as the right to privacy. 3) Terrorism scares citizens. Knowing that entrusting their government with the kinds of powers they would need in order to act against terrorism would be overreaching, as such citizens decide their government should have no such powers and decide not to give their government God-like powers, while also deciding not to collaborate and blaming all failures on their government, and so citizens continue to live in a world of constant alertness and fear worrying that their next trip to the city could be their last... Just like the Goldilocks fairy tale, I think the world is not looking for a solution that is "too hot" or "too cold". Rather we're all looking for the solution that is "just right". The specific solution I can't say I have the answer, but with continuous iteration and improvement I'm certain smart people can come to a sane (but more than likely imperfect) solution that does not violate any single group and their goals / objectives / rights. And at the same time does not necessarily handicap future generations with rules and regulations that are almost insurmountable should they find themselves ruled by a corrupt / power-hungry government.

woodman 12y ago
It isn't really complicated as all that, it helps to define terms. Problem: Reduce terrorism to zero while maximizing individual freedom. So we'd have to define "terrorism" and "freedom". That is going to be pretty difficult, as the the goal posts on terrorism have shifted from what was once an activity that fell within the spectrum of warfare, and therefor outside the realm on nonstate actors, to where it is at today - criminal activity that upsets people. I have no doubt that the goal posts will continue to shift. Freedom is even more difficult to define, as many feel they are entitled to freedoms that necessitate the reduction of other's freedoms: freedom from hunger, sickness, etc. So you aren't likely to find consensus on a definition for that. It isn't a difficult problem, it is an impossible problem, because it isn't even possible to define the terms. That is, unless you accept the idea of universal preference, then it becomes pretty simple - as you'd be able to fix both variables. But then this conversation would be completely pointless, as universal preference invalidates the supposed justifications for the existence of government :) The only reasonable action is to do nothing. The costs outweigh the gains by a tremendous margin.

dllthomas 12y ago

From a "consent of the governed" mindset, government is one kind of collective effort. There are collective efforts that are not "a part of government", and certainly there is a difference between individual action and further empowering police or the armed services. From a pure "the government will expand regardless and pay no heed to anything the populace does or says" standpoint, there's not much point in discussing any action of any sort. But backing off that just a little, if the popular mindset at least helps determine how that bureaucracy expands then privately limiting terrorism might help push the growth along less harmful avenues. What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion - I think we agree that companies adding backdoors, monitoring and informing is a bad approach and I don't think it's what the parent meant to suggest.

woodman 12y ago
> ...government is one kind of collective effort. Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really doesn't like it. > ... privately limiting terrorism might help ... You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, would be a tremendous misallocation of resources. That leaves the effort firmly in the state's hands - where operating in the red is the norm. Private individuals can't continuously operate in the red because they'd eventually starve. > What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion... Yeah, I'd love to hear some ideas that aren't insane - but I won't be holding my breath.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  You seem to be thinking of this as a parallel military/policing effort. I was thinking individual/social. Things of low cost, and hopefully with other benefits - such as keeping community members feeling engaged and included, providing an environment conducive to less violent memes, things of that vein...
  - woodman 12y ago

intangible 12y ago

> I can only think of one area that the state leaves alone, religion I actually wouldn't say that... Consider how we've munged together religion and laws relating to Marriage.