4 ms·

The U.S. government, for all its weaknesses, is providing their citizens with freedom and liberties as good or better than most other countries. The NSA does h

The U.S. government, for all its weaknesses, is providing their citizens with freedom and liberties as good or better than most other countries. The NSA does have democratic oversight. It is controlled by the executive, legislative and judicative branches of the system. That this control is inadequate in our view, doesn't matter for the question whether or not the NSA is part of a democratic system.

amirmc 12y ago
> "That this control is inadequate in our view, doesn't matter for ... a democratic system." It absolutely matters. Without those controls you have a democracy in name only. You could quite happily rig elections, arrest opponents, suppress the population etc, while still claiming to be 'democratic'.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  That omission of a few crucial words from my comment is almost malicious. I didn't say that the inadequacy doesn't matter for the democratic system, but rather that it doesn't matter for the question if the NSA is a part of such a system.
  - john_b 12y ago
    You may be technically and structurally correct, but I think most people care far more about how effective democratic checks and balances are being applied to the NSA (hint: not much) rather than classifying it as part of one type of system or the other.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  > You could quite happily rig elections, arrest opponents, suppress the population etc, while still claiming to be 'democratic'. There is nothing undemocratic about those thing as long as a majority of people agree to them - though with rigged elections, you might not be democratic for very much longer. "Democracy" is not synonymous with "respecting my values and human rights." If enough Americans were sufficiently upset about the NSA, it would be gone. They aren't. It's not even a significant election issue.
  - amirmc 12y ago
    > "... as long as a majority of people agree to them ..." That requires that people are informed and able to comprehend the ramifications of their choices. Consider this: Is it still democratic if those who happen to be in charge are busy lying to and hoodwinking a poorly informed 'electorate'? As for the rest of your comment, it is not democracy simply because a majority agree it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
    - LLWM 12y ago
      There's no reason to believe the US government has to make any real effort to make sure voters are misinformed. They seem to manage it just fine on their own.
      - bediger4000 12y ago
        You're glossing over a huge amount of stuff relating to who does the reporting and how the reporting on the government is done. There's plenty to suggest that the government actively works to keep journalists in line. The Sterling prosecution and James Risen's legal problems spring to mind. The heavy weight of the Espionage Act also comes to mind, as does the very heavy use of "anonymous" or "unnamed sources" these days. In short, it really looks like some parts of the US government actively work to keep reporting very favorable or non-existent.
        LLWM 12y ago
        Oh, sure, they might do it anyway, I'm just saying it's not needed.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Nearly all formulations of democracy are not just majority rule, they also explicitly include protections for the rights of minorities and consider it non-democratic for the majority to vote away the rights of the minority. edit - This also makes sense from looking at the word. Democracy is rule by the 'demos', which means 'the people', which includes the minority. Rule by the majority is ochlocracy, from 'ochlos', meaning 'the mob'.
gondo 12y ago
let me guess, you are american
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Actually, no.
ingler 12y ago
The NSA has little to no oversight: ---- "Congressional oversight of the NSA is a joke. I should know, I'm in Congress" by Alan Grayson http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/nsa-no-congress-oversight http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/nsa-no-... ---- A minor quibble, but governments don't provide freedoms and liberties. They restrict them. Hence the word "govern" and its etymology.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Try to enjoy your liberty, for example the right to property, when there is no government to stop your neighbor from just taking your stuff. Looking back at history, I vastly prefer the balance of liberty afforded by strong governments in the western world to the lack of such control.
  - ingler 12y ago
    The right to property implies the right to also defend that property. I'm what stops my neighbor from taking my stuff, not the government. Looking back at history, strong governments have been THE source of oppression and limitations of freedoms.
    - Philadelphia 12y ago
      And if your neighbor is bigger and stronger than you? If 100 of your neighbors get together to take your stuff? If 100 of your neighbors independently want your stuff?
      - ingler 12y ago
        What if the government wants your stuff or 20-50% of it?
        Philadelphia 12y ago
        At the absolute barest minimum, even disregarding any context, it's better to have to one known entity demanding a share than an unlimited number of unknown ones doing the same.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
> The U.S. government, for all its weaknesses, is providing their citizens with freedom and liberties as good or better than most other countries. [citation needed]
- ptaipale 12y ago
  >citation needed http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php https://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world https://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world The U.S. is not exactly at the top in all such comparisons, but certainly "as good or better than most other countries."

amirmc 12y ago

> "That this control is inadequate in our view, doesn't matter for ... a democratic system." It absolutely matters. Without those controls you have a democracy in name only. You could quite happily rig elections, arrest opponents, suppress the population etc, while still claiming to be 'democratic'.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
That omission of a few crucial words from my comment is almost malicious. I didn't say that the inadequacy doesn't matter for the democratic system, but rather that it doesn't matter for the question if the NSA is a part of such a system.
- john_b 12y ago
  You may be technically and structurally correct, but I think most people care far more about how effective democratic checks and balances are being applied to the NSA (hint: not much) rather than classifying it as part of one type of system or the other.
Amezarak 12y ago
> You could quite happily rig elections, arrest opponents, suppress the population etc, while still claiming to be 'democratic'. There is nothing undemocratic about those thing as long as a majority of people agree to them - though with rigged elections, you might not be democratic for very much longer. "Democracy" is not synonymous with "respecting my values and human rights." If enough Americans were sufficiently upset about the NSA, it would be gone. They aren't. It's not even a significant election issue.
- amirmc 12y ago
  > "... as long as a majority of people agree to them ..." That requires that people are informed and able to comprehend the ramifications of their choices. Consider this: Is it still democratic if those who happen to be in charge are busy lying to and hoodwinking a poorly informed 'electorate'? As for the rest of your comment, it is not democracy simply because a majority agree it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
  - LLWM 12y ago
    There's no reason to believe the US government has to make any real effort to make sure voters are misinformed. They seem to manage it just fine on their own.
    - bediger4000 12y ago
      You're glossing over a huge amount of stuff relating to who does the reporting and how the reporting on the government is done. There's plenty to suggest that the government actively works to keep journalists in line. The Sterling prosecution and James Risen's legal problems spring to mind. The heavy weight of the Espionage Act also comes to mind, as does the very heavy use of "anonymous" or "unnamed sources" these days. In short, it really looks like some parts of the US government actively work to keep reporting very favorable or non-existent.
      - LLWM 12y ago
        Oh, sure, they might do it anyway, I'm just saying it's not needed.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Nearly all formulations of democracy are not just majority rule, they also explicitly include protections for the rights of minorities and consider it non-democratic for the majority to vote away the rights of the minority. edit - This also makes sense from looking at the word. Democracy is rule by the 'demos', which means 'the people', which includes the minority. Rule by the majority is ochlocracy, from 'ochlos', meaning 'the mob'.

gondo 12y ago

let me guess, you are american

bayesianhorse 12y ago
Actually, no.

ingler 12y ago

The NSA has little to no oversight: ---- "Congressional oversight of the NSA is a joke. I should know, I'm in Congress" by Alan Grayson http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/nsa-no-congress-oversight http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/nsa-no-... ---- A minor quibble, but governments don't provide freedoms and liberties. They restrict them. Hence the word "govern" and its etymology.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
Try to enjoy your liberty, for example the right to property, when there is no government to stop your neighbor from just taking your stuff. Looking back at history, I vastly prefer the balance of liberty afforded by strong governments in the western world to the lack of such control.
- ingler 12y ago
  The right to property implies the right to also defend that property. I'm what stops my neighbor from taking my stuff, not the government. Looking back at history, strong governments have been THE source of oppression and limitations of freedoms.
  - Philadelphia 12y ago
    And if your neighbor is bigger and stronger than you? If 100 of your neighbors get together to take your stuff? If 100 of your neighbors independently want your stuff?
    - ingler 12y ago
      What if the government wants your stuff or 20-50% of it?
      - Philadelphia 12y ago
        At the absolute barest minimum, even disregarding any context, it's better to have to one known entity demanding a share than an unlimited number of unknown ones doing the same.

spacemanmatt 12y ago

> The U.S. government, for all its weaknesses, is providing their citizens with freedom and liberties as good or better than most other countries. [citation needed]

ptaipale 12y ago
>citation needed http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php https://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world https://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world The U.S. is not exactly at the top in all such comparisons, but certainly "as good or better than most other countries."