4 ms·

> "That this control is inadequate in our view, doesn't matter for ... a democratic system." It absolutely matters. Without those controls you have a democrac

by 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'.
- bediger4000 12y ago
  If enough Americans were sufficiently upset about the NSA, it would be gone. They aren't. It's not even a significant election issue. Are we sure of that? Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold lost his re-election bid. He was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001. Colorado Senator Mark Udall lost his 2012 re-election campaign after being a total gadfly in the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee. It strikes me that the NSA is a significant election issue, just not to the voters. Also, you're kind of arguing about a technicality in the definition of "democratic". Our elected reps often act un-democratically. I hope this is to prevent tyranny of the majority, but I fear that it's just legislative capture.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    > It strikes me that the NSA is a significant election issue, just not to the voters. You've just managed to explain quite succinctly why it isn't a significant election issue.

by amirmc 12y ago

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'.
bediger4000 12y ago
If enough Americans were sufficiently upset about the NSA, it would be gone. They aren't. It's not even a significant election issue. Are we sure of that? Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold lost his re-election bid. He was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001. Colorado Senator Mark Udall lost his 2012 re-election campaign after being a total gadfly in the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee. It strikes me that the NSA is a significant election issue, just not to the voters. Also, you're kind of arguing about a technicality in the definition of "democratic". Our elected reps often act un-democratically. I hope this is to prevent tyranny of the majority, but I fear that it's just legislative capture.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  > It strikes me that the NSA is a significant election issue, just not to the voters. You've just managed to explain quite succinctly why it isn't a significant election issue.