3 ms·

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.theguardia

by 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.
        ingler 12y ago
        If it makes no difference who is robbing or extorting you, I'd go with the ones I have a better chance of defending myself from: my neighbors.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Then you have a very limited view of history. Crime, theft and murder used to be extremely more common. You may be able to defend yourself against your neighbor. What about women and children? What about against multiple aggressors, or ones with better weapons? Turns out, without an effective police force, liberties are distributed a lot less equally... Steve Pinker explained in a TED talk that hunter/gatherer societies are a lot more violent than modern societies. For example these groups have to launch preemptive attacks against neighbors if only for fear of the other group striking first.
  - ingler 12y ago
    > Then you have a very limited view of history. Pro tip: when disagreeing with someone on a philosophical point, it's good form to leave "you" statements out of the debate. Good day, sir.
    - philovivero 12y ago
      It's amazing I've never heard this pro-tip before, but it's phenomenal. Wow. Thanks for this tiny piece of advice in the middle of all this.

by ingler 12y ago

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.
      - ingler 12y ago
        If it makes no difference who is robbing or extorting you, I'd go with the ones I have a better chance of defending myself from: my neighbors.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
Then you have a very limited view of history. Crime, theft and murder used to be extremely more common. You may be able to defend yourself against your neighbor. What about women and children? What about against multiple aggressors, or ones with better weapons? Turns out, without an effective police force, liberties are distributed a lot less equally... Steve Pinker explained in a TED talk that hunter/gatherer societies are a lot more violent than modern societies. For example these groups have to launch preemptive attacks against neighbors if only for fear of the other group striking first.
- ingler 12y ago
  > Then you have a very limited view of history. Pro tip: when disagreeing with someone on a philosophical point, it's good form to leave "you" statements out of the debate. Good day, sir.
  - philovivero 12y ago
    It's amazing I've never heard this pro-tip before, but it's phenomenal. Wow. Thanks for this tiny piece of advice in the middle of all this.