3 ms·

Yes, the implications here are very troubling: that security for high government officials is more important than privacy and anonymity for the rest of us. For

Yes, the implications here are very troubling: that security for high government officials is more important than privacy and anonymity for the rest of us. For those of us in the states, how the &*$# did we end up here? Was this value system mentioned anywhere in our founding documents? In any government/civics class that any of us took in school? Who are the people they have making these arguments?

maxerickson 12y ago
If you squint just a little bit, a huge percentage of the population wants a king. Starting from there, it's not surprising that leaders get that treatment.
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  It has always been this way, and we're supposed to have a system of government that realizes and actively fights this desire. Over the past several decades, however, the system of self-restraints has broken, however, probably irreparably. I don't think there was any one reason or master conspiracy or anything -- just lots of little compromises made by people doing the best they could. Understanding why it happened doesn't make it any better, though. Back in Lincoln's day you could ride all the way to DC, wait in line at the White House, and based on a lottery be able to go in and talk to the president. And he would feel embarrassed for whatever problems you had and would listen to you patiently. Those days are long gone. And the goal of perfect safety for elected officials is still just as far away now as it was then. Not a good trade for the republic.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I wonder how different Lincoln's listening was from petitions.whitehouse.gov.
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  >>a huge percentage of the population wants a king Only because those making arguments against having a king are not persuasive.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >If you squint just a little bit, a huge percentage of the population wants a king. If you squint too much you will end up confusing the media generated with the opinions of the population. They are very different though.
- ecocentrik 12y ago
  Some might want a king but most of us want stability which you don't get by letting your leaders be assassinated at their opposition's earliest convenience. I'm not saying this is justified, I'm just saying that your king making argument is incomplete.
  - hga 12y ago
    Indeed. In our fairly strong President system, we have a temporary king, and very much related to your point, we solve the succession problem that has historically haunted hereditary systems of nobility with things like assassinations. FDR didn't respect that, so we fixed it with a Constitutional amendment. That significantly weakens a lot of arguments for "killing the king", President for Life, etc., because you just have to wait 4 or 8 years and he's no longer has much power.
ajuc 12y ago
It's like they think people should fear government not the other way around.
rayiner 12y ago
End up where? As one of the richest, most comfortable, most stable countries in the world? The U.S. has always been a deeply conservative place, skeptical of dramatic change or threats to the existing order. Even the American Revolution was conservative--while the French were running around beheading people and switching to 10-day weeks, we decided to keep everything running pretty much the same, with a few tweaks.[1] The value system of "we have a tremendous amount to lose and so are excessively cautious" doesn't need to be written down anywhere--it's the sociological default. We've gotten by fine without drones so far, and they hold the potential for disrupting a status quo that is at the end of the day pretty damn good. So why should people not be deeply skeptical? [1] The difference between British Parliamentary monarchy and American democracy was, even in 1776, more significant in rhetoric than in substance.
- liquidise 12y ago
  > As one of the richest, most comfortable, most stable countries in the world? I'm frankly shocked people think this way. I feel it requires a robust whitewashing of US activities over the last couple decades. We have been in more active wars than any other nation over the last decade. Our banks caused a fiscal crisis that bore international financial ruin. Our presidential candidates speak openly about overthrowing foreign governments during public debates. The NSA has set the info era surveillance bar so high that i fear we, as a people, will never be able to reverse it. I won't even begin to rebuttal a hilariously hypocritical stance the US is taking on domestic vs militaristic drone use. Though, it is much the same stance they have with NSA snooping, so we should not be shocked.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Throughout history, the U.S. has intervened militarily and toppled foreign governments in order to maintain a status quo that favors itself. Before the Middle East it was Asia, and before that, going back to quite early in the nation's history, it was Latin America. These days, we get into a lot of wars relative to other Western democracies because we've agreed to take on the role of maintaining a world order that keeps these countries at the top. Western Europe didn't spend hundreds of years fighting strategic wars then simply evolve past that in the 20th century--they just outsourced the job to us. As for the fiscal crisis, in the grand scheme of things it's quite a short blip on a very long streak of prosperity, and it wasn't just U.S. banks involved--their counterparts in Europe were doing the exact same things.
tzs 12y ago
> Yes, the implications here are very troubling: that security for high government officials is more important than privacy and anonymity for the rest of us How did you get that from the article?

maxerickson 12y ago

If you squint just a little bit, a huge percentage of the population wants a king. Starting from there, it's not surprising that leaders get that treatment.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
It has always been this way, and we're supposed to have a system of government that realizes and actively fights this desire. Over the past several decades, however, the system of self-restraints has broken, however, probably irreparably. I don't think there was any one reason or master conspiracy or anything -- just lots of little compromises made by people doing the best they could. Understanding why it happened doesn't make it any better, though. Back in Lincoln's day you could ride all the way to DC, wait in line at the White House, and based on a lottery be able to go in and talk to the president. And he would feel embarrassed for whatever problems you had and would listen to you patiently. Those days are long gone. And the goal of perfect safety for elected officials is still just as far away now as it was then. Not a good trade for the republic.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I wonder how different Lincoln's listening was from petitions.whitehouse.gov.
bsbechtel 12y ago
>>a huge percentage of the population wants a king Only because those making arguments against having a king are not persuasive.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>If you squint just a little bit, a huge percentage of the population wants a king. If you squint too much you will end up confusing the media generated with the opinions of the population. They are very different though.
ecocentrik 12y ago
Some might want a king but most of us want stability which you don't get by letting your leaders be assassinated at their opposition's earliest convenience. I'm not saying this is justified, I'm just saying that your king making argument is incomplete.
- hga 12y ago
  Indeed. In our fairly strong President system, we have a temporary king, and very much related to your point, we solve the succession problem that has historically haunted hereditary systems of nobility with things like assassinations. FDR didn't respect that, so we fixed it with a Constitutional amendment. That significantly weakens a lot of arguments for "killing the king", President for Life, etc., because you just have to wait 4 or 8 years and he's no longer has much power.

ajuc 12y ago

It's like they think people should fear government not the other way around.

rayiner 12y ago

End up where? As one of the richest, most comfortable, most stable countries in the world? The U.S. has always been a deeply conservative place, skeptical of dramatic change or threats to the existing order. Even the American Revolution was conservative--while the French were running around beheading people and switching to 10-day weeks, we decided to keep everything running pretty much the same, with a few tweaks.[1] The value system of "we have a tremendous amount to lose and so are excessively cautious" doesn't need to be written down anywhere--it's the sociological default. We've gotten by fine without drones so far, and they hold the potential for disrupting a status quo that is at the end of the day pretty damn good. So why should people not be deeply skeptical? [1] The difference between British Parliamentary monarchy and American democracy was, even in 1776, more significant in rhetoric than in substance.

liquidise 12y ago
> As one of the richest, most comfortable, most stable countries in the world? I'm frankly shocked people think this way. I feel it requires a robust whitewashing of US activities over the last couple decades. We have been in more active wars than any other nation over the last decade. Our banks caused a fiscal crisis that bore international financial ruin. Our presidential candidates speak openly about overthrowing foreign governments during public debates. The NSA has set the info era surveillance bar so high that i fear we, as a people, will never be able to reverse it. I won't even begin to rebuttal a hilariously hypocritical stance the US is taking on domestic vs militaristic drone use. Though, it is much the same stance they have with NSA snooping, so we should not be shocked.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Throughout history, the U.S. has intervened militarily and toppled foreign governments in order to maintain a status quo that favors itself. Before the Middle East it was Asia, and before that, going back to quite early in the nation's history, it was Latin America. These days, we get into a lot of wars relative to other Western democracies because we've agreed to take on the role of maintaining a world order that keeps these countries at the top. Western Europe didn't spend hundreds of years fighting strategic wars then simply evolve past that in the 20th century--they just outsourced the job to us. As for the fiscal crisis, in the grand scheme of things it's quite a short blip on a very long streak of prosperity, and it wasn't just U.S. banks involved--their counterparts in Europe were doing the exact same things.

tzs 12y ago

> Yes, the implications here are very troubling: that security for high government officials is more important than privacy and anonymity for the rest of us How did you get that from the article?