Exactly. This is why the fight to maintain gun rights is a never ending battle as well. Arming yourself with a gun is the best defense against a violent attacker. Legally enshrining that right is important. But even if we didn't have that right, we could still defend ourselves clandestinely via illegal means and home made weapons.

Similarly when it comes to security, privacy, and anonymity the best defense is to arm yourself with mathematical security.And to enshrine our right to those defenses in law. A subpoena only works if there is information that can be handed over in the first place. If strong and private encryption is made illegal then the best defense is still to use that technology clandestinely.

If someone made an argument that supports our right to strong encryption and doesn't also apply to gun rights I'd be impressed.

I feel safer when every private citizen I interact with uses strong encryption. I do not feel safer when every private citizen I interact with carries a gun.

I genuinely appreciate your response but it is not an argument.

fallacy [1]

>I feel x

isn't an argument. for example: I feel safer with a gun.

fallacy [2]

> ... when every private citizen I interact with carries a gun.

Having the right to carry a gun or the right to encryption does not imply everyone will/must carry one or use it at all times.

With encryption criminals around you can plan attacks, steal your identity, and trade child pornography without fear of the prying eyes of law enforcement ever being able to discover the evidence. That would probably make a large number of other people 'feel' unsafe as well. feeling a certain way isn't an argument.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Of course emotions are an argument. We're not Vulcans. Pretending that emotional impact is an irrelevant factor is a great way to win an argument without ever making anyone care what you said.

Thanks for the reply.

I 'feel' safer with the right to carry a gun. I can feel safer when everyone has a gun. Therefore morninj's argument does in fact also apply to guns.

Anyone can feel a certain way about anything, which is why it is invalid when trying to construct a logically sound objective argument.

A subjective premise can not lead us all to an objective conclusion.

But there are no objective conclusions in politics, and asking for such is shutting the door to any useful progress. Ideally, a good political solution is one where all involved parties "feel" that they have realized more of their demands than the others -- not one where one party gets all the spoils based on winning 51% of an artificial binary vote.

I feel (part of) the reason your society is in political gridlock is because everyone keeps looking for that mythical "objective" proof that ensures a 100% victory for their side. But that's just another unicorn.

The challenge I proposed is intended to be an objective exercise otherwise it's pointless because everyone can feel however they want.

Here are some examples of how both a gun and encryption can be used for the same end goal.

X can secure a financial transaction

X can stop a thief from obtaining my credit card information

X can stop someone from forcibly obtaining my identity

X can stop an attacker from obtaining private data stored in my home.

The only thing I've been able to think of that applies to encryption and does not apply to a gun is:

Encryption can verify that a message actually came from me by decrypting it using my public key.

This is objectively true for encryption and objectively false for a firearm. Also a firearm doesn't really help with anything on the internet except maybe a shady craigslist transaction in a dark parking lot. But I meant to imply that a realistic and suitable physical analogy can be applied.

To me, the goal isn't the only thing that matters. How you achieve that goal matters too, and "using a threat of violence" ranks pretty low on the ladder of civility. Trying to equate the arguments based on goal alone is starting your argument from a false equivalence.

The ends don't justify the means. Of course.

People will use force to take advantage of your moral stand against violence and make you comply to things you do not agree to.

We both abhor violence. The difference is I refuse to be victimized by it.

Encryption means I can leave my private data unattended and be confident nobody will read it. That was easy.

Cool! Do you now better understand the rationale of gun rights advocates?

No, I understood it pretty well earlier thanks. It's nice if this exercise helped you though.

At least you learned something about making an objective argument.

nah, I'm still right where I started - arguments that ignore emotional impacts are great little learning exercises but pointless if you are trying to achieve something in the real world. Good luck out there.

> Arming yourself with a gun is the best defense against a violent attacker.

Citation needed.

will these do?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150708/radical-anti-gun-gr...

http://www.naturalnews.com/047378_murder_sprees_armed_citize...

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/gwinnett-county/video-shows-...

"Best" might be hard to argue but it can be easily shown that you are better off having one when you need to defend yourself.

On the current situation on the US, you'll know privacy advocates made progress when people start going to jail. No sooner.

There have been countless times where courts have told three-letter agencies to stop doing things and they have stoppped. The judiciary has the power to protect us, much more than we give credit for.

There's still rule of law, and the executive mostly listens to what the judiciary tells it to do. For all its flaws, some of our institutions work pretty well compared to most places. I cannot think of another country where judges are able to overtake heads of states in substantial policy outcomes.

They have not stopped. And you can't prove otherwise. Which strikes at the heart of the matter.

I'd actually be interested to see examples. Most of the ones I know are of courts and Congress ordering three letter agencies to stop doing things, and being lied to and ignored.

The infamous one: in its early days, the NSA was ordered to stop surveillance of US citizens. It went before the Church Committee and testified that the relevant sites had been closed for more than a year. This was a lie, bottom to top. The sites were actively operating as those words were spoken, and they weren't closed down until whistleblower James Bamford exposed the lie. https://theintercept.com/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me/

There's a list a mile long of similar stories. Court decisions, executive orders, and acts of Congress have bounced off these agencies without result.

I'd like to see examples, but I agree that you're not wrong in general. The agencies do respond to court decisions sometimes. My point is that when legal compliance is a coin flip and there's no way to check for results, you can't be sure that legal decision has changed anything at all.

Agencies all the way down

I think part of the problem in the US is the culture where for example police departments compete for resources, basically to make their own department bigger. One of the ideas in the Ron Paul movement was that governments needs to be smaller. Of course, in the real world it probably should not go as far as Ron Paul suggests, but....

The current libertarian candidates are pretty moderate compared to Ron Paul (or either major party for that matter) I recommend looking into them.