Societies have gradually grown more unfair as the political system has strained under their growing complexity. According to political scientists, the average voter has an extremely limited understanding of what their government is doing. The typical person's understanding of economics is similarly extremely limited.
This opens the door to manipulation by demagogues and special interests. The growing control that government exerts over society, seen in everything from the emergence of a mass-surveillance system of unprecedented scope, to the number of regulations on the books, to the percentage of GDP made up of government spending, is not healthy, and needs a counter balance in privacy technology that empowers the individual and limits the Kafkaesque tendencies of collective society.
>And you're advocating for not holding up your end of the bargain, and removing one big part of the punishment for not holding it up.
This is not a bargain one voluntary agrees to. It's not a contract. It's an imposition. It's, ostensibly, majority rule, and nothing more.
>To people advocating that, then I can only hope that since your money cannot be taken away, then more of your freedom will. For the good of all of us.
Your comment genuinely horrifies me. I presume you're saying you want people who don't comply to be put behind bars, for extended lengths of time. And their crime, that you insist is harming the rest us, is to not comply with a plan that the majority imposed on them.
You've justified it in your mind by arguing that these people accepted a bargain, and are now not holding up their end of it.
When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily rationalize imprisoning their fellow man and woman, it's horrifying to witness.
pikzen said:
> We live in societies with rules, with laws that we have agreed upon, and are, for the most part, fair.
Please review the highlights of the last ~150 years of American history. If you need a very long list of examples that contradict your statement, I'd be happy to oblige.
You're advocating for throwing down all that's on the table and burning everything, because you want your money. I'm trying to make society go forward and improve life for everyone.
Please review the highlights of what an organised society has brought us. If you need a very long list of examples of how selfish, greedy people has damaged our world, just look outside your window.
Laws against drug use have increased significantly since 150 years ago, resulting in the criminalisation of large numbers of people and industries.
Laws on occupations and food production have multiplied, resulting in millions being disenfranchised, and the economy being increasingly dominated by large professional outfits and agribusiness, respectively.
I would argue we have not moved forward in several major areas, and on the contrary have been regressing.
It is in spite of the increasing burden of the state that society has progressed, no because of it.
Er, you really need to look back o'er this thread...
I agree that the mass surveillance systems are a problem, but that's mostly because it enables greater control in the future, not because that control is in place today. It's also not unprecedented - the Stasi had a more comprehensive surveillance network than anything in place today.
All that said, I completely agree with the necessity of greater privacy protections.
I don't think you are completely grasping the concept of the 'bargain' you were responding to, though. We voluntarily exchange some individual rights for collective security and prosperity all the time. Basically, you have the right to leave the protection of the State. When you do that, you get all your rights back, but the State has the right to declare war on you. It usually doesn't work out, because you're back in the state of being able to keep and hold whatever you yourself can protect from all comers.
>We voluntarily exchange some individual rights for collective security and prosperity all the time.
We don't voluntarily exchange it.
You have a right to leave the protection of the state if you don't want to have any of your rights violated. That doesn't imply that we voluntarily submit to laws infringing on our rights.
We have an inherent right to be in our own country without having our rights violated.
> You've justified it in your mind by arguing
> When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily
Comments like this have no place on HN; they're just a station on the path to flamewar hell. Overwrought stock phrases are all just noise.
Here's what to do instead. When horrified, wait until calming down before posting here. Then you can say something substantive and, if all goes well, interesting, as the site guidelines request.
If your desire is to go live in Libertopia, please do so. Renounce your citizenship. There's no justification in my mind, you have the choice. Unhappy with paying your taxes, or having to give away some of your money for the good of society? Then leave behind _everything_ this society has brought you. Let's see how you do. The amount of selfishness behind those comments is astounding. You are perfectly happy with reaping the benefits of said society, while not wanting to contribute back through the rules that have been established.
Yes, it's tyranny of the majority. Do you know why? Because it is the best system we have, for now. Do you want to live in a society where taxes are a thing of the past? Then educate. Educate your fellow man, try to make him understand why this is (according to you), a good thing. And maybe you'll convince him. And maybe you'll convince more. And maybe, one day, your grand-grandchild will live in such a world.
In the mean time, we have agreed upon these rules for decades, and since it hasn't changed, it seems like your ideology isn't what people want.
>When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily rationalize imprisoning their fellow man and woman, it's horrifying to witness.
I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it. But since the two things you seem to value are wealth and freedom, and you're not willing to give up your wealth when you have to be punished, we can only act on the latter.
It's genuinely horrifying how much you seem to enjoy the thought of imprisoning or humiliating those who disagree with you. I suspect that this is a result of cognitive dissonance: you realise that you cannot rebut their arguments rationally, and thus wish to 'rebut' them physically, by appeals to the majority.
51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. That doesn't make it right.
This breaks the HN guidelines by crossing into incivility. Please don't do that here.
It's genuinely hilarious how much you seem to take everything at face value. Better keep my gulag jokes then. To be completely fair, ideally, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. If we could have a perfectly functioning society, where everyone understands the value of collaborating, I would not want to have to do that. I really don't.
Unfortunately, privation of freedom, is in 99% of the cases the only thing that works with this kind of people. You could try explaining, in depth, the value of contributing to a greater purpose than just amassing wealth for you and your family, but in the end, you're very likely to just end up facing a brick wall. The choices are either waiting until they leave your society (which they won't, because they enjoy the benefits it brings while still wanting to not contribute), or making them respect the rules.
> I suspect that this is a result of cognitive dissonance: you realise that you cannot rebut their arguments rationally, and thus wish to 'rebut' them physically, by appeals to the majority.
I could suspect you're full of shit, but that doesn't get us very far. You seem to be believing that only your (or their) arguments are rational. Mine, however, are not because... it goes against your view of the world, I guess ?
>51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. That doesn't make it right.
Since you want to start making parallels, let's take these at face value too then. This implies that:
a) Only a 51% percent majority wishes our society to be this way. Which is blatantly false. b) You are part of this enlightened 49%. And dear God, if that isn't the mother of all cognitive dissonances.
When it comes to this subject, you are a minority. You are a blip on the radar. Worse yet, this is nefarious and actively harming society.
I impatiently await the inevitable "So it is okay to harm minorities as long as the majority wants it? What about slavery?" argument, which can be so easily refuted that it's not even fun.
I also impatiently await the "but rules are not fair right now, look at imprisonment of black people in the US" argument, which is already answered by the previous "Fix your damn system, don't burn it down" answer. Yes, it isn't fair. Yet people fought for things before. People fought against laws that were unjust. And when they were truly unjust, these people usually won. Do the same thing with your convictions. Maybe in fifteen years, you'll have won.
Political swipe tropes like this have no place here. We ban accounts that make a habit of political/ideological flamewar, so please don't post like this, regardless of how bad any other comment may be (or feel).
That's like saying someone unhappy with having Sharia Law imposed on them should renounce their citizenship and live in Infideltopia. And as long as they stay, they are accepting Sharia Law, and should not complain about having their media censored, their private actions controlled, and their religious beliefs mandated.
>Then leave behind _everything_ this society has brought you. Let's see how you do. The amount of selfishness behind those comments is astounding. You are perfectly happy with reaping the benefits of said society, while not wanting to contribute back through the rules that have been established.
You're assuming that the positive aspects of our society are due to the income tax and the massive government programs that have been put in place. There is a lot of statistical evidence suggesting otherwise.
I would be perfectly fine not being covered by welfare and free healthcare guarantees in exchange for not paying taxes on private transactions. The problem is you don't want to give me that option.
There's no moral justification to deny people an option. The fact is you call me selfish, but it's you who advocates imprisoning individuals to advance your agenda for society, which is not a mutually agreed one. It's one that is imposed on a significant subset of the population.
>Yes, it's tyranny of the majority. Do you know why? Because it is the best system we have, for now.
It's not the best system we have.. There is absolutely no proof for your statement and plenty of evidence against it.
>In the mean time, we have agreed upon these rules for decades, and since it hasn't changed, it seems like your ideology isn't what people want.
We haven't all agreed to it..
>I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it.
Imprisoning someone doesn't help them understand why things are the way they are and why this is better.
Like I said, how quickly people rationalize locking up nonviolent individuals, when it helps them advance their agenda, is horrifying to witness.
>But since the two things you seem to value are wealth and freedom, and you're not willing to give up your wealth when you have to be punished, we can only act on the latter.
No one has to be punished. You want to punish people for not obeying other people. This is a conscious act that diminishes rights, and you have abandoned all moral considerations because it's not convenient to your agenda.
> "For the good of all of us."
Yeah, so who are you to decide what is good for everyone? That way lies tyranny, and for everyone but the tyrants, slavery. But really, you are advocating for less freedom for a specific group of people, so I suppose that what you have put forth is a pro-slavery argument. I pray that you reconsider your position.
That's true, but why is your response is to check out of society rather than to push for constructive changes? Why should I respect your choice to take your ball and go home?