https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Liberal democracy is definitely a step forward from monarchy, but the freedoms it offers have always been built on the oppression of many. It's no surprise that the oppressive arm of imperialism, which has targeted the rest of the world since WWII, would start to turn inwards and target US citizens.
Maybe we don't bother mentioning these very obvious historical circumstances.
Instead, we can talk about what technological solutions exist already, or could exist in the near term, which would obviate these institutions of oppression.
I am very interested in tools like Whatsat[0] and Sphinx[1] which protect communications between participants...
but what about my browsing. Do i just need to migrate all my "real" searches to Tor (already pwnt) or Beaker (insufficient, frankly)?
How can we continue to define ourselves as free persons while we exist among these dark patterns?
0 - https://github.com/joostjager/whatsat 1 - https://sphinx.chat/
These have never been solely technical problems, but political, moral, and organizational ones. States can simply make use or development of any technology illegal and bring the full force of its monopoly on violence to bear on those who run afoul of it. That has to be countered outside of just building things.
Ignoring history doesn’t make its lessons irrelevant.
for everybody else to learn lessons is a great objective, but doesn't need to be the objective among this crowd.
Can you please explain for someone not up to speed on the topic?
All of the rights gained by different oppressed groups (right to vote, labor laws, tenant laws) came through struggle and direct action, not because those in power suddenly decided to grant those rights out of the kindness of their hearts.
Jefferson believed in the idealized "happy yeoman farmer;" that common people, allowed to seek their own fate, would make a better government. Virtue (as a quasi-religious concept) dwelt in the heart of the aggregate public.
Adams believed in significant risks letting an uneducated mass of people determine their own fate. He didn't have to dig too far into the history books to find examples of why a government given over to the people tended to devolve into rule by a strongman. Government of a virtuous people demanded an elite who would be dedicated to the cause and educated to do it right.
The government built from people in these two camps of thought was a compromise government intended to tame the catastrophic risk-factors of the excesses of both scenarios.
Slavery? -> Civil War, slavery over.
Jim Crow laws? -> Civil Rights protests, the Supreme Court finally realizes what the Constitution really says, and Jim Crow is over.
Prohibition causes gangsterism and mafia? -> the whole country did not get corrupted by it, and eventually the mafia got taken down.
And so on. Maybe not every problem, but there's a lot of big problems that have been overcome. And all the while not falling into various traps. For example, the Great Depression led to the Nazis getting into power in Germany, and Latin America was quite marked by the economic disaster that was the Great Depression, but the U.S. failed to get a Hitler or Perón -- that's huge.
This is made possible by a number of things, some of which are ideas, and some of which are accidents:
- geography
- luck: having brilliant founders!
- a brilliant Constitution that splits power not
just three ways, but also over N States (currently 50)
- mutual distrust in the early days of the nation
- a British background and fresh memories of the
British civil war
This surveillance-state thing? Who knows, we may not overcome it. Or maybe we will. But are there large countries you'd bet will do better at getting over their problems? China? Brazil? Russia? Really, compare to other countries.
Print the money, give it to your friends, buy/create the politicans, make the laws, enrich yourself, repeat the cycle but with more power and wealth this time around.
Well there's one qualifier right there. The American Mythos of "all men are created equal" has failed to line up with the American reality for quite a long damn time and for reasons that don't require much more effort to "qualify" than is needed to lift up an arm and point at a history book. It's been qualified, documented and analyzed thoroughly enough that the qualifiers should be abundant and "self-evident"-to continue the trope of quoting directly from the user's manual.
The long arc of history of the US bends towards that phrase becoming more true, but there's still a long way to go for everyone to be demonstrably accepting of it.
Although it would be the first data point in an outline of what would be my infinitely-less abridged critique of the “American Mythos”, under which many, MANY others would invariably fall-it is still at the end of the day only one.
The others would probably include a few one liners shamelessly stolen, but dutifully attributed to Hunter Thompson, James Baldwin and Cormac McCarthy. Could probably fit Howard Cosell in there too now that I think about it.
Decontextualized, the fundamental rights Americans celebrate are at odds with each other (right to life and right to liberty are the obvious examples, and some good criteria for discerning how to maintain those in coexistence has been established, but others, like "Freedom from fear" or "Freedom from want" and "Right to liberty," are much, much murkier. And this is all, of course, in the context of an ever-changing world that brings new technologies and experiences that must be interpreted against those rights).
Uh... I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to say, or if you are sure of what you are trying to say, or if you have a very appropriate username.
Moreover the freedoms [0] that you mentioned are aspirational. Also, not the constitutional freedoms of speech and religion, which are enshrined therein.
[OT and (hope so) un-biased:] 'From the Land of the Free, to the Land of the Lost' ?? We used to love America. Is there something your blind at, maybe ahead ?
You know...there once was a story, about a snake not understanding 'step'... (-;
Sry, too offtopic...^^
I watch 2-3 new police bodycam videos per day thanks to some neat Youtube channels (Police Activity and Real World Police). I've seen maybe one or two shootings on those channels that were clearly wrong, out of hundreds that were justified or a reasonable person could find to be justified.
Wondering if there's a database of police shootings that includes more information about the circumstances of the encounter.
This is the best database that I have found so far for shootings by police and at least they tell you if the suspect was armed, but yes more information is always better...
But the main issue is that even if the cop was found to use excessive force, there are no real consequences, most of the time.
IMO Governments need to be quick to integrate technologies that can reinforce the true spirit of their laws such that true justice (not just legalism) is applied.
Of course there are rare cases where they "lose" the footage or whatever, but the sheer volume of videos coming out makes me believe that it's working in most cases (even high profile or controversial cases).
What does a sentiment like this even mean?
Take a look at China's own propaganda, they very much celebrate their idea of what freedoms their citizens have.
I'm sorry but any anecdotal spinning of history and current events supporting a bold claim about the downfall of western society is just outright non scientific, immeasurable, and quite frankly below educated discourse.
Now if you have a thesis about the sunset of western hegemony backed by reduced gdp numbers, geopolitical influence, and crime stats, thats a more worthwhile discussion.
Call me old fashioned, but passionate cries of wolf really Re just that until you show me the data
That's, I believe, parent poster's point; without qualifiers, there's no conversation to be had on the topic. Because that is the dichotomy of early 21st-century America: objective measures of "how the country's doing" are at odds with subjective concepts like "Are we free?" You have to start by even coming to agreement that less "freedom" (and one should probably qualify that---freedom from what, freedom to do what) for more GDP, more safety, more prosperity is a bad thing.
We don't have to agree at all. It is a bad thing. If you think trading freedom for the right to more plutocrat oversight is good, what's the point of even discussing at all?
Consensus; same as always.
And cross-pollination of ideas.
We've seen the GDP number manipulated during this crisis, Gov propping the economy up with lots of self-debt that we cant pay back.
We've seen that other developed counties in the world bawk at us. Example being the American woman who killed a guy in the UK by driving on the wrong side; and the US said she had diplomatic immunity, when she did not. [0]
Crime stats... Crime isnt crime if it isnt punished or even taken to the courts proper. A sitting president was impeached, but not removed from office. He was charged with high-crimes. If you need a statistic, just look at how stacked the government is from a 2-party system.
I'd completely agree that America is fucked.
> lots of self-debt that we cant pay back.
Neither of those work that way. I agree on the 2-party stacked system though.
Didn't realize the US was that bad.
Meanwhile the parent takes an anti-American perspective on the US while finding a way to give China props. Which tells me they are not intellectually honest about what freedom really means or about the injustices that China partakes in.
It's like saying "I don't like that thing you did because I wasn't fully informed of the details or the reasoning. At least China ...."
It's just nonsense from a hater.
Now, we would have actually been fucked a long time ago if we didn't have the Constitution. But it's the best document and framework alive and we'll be fine, despite some challenges to liberty that I don't like either.
What's funny is some non-Western countries have been trying to import their ideals, and having some success with socialism interest, but their own younger people are taking up Western ideals and cultures.
Exporting agendas and propaganda is not feasible in an information age. Many countries are struggling to control their citizens like they used to in the past.
The freer countries will be fine and win out.
The Twin Towers were destroyed, the Pentagon was damaged, and an additional plane was crashed, via a successful conspiracy that could have been detected by blanket, passive surveillance. That's what changed.
The threat model the US defense department is concerned about has changed significantly since WWII. The threat to Pax Americana is not direct military intervention, since the possession of atomic weapons ensures that's a short trip to annihilation for any nation-state that tries it. It's small-cell actors using sabotage tactics and technology as huge force-multipliers.
As for individual citizens, it appears most still see the threat of asymmetric warfare as a more profound threat to their life and livelihood than passive, blanket government surveillance.
If memory serves, the threat _was_ detected, however it was not acted on. There was lots of finger pointing about lack of coordination, but (as I recall) the core problem was that it was one threat amount many (100s? 1000s?), so the threat detection was generating too much noise.
Ubiquitous surveillance could (does) easily end up creating the same situation: not enough signal among the noise.
The article in question at the top of this thread is discussing the Patriot Act expansion; the family of laws passed in direct response to the attacks of 2001.
The Patriot Act is the problem. We knew it at the time. Sounds like we all agree on that point.
I don't think this necessarily follows. I don't think most Americans support the Patriot Act but its basically known at this point that Public Opinion has no effect on Policy here. Also how much the public understanding of what the Patriot Act actually does is probably pretty low.
I agree on the education question, but that's going to be a regular pattern in public polls. General public savvy on privacy issues and the power of technology to consolidate information has not kept up with technology. And, TBH, if the situation at hand is actually "Most Americans don't understand the problem well enough to articulate their wants in the context of the issue," that's a scenario where public opinion shouldn't drive policy. A democracy of the uneducated doesn't work.
TLDR: Citizen opinions don't have an effect on policy.
I agree about education though. It's a tricky problem. Clearly people aren't informed enough to make coherent decisions on many policy issues but they have to trust that the slick looking lawyer they are voting for actually does understand and has their best interests at heart?
American tolerance of that, from terrorism to gun ownership, is changing.
Not really, Authoritarian governments through out history have still killed more people than all of terrorism put together.
The Threat Model is still Authoritarian government...
>I'm not so convinced it's acceptable to tell people "We will change nothing because you probably won't die"
What is not acceptable is telling people "just give up your liberty and you will be safe" history proved that is never the case, government will (not if, or can but WILL) abuse that power, and the end result will be mass death
All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety. The strongest interpretation of the argument that you're putting forward is that the only just government is anarchy, and I don't think we can find many supporters of that hypothesis.
As with all government measures throughout history, the question is not "should any liberty be traded," it's "is this trade a good deal?"
Incorrect. Governments are instituted by groups of people to organize and support their natural right to defend their life, property, and liberty.
This principle of a "collective right", its lawfulness, is based on individual rights therefore the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute (i.e the individual right of self defense)
Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist. The freedom to engage in unlawful violence is one of the freedoms that people under a government sacrifice and exchange for aggregate safety.
If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable terms on sharing the tree, or I can slaughter them where they stand, and I'm under the risk they will try to solve the problem by slaughtering me where I stand, regardless of what I choose. If the two of us are living under a government, the law and the threat of government violence curtails one of those options for us both. It is a choice we willingly give up for the benefit of giving up the risk that the other will choose the same.
Again incorrect. The concept of law predates and really exists outside of government institutions. This concept is best exemplified in Frédéric Bastiat book / pamphlet "The Law"
>>If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable terms on sharing the tree, or I can slaughter them where they stand
No, even in the absence of government it would still be unlawful / unethical for you to "slaughter them where they stand", Government is simply the body for which we have ordained the authority to punish you for unlawful actions, it is not the body for which we have ordained to create the idea of what is and is not unlawful. At least not under a libertarian model of governance.
What you are describing in a Authoritarian or Totalitarian model of governance, and then proclaim that only Authoritarian / Totalitarian models of government exist, that proclamation is false
I see the source of our disagreement; I was trained in Locke social contract theory and am talking about the US government (given the context of the topic), which is not crafted on a Libertarian framework (the legislature and the executive arms of the government instantiate the idea of what is and is not lawful; whether they "create" the idea or merely implement some zeitgeist understanding from the public is irrelevant to me).
Your viewpoint functions in a more abstract, universal framework. Carry on.
Actually it was in many ways, and Locke's was a supporter of Natural rights and is the basis for most libertarian philosophy
Locke did not believe it was illegal to murder another man simply because the government decreed such an act to be illegal, Locke believed it was illegal because the man had the natural right to life and no other man has the ethical authority to take that life
Everything I have stated fits nicely in Lockean Philosophy
Can you give an example of US government enforcing law not instantiated by the government? I'm having a hard time comprehending what you meant by "Government is simply the body for which we have ordained the authority to punish you for unlawful actions, it is not the body for which we have ordained to create the idea of what is and is not unlawful." Government processes create the laws under which a person may be found in need of punishment.
We no longer see death as a normal and natural part of life like previous generations did because it's not as prevalent as it once was.
The threat model you just described in another era would have more likely been met with acceptance if the alternative was to give up our hard fought for freedoms.
Seeing death as normal and natural carries its own antisocial pathologies. War is more justifiable if "Everyone has to die some time."
I'm saying that the response to that event such as the Patriot Act and other safety-above-liberty-at-all-costs measures would have received a lot more scrutiny and been seen as disproportional. Just like your strawman is not a healthy response, neither was the response we had to 9-11. The goal of the terrorists was to fundamentally change life for Americans and get them to abandon their principles. Well they succeeded beyond their wildest imagination because we responded by dumping many of our freedoms in response.
The US wasn't founded on perfection and it certainly hasn't taken only correct steps since then. WWII wasn't the high water mark for freedom, either - Americans have stronger freedom of speech now compared to then for example.
This law is clearly a misstep but I hardly think it means it's time to stick a fork in the West.
The idea that the Constitution was an immaculate instrument forged in a gilded age of freedom, with a decline since then, is wrong. There have been bumps and missteps from the start. And in some areas, like freedom of speech, the right has been strengthened and clarified over years of jurisprudence into something that is more freedom-preserving now compared to when it was declared.
Or so the americans say. Who else ?
Of course, back then there was an obvious common enemy to point at, and the help the US provided to our country during and after WWII was still kind of fresh in the collective memory.
The cold war marked the beginning of global surveillance: the USA and other world powers launched satellites pointed at the Earth in order to constantly watch their enemies. After 9/11, the definition of "enemy" apparently expanded to include a nation's own population. Thus the 21st century is the beginning of total surveillance of all humans on Earth, not just enemy military forces.
Terrorism really is effective. America was not defeated but it a certain way it was destroyed. It abandoned all the principles it stood for in the name of national security.
See the patriot act, TSA, DHS, and other nonsense.
The terrorists won the moment we decided to live in fear.
i love the “freedom” meme for america
In a country that's so restrictive where you can't get a gun or drugs, then there will be a lot less people incarcerated for gun and drug crimes.
That the US has so much incarceration per-capita suggests something ain't working, if we respect freedom on paper but have to deprive more citizens of it than any other nation.
Oftentimes, one finds a feedback loop between arrest rate counting and instances of crime counting that means all kinds of confounding factors enter into the number (including distribution of police patrol resources and likelihood police will let an infringement off with a warning).
Year after year the random samples of victimization correlates with arrest rate by ethnicity.
[1]: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodolog...
And that is the current US Federal leadership. Every other federal agency is going to follow suit. Then the congressional departments will do the same to try and maintain hegemony.
The Federal US is not just fucked ... the US Federal is actively fucking every nation state that the US Federal can fuck as a triumph of criminality.
This is also including US state & municipal governments.
If there was ever a time for a coalition of forces to invade the US it would be with this president. Trump would give up Alaska to Putin in a trade to stay in power.
It seems something has shifted 180 degrees since WW2, and the US Government has quietly won the game where the goal was to shit on the entirety of the history upon which it was built whilst, at precisely the same time, pointing to the Constitution as the reason why "America is Great!"
You're fucked. At least China isn't pretending to be free.
If this is how law enforcement agencies are allowed to operate, how can you expect citizens to respect any rule of law? The precedents are evaporating.
The West is dead, we're halfway through the transition to the next stage, which just means history will repeat itself - but will be recorded in higher definition so that maybe we'll learn it more thoroughly next time around.