HOLD THE FRONT PAGE: US govt backs mass spying by US govt The US government's Privacy and Civil Liberty Oversight Board (PCLOB) has dealt a blow to opponents of the NSA's surveillance programs in a new report that reaffirms the controversial Section 702 program. The PCLOB said in its official review of the program that 702 represented a "considerable value" to the government despite …
This post has been deleted by its author
There's a lot of statists who accept what the government says. I suspect that the majority doesn't though. However, from the government's point of view is doesn't matter what people actually believe. They don't care about that and are only concerned with what they can get away with.
"...do they really think that the sheeple are still living in the dark ages ..."
The US government & its legal apparatus are doing their damnedest to make that happen - witness the current Hobby Lobby debacle. This graphic pretty much sums up the attitude -
https://twitter.com/bakerbk/status/483642132750553090/photo/1
'The PCLOB said in its official review of the program that 702 represented a "considerable value" to the government despite some concerns about the scope with which the program has been collecting information on US citizens.'
Everything wrong with all the State surveillance going on is embodied in that paragraph. For the system to function as designed the government cannot, under any circumstances, differentiate between itself and the Citizens. The cornerstone of our version of Democracy: 'Government of the People, by the People, for the People' is completely, 100% invalidated, the moment government considers itself to be an entity apart from the People.
That separation completely alters the philosophies underlying the justifications for decision making. That separation allows government to subject citizens to decisions that would be reprehensible, craven abortions of Liberty were the separation absent. Government is spying on the people, not itself.
Government is sending your children to war, not their children. Government is spending your money, not theirs. Government is restricting your rights, not their rights. Government is fucking your ass like the slave you are and won't even wear a condom, because you are their property and they can do with you as they please.
The value of any action by the government exists only if that action is taken by The People. If the action is taken by the government then it cannot have been taken by The People. Nothing, not a single god damn element of our system, supports the notion of separation between The People and the government.
Forcing that separation is like teaching a baby how to swim by hucking it down a well. You're left with a big mess, a contaminated well and a dead baby that never did learn to swim. You've not only failed to achieve your goal, you've gone and fucked everything else up to. It's simply unacceptable and has to stop.
@Don Jefe
I don't approve of the language in the last paragraph and can't agree with it as is. Try changing it to:
"Forcing that separation is like teaching a baby how to swim by hucking it down a well. You're left with a big mess, a contaminated well and a dead baby that never did learn to swim. You've not only failed to achieve your goal, you've gone and fucked everything else up too. It's simply unacceptable and has to stop."
But no, you're totally right.
When the talk is about what's valuable to "the Government", rather than "the People", you've got to start thinking about who's serving whom.
Gah! I hate that one. Now I want to hurl myself into traffic. I sent an email to a client earlier this week with the subject line as 'Buy the Dock at 10:30'. He responded 'I already own it, but we can meet there if you like'. I guess my mind is finally starting to slip. I suppose the best I can hope for is that the end is spectacular.
Ha!
Well, all you can do is make the slide more comfortable. I believe you've already settled on a suitable lubricant and, if I remember correctly, also taken the prudent step of purchasing the distillery to ensure steady supply . . .
On a side-note, "by the dock at 10:30" sounds ominously like instructions to a hit man.
Which is fine, of course; we've all had those days.
I use only Giant Pandas as hitmen and drug mules, specifically to mitigate leaks in communications (they only speak Esperanto), and to sow discord and confusion. Even if they are seen nobody will believe the witnesses: 'Police? Yeah, a fucking Giant Panda just killed a man at DuPont Circle and carried his body off in his mouth. Come quick'. Foolproof! Nobody is going to make that phone call. Besides, it's one of those things that people secretly believe go on anyway, but are unsure of who else knows, and are loathe to expose themselves.
If captured, the Pandas just kill themselves out of shame. Untold millions are spent by simple minded scientists to 'save' the Panda, but the Panda knows no charity or pity. These honorable and noble beasts will tolerate no failure. Any Panda in captivity is there only it has been chosen to sacrifice its freedom to mask the movements of the other Pandas.
We were actually just taking the client out to the ship where we are testing the equipment we built for him. By the dock just seemed convenient :)
Careful. You're dangerously close to the argument that "the government is the people". That's a philosophy that became very popular in Europe in the early 20th century, but fell rapidly into disrepute between 1939 and 1945.
Because if the government is the people, then it follows that there is no such thing as "loyal opposition" - you're with us or you're against us, you're either a supporter or a traitor.
This post has been deleted by its author
@RML
Well, this is the thing and it's the main peril of representative democracies. A pure democracy would have every person voting on every issue. This is fine for small situations - a family, a sports team, a board, etc... - but utterly unworkable for anything of any size.
Thus, to run a country at all (let alone effectively) you need to delegate your decisions to representatives - your senators, congressmen, presidents, MPs (insert local equivalent) - the result being that you sacrifice control for practicality. A governmental system where everyone gets to vote on everything might better represent the wishes of the people but it will be moot because it will be near-impossible to do anything.
But here is the danger. If you empower others to make your decisions for you, there is a risk they will make decisions that are not in your best interests.
Born out of the American Revolution, the Constitution is a document constructed with that danger foremost in the minds of the authors and it thus forms an excellent blueprint for at least helping to mitigate some of the risk of delegating most of the power to a small group of people. This is what @Don Jefe is alluding to, above.
What I am saying is that there is an inherent risk in representative democracy but the benefits (workability) of the system means it's worth it. The trick is to try and mitigate those risks as much as possible and this is what the Constitution does - it sets not only guidelines for the government but also limits and even, should things get extreme, remedies.
The US government may dance around the limits of the constitution by playing with words and tinkering with technicalities but it cannot claim that it is operating within the guidelines - the 'of, by, and for' spirit of it.
In Switzerland they don't get to vote on every little detail BUT if any citizen wishes to raise a particular issue they just need to collect a few signatures and the matter will go to a nationwide referendum. That means 3 or 4 rounds of referendums a year, with a dozen or so referendums in each round.
However the paperwork and effort involved is more than worth the extra voice it gives citizens*. For example over the past few years, Swiss government has been trying to push through the purchase of billions of Francs worth of new military aircraft, one referendum later and it's been shot down. It's like those petition websites to Downing Street or the White House except that the petitionees are legally obliged to comply with the petition if enough people agree.
Sure, population of Switz is 8 million not 300 million, BUT if the US diverted a tenth of 1% of what it spends on wars to organise a proper democracy it will have plenty of resources to do so. Also, this is the information age, where's the proper e-voting??**
*Those who can be bothered, turnout is uually fairly low, but at least those who speak up are listened to.
**Of course fraud-proof e-voting requires some sort of voter regisrtation that cannot be spoofed, which is equivalent to a national ID cards system, which libertarians are against... how do you balance that one?
Absolutely and Switzerland was actually in my mind when I posted that.
In my country (Australia), voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Sounds simple but it was only relatively recently confirmed by the high court.
If ID is required to vote then the right to vote becomes contingent on the possession of an ID card.
Personally, I don't think that's a good idea - seeing as we currently don't require interior passports.
This post has been deleted by its author
Of course, the laws will soon be invaluable for identifying and protecting the US from all the 'domestic terrorists' who are trying to disrupt the government through protests and civil action. Something about "the freedom to say that two plus two make four" I think I heard one say . . .
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
