Yeah, fun fun fun.
Yeah, that's one approach. I don't really have a problem with that conceptually, though of course REALITY matters too, who really does have your data and how to do they actually use it. I'd like to be able to put some restraint on individuals by having like power over them. I protect THEIR privacy as well as they protect mine. If they're spies, well, then they need to insure that they are not only doing the right thing but that we BELIEVE they are doing the right thing. I think moral boundaries in society grow out of needs, they solve problems. I think that if we have a problem where we all, potentially, know too much about each other then some scruples against using that power will arise to keep society working. Things will be different, but there's reasonable hope that we can then have SOME privacy. We just have to guard against a grossly asymmetric situation where only one group ends up with ALL the information and thus all the power. Something like a copyright could potentially be used to embody this desirable behavior with some legal force, but moral force is always needed too.
Link to Original Source
That doesn't strike you as largely futile and not the way of the future basically? Realistically very few people will do that kind of thing, and even fewer will do it for very long. Look at the end-game, the new status quo. It isn't going to be everyone spending an hour a day making the NSA's life hell. Even if you do all this stuff how effective is it really? You will never know for sure. Not as long as we drive the data collection into the dark alleyways of the digital world.
As it becomes easier and easier for more and more people to potentially spy on pretty much anyone we will have a society where you can't EVER be sure you are not being watched or listened to. That's just a fact. Nobody will stop that. Lets say however we make it a serious offense to keep your data secret, then we can create values in society that will mostly make people not get too nosy lest they suffer the same fate. Any other set of values just isn't going to work any way you cut it, so we might as well encourage right behavior. If someone damages you, you're still perfectly able to sue them. If someone is a big shot and inevitably someone else spies on them, well hey, they made that bed, they'll just have to sleep in it. Nothing is perfect either. There isn't going to be some utopia, we just need to find the right state of affairs where we can go on functioning as a society. I suspect over time people will simply stop expecting such a high level of privacy, its not like privacy rights are universal invariants in human society either. YOU may not be entirely pleased, but I don't think the evolution of society, or the available choices we have, are made to your order. Life goes on.
Wow, I'd mod you even higher except the very second I hit this forum
I'd expand on your answer. The truth is that the cat is out of the bag. We can't get this sort of privacy back. We probably can't ever get back the CERTAINTY of any sort of privacy. If there's advantage to be had, someone will listen. You will never be SURE that the NSA (which isn't going away) isn't or can't listen to you, get all your facebook data, etc. Even if it isn't them it could be SOMEONE. You can't ever truly know what software any modern computer is running for certain. You absolutely can't be sure that your SSL connections are secure, or that if you use Tor that someone is STILL not tracking you.
The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. That's what we ARE going to do, but if we do it RIGHT then we put at least SOME controls on things. We need to insure that whatever the government knows, we know. If there isn't some absolute direct reason why given data should be hidden, then it should be open. All data about what people do should belong to the public. It should make the rules. I think we'll all find at that point we want to exercise restraint and life will be able to go on. The alternative is we fight for a losing cause, total privacy, and end up with all our data owned by corporations and stuck in Top Secret NSA vaults, and all these people just listening to everything without the slightest oversight.
So, nothing concrete then. I couldn't find anything, either.
"...except for all the others" is a quip on the same lines as "...and you are ugly, but I will be sober in the morning". It is not an argument.
No, its not an exposition of facts, except it demonstrates the sentiment of a person who was actually acquainted intimately with government, as opposed to your purely theorycrafted opinions which ignore facts and history. It is far from the last word, but I won't bore you with the wisdom of great liberal thinkers, you clearly won't appreciate them...
Note the industrial revolution started in Stuart England under a monarchy. Liberalism is a response to society growing wealthier, not a cause. This is something that is tacitly acknowledged by today's commentators, talking about China, for instance: they tell us that once a middle class starts to grow in China, then they will demand democratic rights etc. (Not that today's China is a monarchy, of course, but I hope you see the connection).
Ummmmm, OK, show us some evidence that links monarchy with economic growth. Again, take a gander at Alexander's little graph of GDP growth over time and the spot where it turns non-linear. You can of course argue that wealth is the cause and liberalism the result, but you cannot argue that 99% of all human progress has come in the last several hundred years under progressively more liberal democratic governments. Its just a fact. This kills the notion that wealth generation and liberalism are incompatible. The most generous statement which could be made is that our modern economy began under less free conditions than we have today.
Truthfully if you look at history without your fascist agenda what you see is that society progressed rather slowly for millennia under largely totalitarian and highly unfree conditions. Over time personal freedom and wealth built up synergistically. Those nations which liberalized the most quickly climbed that curve the fastest, lead by England, which even in Stuart times was vastly more liberal than practically any other society in history up to that point. If absolutist monarchism did anything it was to retard and distort this process. The economic policies of the English Crown were frequently terrible and counterproductive. In fact I would describe them as more of a long bitter slow retreat from a state largely controlled by an elite who were far more concerned about their social status and would happily have held society in the middle ages if they could have. The problem was personal liberty worked. First the Dutch seized it and became hugely successful, England virtually was forced to follow suit, as eventually were all the other European countries one by one, and in EACH CASE economic growth accelerated rapidly with liberalism.
You can try to confound cause with effect all you want, but you're almost certainly wrong and the vast majority experts on the subject agree.
You and Alexander are confusing the agricultural feudalism of the middle ages with the unitary monarchies that replaced them, as soon as communications technology advanced to the point where a monarch could effectively supervise over a large area, rather than delegate for periods of years to largely independent barons.
I'm not confusing anything with anything. Totalitarian governments, which include monarchs with their secret police and 'obey me under penalty of instant death' legal systems, fight constantly and are horribly unstable. You can barely find a period of peace in Europe from the fall of Rome until the liberal enlightenment that lasted 3 days. You are ignoring such gems as the 30 Year's War which was so devastating that the population of Germany did not recover from it for 2 centuries. Not to mention all the endless dynastic squabbling in France and England which went on from time immemorial right up to the effective end of the French monarchy and even beyond.
Obviously, those monarchies were overthrown — by people who felt that since, under the new prosperity that strong monarchy had produced, they lived in many ways like aristocrats, they should also have the political power of aristocrats. But if any 18th century reformer could see where their political liberalism has brought us, they would demanding the King back as their 17th century predecessors did. However, second time round, democracy grew slowly, so nobody could make that direct comparison.
Honestly, nothing in this statement is 'obvious' at all. That's just sloppy thinking. Provide actual documentary evidence. Its awfully nice of you to put words in the mouths of dead men, who often gave their lives for what they believed, but I prefer to stick with what they ACTUALLY SAID.
Indeed, you get a warped view of democracy from Britain or America. Most democracies fail catastrophically within 30 years. Britain, having introduced it very gradually and slowly (if a country today had the system that Britain had in 1900, for instance, nobody would call it a democracy), kept — for centuries — power restricted to a relatively small elite clique. I don't advocate such an arrangement, because it's not stable, but it's far superior to a true democracy. Democracy is spreading, though: the Tea Party, which some here seem to be trying to associate with us, is an attempt to impose full democracy on America, and liberals are screaming in terror about it even as they mouth their democratic platitudes.
Ahhhhh, I see, we should ignore the overwhelmingly compelling evidence of GB and the USA because they're just "weird", or more like they just don't fit with your preconceived notions of how the world should work. All the evidence I've seen indicates that participatory government helps drive wealth creation and that reactionary ideas like your own have simply been beaten on the stage of history. Yes, it took GB a LONG time to reach its current state, and no doubt it will be a long time before the entire world has reached that kind of standard, but the closer it gets the wealthier, more peaceful, and more beneficial to all society becomes. Frankly Alexander provided you with a large set of evidence for all of this, but you chose to ignore it.
Note, I'm making arguments here, and you're gasping in awe at other peoples' rhetoric. Some of us have been working on this stuff for years, and — here's a point — we're not finished. There is no neoreactionary army for you to join, no party for you to vote for. Analysis of the failures of democracy and of the alternatives that could exist is what we do. Some political movement (or maybe several) might emerge from the analysis in a few years, but all this outrage is generated just by our talking about the faults of democracy. The divine right of kings made relatively minor demands on its subjects' consciences.
You've been wasting your time for years then, but hey everyone needs a hobby. I've read enough quotes from Mencius Moldbug and the others to see quite clearly that there's no unbiased logical thinking going on there. Frankly I think your analyses are superficial and biased. Of course one may posit SOMETHING good and useful is generated out of all this. I encourage you to continue your hobby, but don't get too wrapped up in it.
The divine right of kings which you so cavalierly pass off was the excuse for thousands of years of mass murder and robbery, nothing more and nothing less. That it was MARGINALLY better than pure anarchy is uncontestable. That it was anything even remotely close in quality to what we have now, laughable.
I think your 'complaints about democracy" are actually pretty humorous coming from a bunch of people who without said liberal democracy would be told to shut up or get a bullet in the head (if your ruler happened to be of the more polite sort, some start with the bullet). Given that you cannot show me any instance of the sort of advancements which came with the enlightenment which were largely realized under totalitarian control my hypotheses, which has all the evidence behind it, is that economic growth and liberalism are inextricably entwined, you get the whole package or none of it.
Yeah, sorry, his facts are in accordance with history as far as I know it, and I do actually know my history. Do you really expect me to think that his ENTIRE argument rests on some specific fact about Tudor England anyway? You have MUCH more serious problems than that... Your entire reading of history manages to be both pathetically naive and pathologically paranoid at the same time. Its kind of amusing actually.
There's a very simple reason we have the saying "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest" because it is TRUE. Monarchy was a horrible disaster. It probably worked pretty well in an impoverished society where NOTHING could raise the lot of the vast bulk of clod-busters because agriculture REQUIRED 97 out of 100 people to either work the land or starve. There wasn't fuck all to worry about the government, things couldn't GET worse in most cases, and nature was a bigger threat than some goombah with a sword. As soon as their was ANYTHING for even a small privileged class to fight over war broke out, almost infallibly.
Did you read NOTHING of the utter demolishment of the very factual basis of argument for even the necessity of some change? Your cause is simply lost, it never stood a chance. If you wish to go on and argue individual points, great, but don't be under the illusion that you can salvage this argument. Alexander crushed you all, and there's no getting back up from that.
Ummmm, http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ go to town, I really cannot outdo Alexander.
Yeah, well, part of it is that people ALWAYS overestimate themselves in some ways, like how competent they are and how much people will give them what they want (that they'll get it somehow). OF COURSE what these people want is to be HMFWICH (Head Muther Fucker What's in Charge Here). They don't imagine that they'll be downtrodden serfs, they imagine that their special insight and talents will make them valued members of the advantaged elite. Of course that's a meaningless argument to present, so it isn't presented, and is probably as often not even consciously understood by them. They are elitists because they are elitists, the justifications are always secondary, and facts can always be molded in ways that let people hold logically fallacious ideas or facts.
While I said "buy these morons a history book" the truth is that they HAVE all the history books they need. The most logical response to this kind of nonsense is dismissal. These people believe what they believe IN SPITE OF the evidence to the contrary for 95% of it. Someone should present the arguments, lest others be caught in the lie, but you can't fight this kind of thinking. Its adherents will have to come to their own senses, and while they may I'd guess an equal number of new fools will join them! Elitist snobbery never ends.
Yeah, I love how they pass off the blame for Hitler, Stalin, and guys like Saddam Hussein as the fault of liberal democracy, lol.
The other mystery they seem to have left untouched is exactly how would you create an old-fashioned monarchy? You'd have to convince MODERN people that some shmuck has the DIVINE RIGHT TO RULE because if his/her rule is merely a convention, then ANYONE can assume that mantle and once again all you have is a dictatorship ruled by absolute power (which is really what these monarchs effectively were anyway unless they were weak, in which case their governments were anything but stable or beneficial). You'd have to establish an hereditary right to rule and an hereditary elite, which no modern rational polity has any mechanism for doing that I can see. Even if there were some 'good' monarchies, theoretically, at some point in the past there is zero chance of re-establishing that model today. Society would have to be socially beaten back to a primitive state of serfs and overlords first, at immense cost, and even then nobody can put the genie of liberalism back in the bottle. In their heart of hearts people are always going to know that any absolutist system is simply arbitrary and rests on force. Free people will never rest while that state of affairs lasts, just like they didn't put up with that BS the first time around in the 17th Century. It just cannot work. Any philosophy which seeks to apply to the real world must actually conform to reality, and this idiocy doesn't even do that. Frankly it is all just silly wishing for unicorns if you ask me.
Of course they will. The first people to be purged are the ones with the most similar outlook to whomever is in charge. Give them a month and they'll be wishing for some DIFFERENT guy running things more to their liking and blood will stain some walls. I think fundamentally these people haven't internalized what it means to be unfree. They imagine some fuzzy paradise where their opinions and ideas will be cherished and they'll be part of some privileged intellectual class or something. In reality they'll be dead along with all the other free thinkers, or else if they want to live they'll shut up and hope for the best, which they won't get.
LOL, one of my best friends lives in Toronto, I hear you!
Sounds good to me. Heck, I'm all for freedom, let them set up their nice little absolutist state and run it however they want, the rest of us will keep our hard-earned liberty. I've seen and experienced the PRC firsthand, these guys wouldn't last a month there, they'd be in some re-education camp...
Please! Someone buy these idiots a history book. This is such a perfect example of people who think they're smart but they actually know jack shit about anything except pushing bits. The funny thing is, after the first arbitrary detention and execution of a dissident for "lesse majesty" or "treason against the crown" they'd all be up in arms and in jail. I really hope they're not all really this stupid and this is all just a way to get a reaction.