One important consideration you omit is that the superior power can't destroy everyone because their power depends on most people either supporting them or being rather apathetic about them. So the super power desires the means to acquire enough information about everyone to decide whom to eliminate. Now that information is (effectively) not encrypted? Their job just got easier.
Encryption is nothing like a car lock. The cheap thieves aren't the ones we have to worry about with regard to encryption. Governments in fact are quite willing to spend many billions of dollars for a device which can crack citizens' encryption in order to help them control those citizens more effectively. Combine that with the internet -- a vast system of networks through which large amounts of data are piped and which, unfortunately, happens to contain large several bottlenecks at which governments can strategically position scanners/loggers/databases, and you've got an internet with no privacy, no security, whatsoever. When the first organization acquires fully functional quantum computers, the rest of us lose encryption. At that point we're back to whispering in the woods and hiding secret messages in holes in the ground... if we can evade their surveillance networks.
or a scheme to pull in vast amounts of encrypted information to fish for things of value.
Too bad the entities with large sums of money are the same ones who want to sort through encrypted data looking for things of interest.
Odd word choice there. One would think the President of the United States of America would be the most obvious person who doesn't want to hear complaints about warrantless wiretaps.
His was point was that it was "safe" for Obama to vote the amendment, since it wasn't going to pass anyway. Obama got the best of both worlds: the amendment didn't pass, and politically he looked good because he voted for it. This is a well known feature of how Congress operates.
GP is correct in pointing out a distinction and in fact the two cases are different in principle, not merely on the margins. Nothing whatsoever is taken from the company's property in the case of the satellite signals, while hooking up to their cable involving directly manipulating their property and taking something (electricity) out of it.
Wait a minute here. You just gave a pretty good argument for why anyone is justified in decoding satellite signals. Then you go and say something completely inconsistent, "I agree that they should be punished, what they were attempting to do was wrong". If you know that a person decrypting a satellite signal is not at fault because the signal is in his house, on what basis do you call that action "wrong"? These are two mutually exclusive positions.
Actually, it's no more capitalism than a bank robber is capitalist. The company who buys votes in that way employs violence for financial gain, just as the robber does.
If a game company pays its employee to break into my house and steal my wallet, that is not capitalism. Does it become capitalism when the game company pays another party (a Congressman) to pay someone else (an FBI agent) to steal my wallet?
Trouble is, we've already lost the first and the third. When was the last jury nullification case you've heard of? Arguing about whether juries can consider fair use is moot when they've already lost the power to judge the law.
What you're describing is called anarchy. The state by definition depends on extracting the property of others by force, not voluntary support. Of course, in your scenario, without force, there would be multiple providers of each type of service: the road-builders would of course not be the same companies running the police and the courts, and there would be multiple competitive service providers in each area, competing to best serve their customers, just as we see in most areas of commerce today -- such as banking, auto parts, telephone service, and children's toys. But the fact that all relationships are voluntary is of course the most important part of that; the rest follows.
Consider:
1. I'm going to kill you because you are black.
2. I'm going to kill you because I want the money in your pocket.
3. I'm going to kill you.
In which of the three cases above is the intent to kill the greatest?
You put forth an interesting and, perhaps, somewhat plausible idea in your last two paragraphs, but they and especially the first two betray a lack of understanding of fundamental economics. The technical definition of socialism is commonly put forward as "state ownership of industry and capital", thus allowing someone to like you to point out that "industry and capital are all privately owned here" and conclude that the government is not socialist. The critical point that you miss is that ownership of a resource is by definition the right to control it. When government exerts control over capital, it is in fact claiming ownership of said capital. And if a corporate oligarchy uses its power to control the actions of politicians, that is no less socialism. Socialism does not become capitalism merely because the socialists are rich. Those who control a nominally democratic/republican government by influencing the elected officers, using them to exert their will on the populace, are not private capitalists or corporate entrepreneurs. They have become the government.
On the idea that things will not get much worse, there is some plausibility in the proposition that those who control society have already got what they wanted and do not need to seek more. On the other hand, experience and history have shown that lack of paranoia is foolhardy. Just when you think things can't get worse, they do. And, as proven by watching the events of the last several years, they have.
You say that the idea of "hate speech" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "terrorism" to do the same?
You say that the idea of "terrorist" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "hate speech" to do the same?
Worth remembering that whoever happens to be in power at the moment often got there by promising more rights/freedoms to the electorate, something they might or might not deliver on. Failure to deliver gives ammunition to the opposition - how often do you see attack adds about how the incumbent broke election promises, so vote the new guy in?
Right. You've correctly identified a major component of the mechanism by which the two-party rights encroachment system operates. I wonder, then, how you fail to see that it is happening. To put it in more concrete language for you, when Bush/McCain was rejected (partly) for their opposition to our rights, Obama was elected, and rather than reverse the movements of Bush, he upgrades one of Bush's wars, continues the other, and otherwise fails to return our freedoms, while at the same time reducing our freedoms in other ways.
The government should pick a date, say 5 years from now, and state that on that date they will publish the full list of Name & SSN data. Everyone using SSN as a shared secret must fix their databases.
Even if they only published a list of names, and omitted the SSNs, that would be an act of immense evil.
Slashdot Mirror
If your message includes your name, or the name of someone else you know, then by definition it's not anonymized.
They're not native English-speakers. They are learning thousands of new words every week.
One important consideration you omit is that the superior power can't destroy everyone because their power depends on most people either supporting them or being rather apathetic about them. So the super power desires the means to acquire enough information about everyone to decide whom to eliminate. Now that information is (effectively) not encrypted? Their job just got easier.
or a scheme to pull in vast amounts of encrypted information to fish for things of value.
Too bad the entities with large sums of money are the same ones who want to sort through encrypted data looking for things of interest.
Odd word choice there. One would think the President of the United States of America would be the most obvious person who doesn't want to hear complaints about warrantless wiretaps.
It sure would have set a precedent if the same man was elected both President and Vice-President at the same time.
His was point was that it was "safe" for Obama to vote the amendment, since it wasn't going to pass anyway. Obama got the best of both worlds: the amendment didn't pass, and politically he looked good because he voted for it. This is a well known feature of how Congress operates.
GP is correct in pointing out a distinction and in fact the two cases are different in principle, not merely on the margins. Nothing whatsoever is taken from the company's property in the case of the satellite signals, while hooking up to their cable involving directly manipulating their property and taking something (electricity) out of it.
Wait a minute here. You just gave a pretty good argument for why anyone is justified in decoding satellite signals. Then you go and say something completely inconsistent, "I agree that they should be punished, what they were attempting to do was wrong". If you know that a person decrypting a satellite signal is not at fault because the signal is in his house, on what basis do you call that action "wrong"? These are two mutually exclusive positions.
Actually, it's no more capitalism than a bank robber is capitalist. The company who buys votes in that way employs violence for financial gain, just as the robber does. If a game company pays its employee to break into my house and steal my wallet, that is not capitalism. Does it become capitalism when the game company pays another party (a Congressman) to pay someone else (an FBI agent) to steal my wallet?
Trouble is, we've already lost the first and the third. When was the last jury nullification case you've heard of? Arguing about whether juries can consider fair use is moot when they've already lost the power to judge the law.
The second amendment ... made sure of that.
If we can keep it.
What you're describing is called anarchy. The state by definition depends on extracting the property of others by force, not voluntary support. Of course, in your scenario, without force, there would be multiple providers of each type of service: the road-builders would of course not be the same companies running the police and the courts, and there would be multiple competitive service providers in each area, competing to best serve their customers, just as we see in most areas of commerce today -- such as banking, auto parts, telephone service, and children's toys. But the fact that all relationships are voluntary is of course the most important part of that; the rest follows.
How do you propose to fund a minarchist state without infringing on anyone's rights?
Consider: 1. I'm going to kill you because you are black. 2. I'm going to kill you because I want the money in your pocket. 3. I'm going to kill you. In which of the three cases above is the intent to kill the greatest?
You put forth an interesting and, perhaps, somewhat plausible idea in your last two paragraphs, but they and especially the first two betray a lack of understanding of fundamental economics. The technical definition of socialism is commonly put forward as "state ownership of industry and capital", thus allowing someone to like you to point out that "industry and capital are all privately owned here" and conclude that the government is not socialist. The critical point that you miss is that ownership of a resource is by definition the right to control it. When government exerts control over capital, it is in fact claiming ownership of said capital. And if a corporate oligarchy uses its power to control the actions of politicians, that is no less socialism. Socialism does not become capitalism merely because the socialists are rich. Those who control a nominally democratic/republican government by influencing the elected officers, using them to exert their will on the populace, are not private capitalists or corporate entrepreneurs. They have become the government.
On the idea that things will not get much worse, there is some plausibility in the proposition that those who control society have already got what they wanted and do not need to seek more. On the other hand, experience and history have shown that lack of paranoia is foolhardy. Just when you think things can't get worse, they do. And, as proven by watching the events of the last several years, they have.
Both problems and others that minarchism retains are solved by abolishing the state completely. Google anarcho-capitalism.
You say that the idea of "hate speech" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "terrorism" to do the same?
You say that the idea of "terrorist" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "hate speech" to do the same?
Worth remembering that whoever happens to be in power at the moment often got there by promising more rights/freedoms to the electorate, something they might or might not deliver on. Failure to deliver gives ammunition to the opposition - how often do you see attack adds about how the incumbent broke election promises, so vote the new guy in?
Right. You've correctly identified a major component of the mechanism by which the two-party rights encroachment system operates. I wonder, then, how you fail to see that it is happening. To put it in more concrete language for you, when Bush/McCain was rejected (partly) for their opposition to our rights, Obama was elected, and rather than reverse the movements of Bush, he upgrades one of Bush's wars, continues the other, and otherwise fails to return our freedoms, while at the same time reducing our freedoms in other ways.
You overlook the purpose of government: complete control of human society. Every encroachment by government is a step in that direction.
They are. And the tyranny of one group is never (significantly) removed when the other comes into power.
Either the neo-Nazi's rights are protected or yours are not.
Agreed. The publishing of phone books without permission of those whose personal information is listed therein is evil.
Maybe that's what he meant was a good thing.
The government should pick a date, say 5 years from now, and state that on that date they will publish the full list of Name & SSN data. Everyone using SSN as a shared secret must fix their databases.
Even if they only published a list of names, and omitted the SSNs, that would be an act of immense evil.