Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

blog.sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 359 posts

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#321

Post by jetti »

davidw wrote: post #314
jetti wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you have zero physical security, that means that anyone can come up and just knock you down and take your things, your woman, whatever... Not my idea of "freedom"." But that happens now. All the examples that are being given on why we need security are examples of things that are happening now WITH security. "I think that it follows that you do need some security in order to live a free life. Does that justify se…

> But that happens now. Obviously. It's impossible to eliminate bad things completely. They would happen more without anyone providing security. > They haven't gained anything Ok, fine, whatever, the world is moving only in one direction, with no nuance, no complexities, and in a very simple, easy to understand way. Nothing has gotten better for anyone.

"Obviously. It's impossible to eliminate bad things completely. They would happen more without anyone providing security."

To me, this argument is based on how one views human nature. Personally, I don't believe that the majority of people want to commit serious crimes but are only held back by the fact that if they did, they would be punished. Because of that belief, I don't believe that eliminating security would cause an increase of bad behavior.

"Ok, fine, whatever, the world is moving only in one direction, with no nuance, no complexities, and in a very simple, easy to understand way. Nothing has gotten better for anyone."

I probably should have phrased my response better but at the time was stuck in a better way to do so. Surely there are places that have improved in people's lives but it isn't like those same improvements couldn't or wouldn't have been made without a state providing security.

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#322

Post by baddox »

sneak wrote: post #302
baddox wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even some of the most staunch anarcho-capitalists I know believe in centralized national defense as one of the very few legitimate functions of the state. Really? You or they must be using the term "anarcho-capitalism" in a non-standard way. In the standard usage of the term, the whole point is to be distinguished from pro-government libertarians and minarchists who believe that there are a few legitimate functions…

I think that the capitalist part of anarcho-capitalist implies minarchism, as how can you have capitalism without private property?

The "anarcho" part means no government. The fundamental thesis of anarcho-capitalism is that private enterprise can solve all the problems that government currently is tasked with solving, including private property, defense, law enforcement, punishment of wrong-doers, consumer safety, charity/welfare, etc.

I'm not claiming any authority over the term "anarcho-capitalism," and you can use it however you like, but I have read a lot of works by people who are widely considered to be pivotal to anarcho-capitalism, and I've been somewhat active in several online communities that call themselves anarcho-capitalist, and I am reasonably confident that your usage is incredibly non-standard, and that very few people who are aware of the term would use it to describe minarchists.

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#323

Post by mpyne »

baddox wrote: post #317
mpyne wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, they've both killed tens of millions of their own citizens. Each. And the U.S. killed more people using conventional ordnance in a single night in Tokyo than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined from the atomic bombings, so what is it that you're actually upset about? Because it's obviously not the number of Japanese killed.

I wasn't commenting on total number of people killed by each government. We were talking about nuclear weapons (specifically nuclear subs).

Yes, but you say that as if being killed by a nuclear weapon is somehow more traumatic than being burned alive in a city-sized Holocaust incited by incendiary weaponry. Or even that being blown to bits by conventional weaponry is somehow better.

Think about it: Germany never used nuclear weapons on the U.S.S.R., were they somehow more moble?

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#324

Post by anigbrowl »

javajosh wrote: post #298
anigbrowl wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't count trawling data as described so far to be spying, any more than I consider my back yard getting photographed by spy satellites to mean they're spying on my place of residence. I think that most people assume that email is just like mail: private, and protected by the 4th amendment. I think most people assume that their phone records are similarly protected. The law has said otherwise for >30 years, and I…

> are you just projecting what you think should be the case onto everyone else? Projecting, mainly. Just like you. Pew did a phone survey that shows 56% of people believe it's okay to give up privacy to defeat terrorism. But even that doesn't really go to what people believe about their privacy right now.

Projecting, mainly. Just like you.

No, I think we should have more robust privacy protections and that this would require a constitutional amendment, but I'm also aware that my view has little traction at present. I'm sanguine about monitoring of things like CDRs because it seems an inevitable result of technology, and it's unrealistic to expect the government to put itself at a legal disadvantage compared to individuals and businesses. On the other hand, this fact of modern technological life is why I choose not to put my life on services like Facebook, despite the significant social disadvantages that entails.

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#325

Post by brianpgordon »

shpxnvz wrote: post #309
irishloop wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The moment someone points a gun at you and tells you what to do, your freedom has been usurped. Without the security to make your own choices, you do not have freedom. Thus, it's important to restrict certain actions (i.e., your ability to point a gun at someone and make demands) in order to protect the freedom of others.

The first part is true; forcible coercion does usurp freedom - and even more so when done by the government. The second part is fallacy; you obviously cannot remove the ability to point a gun (or knife) at someone and make demands, and any attempt to do so necessarily tramples other's rights. In reality there are two effective choices - the person being mugged can defend them-self and/or the government can attempt to…

You can deter people from pointing guns at people by promising to punish those who do that..

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#326

Post by anigbrowl »

adrianbg wrote: post #318
anigbrowl wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the two are not mutually exclusive. Consider the a the number of former colonial powers is small compared to the number of former colonies.

The only difference between a normal government and a colonial government is the degree of integration. If you live under any government you are ruled, not free. The countries we have now grew by conquering and accumulating territory -- that is except in the cases where territories decided to give up their independence like the states in the US.

Sorry, this is complete nonsense.

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#327

Post by Peaker »

flyinRyan wrote: post #280
CamperBob2 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If other countries want to nuke us, it's probably a better idea to find out why they want to nuke us What will your next step be, when you learn that the answer to your question is "Religion"?

I'm confident that that will not be the answer. That and "hate us for our freedoms" are popular for war mongers because there is apparently no solution besides continuing to bomb them. But is it possible they have legitimate grievancences? Is it possible that they're human beings who are pissed off about something we're doing or have done? The saddest part is, we appear to have learned literally nothing since our han…

There are plenty of fundamentalists in the world for whom the reason is indeed religion.

You're engaging in wishful thinking.

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#328

Post by electric_u »

Physical security (as it relates to freedom) does not have to be provided. If I have a gun and an armored car then I have a significant amount of physical security regardless of any rules. If I have a bunch of rules but I am stuck in a dark alley with a thug then I have neither security nor freedom.

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#329

Post by javajosh »

anigbrowl wrote: post #324
javajosh wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are you just projecting what you think should be the case onto everyone else? Projecting, mainly. Just like you. Pew did a phone survey that shows 56% of people believe it's okay to give up privacy to defeat terrorism. But even that doesn't really go to what people believe about their privacy right now.

Projecting, mainly. Just like you. No, I think we should have more robust privacy protections and that this would require a constitutional amendment, but I'm also aware that my view has little traction at present. I'm sanguine about monitoring of things like CDRs because it seems an inevitable result of technology, and it's unrealistic to expect the government to put itself at a legal disadvantage compared to individ…

> people are more concerned with external threats than internal ones

> most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches so actual evidence of data manaing doesn't seem all that big of a revelation.

No, you're not projecting at all, are you.

Re: NSA leaker is a patriot, not a traitor

#330

Post by rtpg »

shpxnvz wrote: post #309
irishloop wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The moment someone points a gun at you and tells you what to do, your freedom has been usurped. Without the security to make your own choices, you do not have freedom. Thus, it's important to restrict certain actions (i.e., your ability to point a gun at someone and make demands) in order to protect the freedom of others.

The first part is true; forcible coercion does usurp freedom - and even more so when done by the government. The second part is fallacy; you obviously cannot remove the ability to point a gun (or knife) at someone and make demands, and any attempt to do so necessarily tramples other's rights. In reality there are two effective choices - the person being mugged can defend them-self and/or the government can attempt to…

it's a balance. By preventing people to point guns and make demands (to a certain extent), you (for example) allow for more freedom to walk around at night without a fear of getting mugged.

Everything is a tradeoff, saying 'tramples other's rights' is misleading because it doesn't indicate which rights. Some rights are more valued than others to people (I'd gladly trade my right to kill myself for my right to free speech, if such a tradeoff existed).

Post reply on HN