Four fears for authoritarians • Hacker News Board

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#71

Post by spdy » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:02 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #67

andreasklinger wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if everyone already realised that it's not about terrorism but doesn't know how to act and therefore falls into cynicism? If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow.

>If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow. It think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. What we need is some leaders. When you think about the civil rights movement and other successful movements, you can name names. To some extent we have leaders, but they're more ideological leaders than meet-here-and-do-this leaders. We need people who can organize other people, so that we…

It think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. What we need is some leaders.

Can you name one leader in the Arab Spring movements? Turkey protests? etc. Modern ways of communication take away the need of a leader we can inform ourselves and join an upcoming movement. What we need is a way to coordinate and get enough like minded people thats enough.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#72

Post by TimSAstro » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:11 PM UTC

yuvadam wrote: post #18

andreasklinger wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if everyone already realised that it's not about terrorism but doesn't know how to act and therefore falls into cynicism? If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow.

Act by raising your awareness. Act by not standing silent. Act by being the change you want to see. There is nothing else but this.

I'm sorry to be snarky, but this gives me absolutely no concrete guidance on things I can do. It's a platitude.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#73

Post by tonylemesmer » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:34 PM UTC

spdy wrote: post #71

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow. It think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. What we need is some leaders. When you think about the civil rights movement and other successful movements, you can name names. To some extent we have leaders, but they're more ideological leaders than meet-here-and-do-this leaders. We need people who can organize other people, so that we…

It think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. What we need is some leaders. Can you name one leader in the Arab Spring movements? Turkey protests? etc. Modern ways of communication take away the need of a leader we can inform ourselves and join an upcoming movement. What we need is a way to coordinate and get enough like minded people thats enough.

Did those uprisings have similarities in that, without leaders they typically move into a bloodshed phase? If leadership could avoid this, it might be a better route

Not saying presence or absence of leadership is the cause, but don't assume because of no leadership it is the best way.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#74

Post by mseebach » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:36 PM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #53

mseebach wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can democratic state do without any secret service at all? I don't mean not to have "operational" security. The secrecy there is in place today is all "operational", there are no other kinds. The problem is defining what constitutes as being within the scope of a legitimate operation, and especially the asymmetrical nature of defining it (only the people know a secret can reason about it, and they are rarely the be…

>The secrecy there is in place today is all "operational", there are no other kinds. Are you seriously saying that all of today's classified documents relate to ongoing operations? They still classify stuff from WWII. And huge amounts of material relating to technologies unrelated to any operations imaginable (like CRM systems) are classified. I urge you to read the Washington Post's series on government secrecy from…

No, I'm saying that the people who decide that things should be and/or remain classified will say that it's for operational reasons. WWII was definitely an operation, although it's a long time ago, and it's hard to imagine what might still be relevant to keep classified. If an intelligence organisation procures a CRM for keeping track of operations, and the public tender document says that it must be able to handle 250 operations a month, then they've leaked some potentially sensitive information.

The definition certainly appears to be applied too broadly, but you're not going to achieve less secrecy by limiting secrecy to "operations".

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#75

Post by jstalin » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:38 PM UTC

I'm reminded of a George Washington quote:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

In other words, government is, at its bare naked minimum, the monopoly of force. It must be contained, mistrusted, and treated as a necessary evil.

Despite the USA being screwed up in so many ways, I still thank my lucky stars for the anti-federalists, who gave us the bill of rights. Without them, we would be much worse off today than we are.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#76

Post by mseebach » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:46 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #67

andreasklinger wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if everyone already realised that it's not about terrorism but doesn't know how to act and therefore falls into cynicism? If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow.

>If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow. It think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. What we need is some leaders. When you think about the civil rights movement and other successful movements, you can name names. To some extent we have leaders, but they're more ideological leaders than meet-here-and-do-this leaders. We need people who can organize other people, so that we…

> The closest thing I can think of is the gaggle of Libertarians-nee-anarchists who hold a bunch of sessions largely for the purpose of soliciting donations from their elderly followers. They don't seem to be accomplishing anything, unless you count funding the likes of Michelle Bachmann as accomplishing something.

Wow, way to slander the one organised group that actually saw this coming from a million miles away. These people have claimed very strongly and very consistently over many years that governments (any government, no matter what party is in charge) simply cannot be trusted with power, and have been met with very little but ridicule in return. They have not accomplished anything because the majority opinion (by a wide margin) is that government power is benign and for our own good.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#77

Post by rthomas6 » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:47 PM UTC

spdy wrote: post #71

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow. It think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. What we need is some leaders. When you think about the civil rights movement and other successful movements, you can name names. To some extent we have leaders, but they're more ideological leaders than meet-here-and-do-this leaders. We need people who can organize other people, so that we…

It think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. What we need is some leaders. Can you name one leader in the Arab Spring movements? Turkey protests? etc. Modern ways of communication take away the need of a leader we can inform ourselves and join an upcoming movement. What we need is a way to coordinate and get enough like minded people thats enough.

We don't want or need violent uprisings. We need nonviolent nonparticipation and civil disobedience a-la Gandhi and King.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#78

Post by prawn » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:49 PM UTC

snitko wrote: post #65

prawn wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big influences are large companies and we finance many of them with the purchases we make. Voting with wallets, given strength of numbers, could start to have an impact. I don't see reduced tax income changing the ratio in which a government allocates their funds.

Companies are paying taxes too. If you stop purchasing products from one company, government would simply go and tax the hell out of the one you chose instead. It's the wrong way to tackle this problem.

I'm not talking about disrupting the payment of taxes (which I don't think is the issue), but the inequality when it comes to influence. I think influence is one problem that could at least be addressed with public cooperation. Fewer 800lb gorillas.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#79

Post by swombat » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 1:53 PM UTC

snitko wrote: post #56

Cakez0r wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as long as it passes through your bank account, the tax has already been paid. I could convert all my savings to gold or bitcoin, but the government has already had their slice by the time that happens, which wouldn't be much of a protest at all. EDIT: To clarify for non-UK residents (I'm not sure how it works in other countries), everything in the UK is fundamentally tied to your bank account. Your wages go dire…

> the tax has already been paid Not so. Inflation is yet another tax you'll be paying if you keep your money in a bank. Inflation is a huge thing for governments. Without inflation, they'd be out of so many opportunities to finance various things and the fraudulent financial system governments run would be instantly exposed. Then you would also have to remember that if you keep your savings in Bitcoin, you can pay fo…

Bitcoin has a lot of volatility. I'd rather take a steady 2-4% cut every year than an unpredictable swing that could take out 95% of my savings overnight.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#80

Post by tomp » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 2:12 PM UTC

snitko wrote: post #31

andreasklinger wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if everyone already realised that it's not about terrorism but doesn't know how to act and therefore falls into cynicism? If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow.

Kinda simple. We finance this bullshit by paying taxes. Why do we pay them? Because they force us to and convince us it's a good idea. What do we do about it? Use any form of money that is problematic to track and tax: cash, gold, Bitcoin. Pretty sure it's possible to live just on that - would be a little uncomfortable, but certainly less so than some violent action. And it would be a major blow to the government if…

I disagree. Taxes are good (I'm from Europe), and most of our governments are good as well; they give us security (police), fire safety, health insurance (emergency services and hospitals), education (most of it is public in Europe), infrastructure (roads, ...), regulation (of the food we eat, ...). Most of it is good, and I used it, and I want to use it in the future.

The bad part of the government is very small (but getting bigger). I think it needs to be eradicated politically, and I'm certain it will happen very soon (i.e. when the older generation that doesn't understand computers retires or dies).