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

Four fears for authoritarians

paulbernal.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#91

Post by goleksiak »

This is about control - but control for what purpose? The short-term financial gain of elites? Maybe. To satisfy elite paranoia?. Maybe.

Maybe this is control for stability.

The government creates models of the future and with more and more data about climate change pointing to disaster in the next few decades, those models must be focusing more and more at that point. So instead of government "holding its people back from a bright future", they are pragmatically laying the foundations for the control structures that will be necessary in the unavoidably dark future.

How can stability be maintained when society is radically altered by climate change?

Answer: Control

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#92

Post by hahainternet »

hyperventilator wrote: post #84
hahainternet wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Westboro Babtist Church does fall under this protection Not in the first world.

Yeah, in some parts of the "first world" you can do prison time for a tweet.

You can do prison time for a tweet anywhere that has any harassment, libel, obscenity, juror protection or many many other laws. What's the betting you only disagree with a single subcategory of these.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#93

Post by dclowd9901 »

jstalin wrote: post #75

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…

This philosophy is precisely why I was so dumbfounded to hear a congressman talk on the topic of the Patriot act on NPR. He recently flip-flopped from having been instrumental in writing it to being categorically for reform of it.

What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible. Anyone who's taken 10 minutes of a law class knows that you write laws defensively, presuming the most evil motherfucker imaginable will have the reins some day. And this retard is one of the few running the country.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#94

Post by hyperventilator »

hahainternet wrote: post #92
hyperventilator wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in some parts of the "first world" you can do prison time for a tweet.

You can do prison time for a tweet anywhere that has any harassment, libel, obscenity, juror protection or many many other laws. What's the betting you only disagree with a single subcategory of these.

I suppose you can defend giving someone jailtime for hurt feelings, but it sounds pretty stupid to me.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#95

Post by jstalin »

presidentender wrote: post #83
jstalin wrote: post #75

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…

Hamilton argued that the very existence of the bill of rights invited the expansion of government into all those areas not expressly forbidden therein, but one might question Hamilton's motivations. That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.

Sorry if it's an apocryphal quote.

I see what's happening in the UK, where people are prosecuted for speech and there is no limit to parliament's power (other than watered-down EU treaties and such) and I'm glad we have the first amendment, which prevents prior restraints and criminalizing unpopular speech.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#96

Post by saraid216 »

presidentender wrote: post #83
jstalin wrote: post #75

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…

Hamilton argued that the very existence of the bill of rights invited the expansion of government into all those areas not expressly forbidden therein, but one might question Hamilton's motivations. That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.

> That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.

Amusingly, in checking this out myself, I found this:

"If they have real grievances redress them, if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it at the moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once."

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#97

Post by ctdonath »

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.

During the violent height of "Arab Spring" revolts, I did see distinct interviews with leaders thereof operating in small rooms coordinating enough like minded people to succeed. Names, of course, were not given; in a time of point-and-click military firepower, leaders function on a need-to-know basis.

A decade or so back (forgetting the country at the moment) there was a high-profile spontaneous uprising which overthrew the government. A key moment during the 3-day rally/occupation involved a bulldozer (someone jog my memory). The whole thing seemed as you describe, modern communication having taken away the need of a leader with the participants informing themselves and coordinating spontaneously. Except...it wasn't. It was the result of an passionate 10-year plan by one person to choreograph the whole thing, right down to persuading a group of police to resist protestors for a given period then "spontaneously" change loyalties, along with timing of aforementioned bulldozer bashing down doors.

Leaders may not stand out at the front of their troops, guiding them into battle. Leaders may (especially today) hide in anonymous rooms, remotely directing agitators to persuade mob dynamics a la psychological warfare. That you can't name one leader therein doesn't mean there aren't any nor have plans been in the making for years.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#98

Post by tokenadult »

I seem to be part of a small minority of HN participants who have actually lived through a transition from

1) an authoritarian regime with pervasive surveillance, direct governmental control of all mass media organizations, secret police who tortured and killed peaceful dissidents--even dissidents based in other countries, and a ruling party organized essentially as a terrorist organization

to

2) a government constrained by rule of law with broad protection of individual civil liberties, a free press, judicial and legislative oversight of the police, and multiple political parties based on voluntary participation.

I have tried to tell the story before here

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985720

of what life was like under the dictatorial regime, and I have repeatedly recommended experience-tested tips for freedom-fighters

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html

about how people around the world can, and do, organize to overcome authoritarian repression.

It's up to everyone here on Hacker News to decide whether or not to pay the price to organize to secure liberty. I know what the cost is, and I know what the reward is, of a successful freedom-fighting movement. I don't know whether or not Hacker News participants will mostly set aside their desires for comfort and entertainment to struggle successfully for freedom, but I will watching meanwhile, and I am always willing to help when dare to take a consistent stand for freedom.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#99

Post by ctdonath »

tonylemesmer wrote: post #73
spdy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Leaders or not, the bloodshed phase depends on whether either side is willing to take "no" for an answer.

Re: Four fears for authoritarians

#100

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

scrrr wrote: post #7

Yep, see what happened in the Arabic countries (and some other countries outside of the Islam-sphere). People organised to protest using the Internet. People get educated using the Internet. In Cuba they exchange information using thumb drives. And every bullshitter (= our governments) should be afraid of it. They are, of course. And surveillance is their reaction. What will help is if everyone finally realises that…

> Yep, see what happened in the Arabic countries (and some other countries outside of the Islam-sphere).

I think we need to make a distinction here. See Egypt, for example.

A secular military government was in power for decades long (with support from the west). Their "Internet generation" got together and managed to overthrow Mubarak, and call for elections. They had elections, and the most organized party (Islamic) was able to elect their candidate (Morsi). But because of the religious inclinations, the laicist sector of the society asked the military to overthrow the president again. Now the military is in power and killing islamics who protest against the coup d'etate (again, with support from the west). It's back to zero.

So, Egypt attempt to adopt democracy and a more equalitarian state didn't exactly played out well. In fact, there, the government is a major chunk of the society (military control 30% of the economy). As it seems, democracy isn't the ultimate solution for every country.

Post reply on HN