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

The Criminalization of Everyday Life

tomdispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 347 posts

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#271

Post by dingaling »

alan_cx wrote: post #156
JonnieCache wrote: post #48

The fact that this is being instigated by the federal government makes me suspect that this is deliberate planning for the long-term consequences of american societal breakdown, for when the war on drugs isn't enough to control the ever-growing underclass anymore. Does this kind of thinking still place me firmly with the tinfoil contingent?

Having a so called police force like this is societal breakdown. To me, current US policing looks much like how the Brits patrolled Northern Ireland back in the day, with the army. Only thing the US is missing is check points and road blocks. Don't kid yourselves, the US does not have a police force, it has a domestic army. Only hope Americans have is in the individuals who wear the uniform. Would American uniformed…

An interesting realisation in Northern Ireland in the mid-1970s was that Army operations had to be brought back under the umbrella of civilian authority.

From 1969 to 1977 the Army in NI basically operated independently of the constabulary, with only informal liaison and co-ordination, whilst pursuing their primary mission.

But from then onwards the Army was seconded to Security Co-ordinating Commission and was re-orientated towards support of the policeman on the beat.

The UK Government had realised that soldiers having unregulated police-like powers over people was counter-productive, and the response was to re-establish the 'primacy of the constabulary' to give some faith in the justice system. If you were arrested, it was by a police officer with his number visible on his lapel.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#272

Post by beachstartup »

theorique wrote: post #163
jseliger wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quote more Foucault's Discipline & Punishment Foucault's style is (possibly deliberately) obtuse, and his knowledge of history dubious at best, per Keith Windschuttle's book The Killing of History : http://www.amazon.com/The-Killing-History-Theorists-Murderin... . It's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance Because it's easy, because most of the time it doesn't affect us, and because it's h…

Most people (and voters) don't even know how many Senators their state has Trick question. Every state has the same number of Senators - 2.

that's not a trick question at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Senator

did we all forget that every state has a Senate as well?

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#273

Post by grey-area »

coldtea wrote: post #170
misuba wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a critique - it's an answer to the question "why don't more people quote Foucault's _Discipline and Punish._" They don't quote it because it's not quotable. If someone were to write and (crucially) popularize a version that reads the way people explain Foucault, things would be different.

> If someone were to write and (crucially) popularize a version that reads the way people explain Foucault, things would be different. Foucault was French. French (and Europeans that are non British in general) do not write theory and history the way anglosaxons do. At least most of them doesn't. If you want to learn from them, you have to study their idioms. You cannot just point at it and say it's unquotable or ali…

If you're going to complain about people misinterpreting Foucault or applying the wrong norms in judging philosophy, you should drop the habit of referring to 'Anglo-Saxons' as if this alien race were somehow homogenous in their culture and opinions, when it is used for anyone white from Staines to Cambridge, Mass. There are plenty of obtuse American theorists, and plenty of philosophers whose conception of power and relations is very similar - for example Chomsky has a lot in common with Foucault in examining relations of power and control, and their relationship with language, and is fond of constructing similar thickets of prose. Many writers from James to Joyce to Faulkner also delighted in creating obtuse literature in the 'Anglo-Saxon' canon.

The label Anglo-Saxon is an absurd, racist simplification which undermines your argument. There is no coherent Anglo-Saxon way - except as it exists in the imagination of the French intelligentsia as a foil to their clearly more sophisticated approach. There is more to the world than is dreamt of in that philosophy of opposition of thoughtful Europe against shopkeeper Anglo-Saxons.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#274

Post by sdoering »

blah32497 wrote: post #240
peterashford wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's rather more that the history of states turning fascist shows that the turn is usually proceeded by the state acquiring extraordinary powers on the basis that "insert-bogeyman-here" is out to get us (see Italy, Spain, Germany for past exemplars) and that current citizens would rather be vigilant and ensure that we don't have a fascist future than sit back and allow the possibility that it might occur. "Th…

(I'm gunna respond even though I'm getting downvoted b/c hopefully someone gets something out of this.. but keep it coming! =) ) There is nothing inherently evil in surveillance. In and of itself it's a neutral thing. It's what you do with it that is evil or good. First I'd say that I don't really see how the NAZIs gain power because of surveillance. Hitler didn't seize power because the SA had some intricate intelli…

> There is nothing inherently evil in surveillance. In and of itself it's a neutral thing. It's what you do with it that is evil or good.

No it is not. Being watched changes the behavior of the watched. Dissent is less, if the incentives are that way, that dissenting hurts your future choices.

There are so much studies showing the dangers of a society being watched and of watchers not controlled, fueled by legal powers.

Historically speaking it was the way you described, that oppression came first, surveillance followed as a means to an end. Securing the oppressing leaders.

So surveillance is a dangerous thing even without oppressive governments using the data. Just being watched is enough to undermine healthy democratic dissent.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#275

Post by philwelch »

thenmar wrote: post #241
philwelch wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if "theory" or whatever the fuck you English majors call it were mathematically rigorous you'd have a point.

I think you should apologize for making this post. There are a lot of important things that aren't mathematically rigorous but are nevertheless worth understanding.

If you're making grand opaque abstractions without applying some form of logical rigor, how can you be sure you're saying anything that's true and meaningful?

I agree that there are lots of things that are worth understanding but can't be expressed in rigorously logical terms. Things like the subjective experience of falling in love or laughing at a joke or the value of behaving toward others with compassion. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#276

Post by sdoering »

marcosdumay wrote: post #195
csallen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human nature is hard to change. Systems are (relatively) easy to change. Rather than worry about people being irresponsible, lazy, greedy, immoral, incompetent, etc, we should focus on building systems that work well and protect all involved despite all of that.

A very important part of a system that works well is making sure that the people with the worse character flaws don't get into power positions, and that the people in power get punished when they display those character flaws. Or, in other words, stop blamming the system, and start making it work.

The problem is, that (at least today's) societies need some kind of immune system. As much as I liked the world to be without arms, I see the need for law enforcement.

I see the need of a society for people making harsh decisions. Sometimes the utilitarian greater good needs the suffering of the few to come into existence.

The problem is, when it is turned on its head, so that the greater majority suffers a little bit (financially, or otherwise) for the benefit of the smaller minority. And that is, what our current system of lobbying/economics/politics sadly seems designed to achieve.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#277

Post by philwelch »

eseehausen wrote: post #252
philwelch wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if "theory" or whatever the fuck you English majors call it were mathematically rigorous you'd have a point.

There are many things in this world/levels of perspective that benefit from a non-mathematically rigorous analysis- up to and including the question "what is the benefit of rigorous mathematical analysis". That doesn't mean they don't have their own kind of rigor or that you should be able to understand them right away without any background knowledge. The attitude you have is shared by folks in the humanities who th…

So here's the operative difference: I can explain to a non-technical person what the Y-combinator gets you in terms of results. I could make a physicist or mathematician or mechanical engineer or even an analytic philosopher understand the significance, and then it's just a matter of notation.

And I really wish postmodernists would stop hiding behind the banner of "the humanities". Analytic philosophy, history, classics, religious studies, and art history are all capable of making meaningful and even true statements from time to time, and most of them can be made comprehensible to the typical person.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#278

Post by bosma »

jotm wrote: post #232
spiritplumber wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." (From Atlas Shrugged -- Damn, it's bad when I of all people am quoting Ayn Rand).

What's wrong with Ayn Rand?

People don't like her because they disagree with her conclusions and what they assume are her methods.

In order to understand her methods you must understand her epistemology. This requires reading her nonfiction systematically (and Peikoff's).

Here's a Reddit reaction to Rand's response to a letter: http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1reias/til_th... especially see this response: http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1reias/til_th...

She's completely misunderstood and misrepresented. There are countless examples of this.

In politics, she's seen as the epitome of all that is "right wing", whatever the Hell that means. Her ethics are disregarded as simple ignorant selfishness. It's easy to see why many would disagree with her.

Academia simply dismisses her. However, her ideas are becoming harder to ignore - they are important!

Highly recommend reading at least Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Then pick up Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and the recently released Understanding Objectivism . UO is very good (it's useful/personal, down to earth), but requires familiarity with Objectivism.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#279

Post by textminer »

beachstartup wrote: post #272
theorique wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people (and voters) don't even know how many Senators their state has Trick question. Every state has the same number of Senators - 2.

that's not a trick question at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Senator did we all forget that every state has a Senate as well?

Not Nebraska.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#280

Post by DrewRWx »

ptaffs wrote: post #111
crazygringo wrote: post #22

I can't say I'm exactly surprised. If you ran a police department, you're not about to turn down a free tank -- I mean, how cool is that, toys for the boys?!?! What's bothersome is that a police department is allowed to do this. That DoD rules don't prohibit selling/giving military equipment to police departments. That state legislatures don't prohibit it. A police department, like any organization, is always going t…

I wonder if this stuff is surplus when bought, the M.O. of the military industrial machine seems to be financing a small group of firms for equipment and services we don't need. Just like NSA monitoring data centers and drones.

To be fair, unlike tanks and aircraft carriers, those two are actually used.
Post reply on HN