From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 15:46:22 MST
Samantha writes
> Actually, increasing the heat of animosity toward a centralized
> power structure almost guarantees an increase of terrorism and
> other counter-measures.
I think that that depends on too many variables, and
that such a blanket statement is suspect. Some times
a firm hand by a ruling nation or party succeeds in
intimidating or rooting out opposition, and some times
it fails. One of the key variables is the motivational
structure of those out of power, or those who would
resist. The best examples perhaps come from contemplating
all the various reactions to British imperial power in
the 18th and 19th centuries. They would succeed in
pacifying some areas, but not others.
> This game cannot be won by greater and more widespread
> force and intrusion into the lives of all and sundry.
A similar list of examples and counter-examples weakens
this claim. Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini provide the
best 20th century counter-examples.
Clearly you wish to restrict the discussion to less
oppressive regimes, however, and wonder just what the
U.S. and other Western governments can do to minimize
resistance to the capitalist/free-market way of life
and encroachment into societies based on other principles.
> Are we stupid enough to advocate full transparency knowing the
> blatant illogic that will drive decisions of what to do with the
> resulting knowledge?
Wouldn't you agree, instead, that it depends on how it
all comes down? For example, most of us who are sympathetic
to transparency are hopeful that it is not used by Western
type democratic governments to cart people off in the middle
of the night, but that conversely, it brings government injustice
to public awareness. It's not entirely naive to suppose that
public awareness can be effective; the newspapers were (and
still are) pretty effective at diminishing corruption the last
two centuries.
> Remember that the game is rigged such that we are
> all criminals by some law or another many times a day.
Yes, sadly this has been the tendency over the last
couple of generations, and the number of laws proliferates
so. One only need think of the huge number of rules that
(I think) enable highway patrolmen to give you a ticket
for something if they really want to.
But do you have examples of laws that most of us break
every month that are more than petty offenses payable
by small fines?
> Add in full transparency and literally all of us must walk on
> eggs lest they come and haul us away perfectly legally any time
> they please if they find us somewhat annoying or worrisome.
I have the same question about this, too.
> Are there really human beings you trust with that much power?
No. But all modern democracies are structured so that
seldom do even a few human beings working in concert
have that much power.
> Think War on Drugs, think laws against various types of
> sexuality and sexual expression,
Yes; this is one of those cases. I suspect that if the
sheriff of Santa Clara county and two colleagues wanted
to put me in prison a long time, the proper evidence
could be "found" in my house to accomplish it.
But recall that if President Nixon had picked up the phone
and ordered various generals to arrest certain dissidents
or members of congress, these orders would not have been
obeyed. To what degree are Ashcroft and his administration
allies in the U.S. able to suppress dissent? (Very little
so far as I know.)
> [we should] think the ever expanding definition of terrorism
> and moving those accused beyond any sort of "due process".
It's always amazing to me how sometimes "sliding scale"
arguments are interesting and compelling, and how
sometimes they merely embody self-regulating governors.
On some sliding scales, (e.g., more socialism in government)
a relentless growth process occurs. On others, (e.g. how
much corruption occurs in western governments), the worse
it gets the more counter-measures are taken against it.
Crime in western countries similarly falls into this latter
category: when there is too much, whether it's violent
crime or corporate fraud, more measures are taken against
it.
You appear to believe that the "ever expanding" definition
of just who is a terrorist falls into the former category.
> Think and oppose "the transparent society" as if your
> life depends on it. It damn well does whether you
> realize it or not.
The risks from moving towards transparency are obvious;
people in the past have often been safer when their
governments didn't know what they were doing. But it
still obviously depends on the extent to which we can
expect information about cipherpunks, racists, whistle-
blowers, porn-addicts, smokers, propagandists, and
atheists to actually be used by the authorities to
violate the persons and properties of those people.
One hopes that the ranks of the civil-libertarians
will swell in direct proportion to infringements on
the legal rights of the foregoing persons, and that
persecution finds natural limits.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:55 MST