From: Zero Powers (zero_powers@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2000 - 15:09:05 MST
>From: KPJ <kpj@sics.se>
>
>It appears as if Zero Powers <zero_powers@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|
>|My guess is that Michael thinks I'm a fascist because I am in favor of gun
>|control and ubiquitous transparancy.
>
>The "ubiquitous transparancy" will _not_ appear suddenly.
>Instead, those who consider themselves the rulers of various areas of the
>planet will make sure that _they_ get the surveillance to control the
>others,
>and prohibiting the others from using the surveillance against them.
>
>In short, you get a dictatorship in which those with the big guns get to
>snoop on those with smaller (or no) guns.
Well the transparency I advocate is mutual, two-way, transparency. Meaning
that the individual would be no more subject to surveillance than the
government. In fact my suggestion is "power equivolent surveillance," such
that the more power you have to meddle in others lives, the *more* you are
subject to surveillance. In this scheme, the President and members of
congress would live in a virtual fish bowl and we the people would be able
to know virtually *everything* about their political, business and personal
affairs.
In fact, I have to admit that I tend toward transparency fanaticism. If I
were calling the shots there'd be no secrets, *none*. I realize the
practical difficulties (if not impossibilities) in implementing this anytime
soon. But I do foresee a time when ubiquitous transparency will not only be
doable, but will be absolutely necessary.
When we have gotten past national sovereignty and moved on to cooperative
democratic global governance, there will be no need for such things as state
secrets and national security. At that point we will only be concerned with
(1) individual security and (2) global security. Both of those types of
security would best be served by ubiquitous transparency.
>Since you also advocate gun control (meaning those with the big guns get
>to disarm those with smaller guns), you advocate that those who consider
>themselves the rulers (a) get to snoop on everybody else, (b) one cannot
>use weapons to overthrow them, and (c) you cannot find out what they do.
>In short, you get a dictatorship which make the old ones, SSSR, Mainland
>China, and Nazi Germany look like democratic societies in comparison.
I know the NRA doesn't like to let this be known but: "gun control" is not
synonymous with total disarmament.
>Power corrupts, so why give the power brokers more of it?
I don't advocate that at all. I propose giving more power to those are less
powerful. I do propose opening the flood gates of surveillance, but its a
two-way floodgate, and I'd call for more information about the government
flowing to the people than the other way around.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:42 MST