|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The whole concept of society is based on giving up individual rights in favour of collective security and collective convenience in general. It is true that society requires an investment from it's members but societies only work because they benefit the individual. You can not speak in terms of benefiting society without demonstrating specifically how the benefit applies to it's members. Society works because there is a net gain for the individual and that is why they willingly contribute. So if we want to ensure voluntary compliance then we need only look at how well our system benefits the individual. Society is built on individual rights.
The reason we have police in the first place is to protect society from individuals. You see now that is damn near fascism right there. The ideological start of it anyway. The police are there to protect individuals from harm which usually comes from other individuals. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and has no rights of it own. Only obligations.
I do object to your rudeness but I don't wish to prevent you from being rude. The fact that you find the behaviour rude or offensive is the basis for it's being against the law or being recognized as an affront. We have social convention that prevents me from joining your intimate dinner and we have laws that prevent me from listening to your phone conversations. Both of these restrictions based on the fact that any reasonable person would find the behaviour offensive. I am saying that the state should be bound by the same standard and should not be allowed to act offensively without probable cause.
If I want something to be private then I keep it damn well private. If I'm concerned with electronic eavesdropping, I keep it inside my own skull. If you can get it out of there, more power to you.
Yes but that is not freedom. I reject the arms race of privacy. There is no way that I can compete with the NSA regarding the privacy of my communications. They can only be resisted with the principal that it is wrong for them to be looking instead of trying to make it impossible for them to look. Similar to the paper that surrounds your letters.
How far do you want the state to go? I just want them to not be the biggest threat to my privacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Tell that to the bees.
It is true that society requires an investment from it's members but societies only work because they benefit the individual. ProtoTypical writes:
You're oversimplifying the definition of "benefit". Like the bees, many members of our society willingly sacrifice themselves, including their lives, for the greater good. You don't get to decide whether letting the police search my house is a benefit to me.
Society works because there is a net gain for the individual and that is why they willingly contribute. ProtoTypical writes:
I told you I was representing the fascist position in this discussion.
You see now that is damn near fascism right there. The ideological start of it anyway. ProtoTypical writes:
On the contrary, the basic unit of humanity is society. Individuals have only obligations to society. They have only the rights that society confers on them. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and has no rights of it own. Only obligations. See? I'm also representing the socialist position. Go ahead, call me an ideologue.
ProtoTypical writes:
It shouldn't be. Laws should be based on harm or imminent potential for harm, not on "affronts". Otherwise we'd have laws against ugly sweaters.
The fact that you find the behaviour rude or offensive is the basis for it's being against the law or being recognized as an affront. ProtoTypical writes:
You're mistaking whom the "enemy" is. Even if the NSA "shouldn't" listen in, you can't trust the people you're communicating with not to rat you out to the NSA. Communication by its very nature is never private. At best it's a conspiracy and conspiracies are notoriously fragile.
There is no way that I can compete with the NSA regarding the privacy of my communications. ProtoTypical writes:
The biggest threat to your privacy is you.
ringo writes:
I just want them to not be the biggest threat to my privacy. How far do you want the state to go?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Tell that to the bees. I am not sure that I have the pheromonic capacity. Also, while I am sure that there are similarities, I am not sure that I would accept being equated with an insect.
You're oversimplifying the definition of "benefit". Like the bees, many members of our society willingly sacrifice themselves, including their lives, for the greater good. You don't get to decide whether letting the police search my house is a benefit to me. You are welcome to sacrifice your rights as you see fit. The state, however, should not even be asking you to nor taking advantage of any ignorance that you may have.
I told you I was representing the fascist position in this discussion. Well you are succeeding.
On the contrary, the basic unit of humanity is society. Pfft. It most assuredly is not. The basic unit of humanity is a human.
Individuals have only obligations to society. They have only the rights that society confers on them. Well I see it a different way. People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend. History shows us the long list of people who have claimed their rights and then defended them. Society is the mechanism that they use to defend their rights after they have fought for them.
Laws should be based on harm or imminent potential for harm, not on "affronts". Otherwise we'd have laws against ugly sweaters. And they are. Insult is just the first measure of harm. My point is that the affront that some feel to their security from my web searches is far less reasonable than the affront that I feel by their looking at my web searches.
You're mistaking whom the "enemy" is. Even if the NSA "shouldn't" listen in, you can't trust the people you're communicating with not to rat you out to the NSA. Communication by its very nature is never private. At best it's a conspiracy and conspiracies are notoriously fragile. Well that is completely beside the point. There is no similarity between intercepting a private communication and one of the parties betraying the privacy of a communication. The information belongs to the two parties involved and not to any third party. For a third party to access the information they should have some probable cause that legitimises the intrusion. Being afraid of what we are talking about or reading is not a legitimate reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't believe "they" are as timid or ignorant as you portray them. The general American public? You need to get out more.
Or take MADD or SADD. Nah, let's stick with SOPA. Do you care to address the point?
They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state. Yeah, you just get a team of six cops visiting your house if you Google the wrong things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
The state is us. We (society) decide what we will ask us to do.
You are welcome to sacrifice your rights as you see fit. The state, however, should not even be asking you to.... ProtoTypical writes:
No man is an island - i.e. no human is a unit. Children can't even develop without social interaction.
The basic unit of humanity is a human. ProtoTypical writes:
Yes, that's the feudal system but we've moved beyond that. In a democracy, we decide which rights we will grant each other - i.e. which ones are worth defending.
People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend. ProtoTypica writes:
But you are not the supreme arbiter of what is "reasonable". Society is.
My point is that the affront that some feel to their security from my web searches is far less reasonable than the affront that I feel by their looking at my web searches. ProtoTypical writes:
The information belongs to whomever either of the parties gives it to.
There is no similarity between intercepting a private communication and one of the parties betraying the privacy of a communication. The information belongs to the two parties involved and not to any third party. ProtoTypcal writes:
Once again, that is not your call.
Being afraid of what we are talking about or reading is not a legitimate reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholi Scientist writes:
Don't run away. Explain how SOPA is different from SADD and MADD and then we can address SOPA. And then we can address SADD and MADD.
Nah, let's stick with SOPA. Do you care to address the point? Catholic Scientist writes:
You're the one who needs to get out more. That is definiely not an indication of a police state.
ringo writes:
Yeah, you just get a team of six cops visiting your house if you Google the wrong things. They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well if you don't care to address my point then I'll just stop replying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I did address your point. If you don't care to address my address I'll wave goodbye as you run away.
Well if you don't care to address my point then I'll just stop replying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
You're the one who needs to get out more. That is definiely not an indication of a police state. ringo writes:
Yeah, you just get a team of six cops visiting your house if you Google the wrong things. They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state. And you'll get shot to death if you freak out drive around all crazy, even if you have your 1 year old child in the car with you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
That's a safety device, like a fire extinguisher. And you'll get shot to death if you freak out drive around all crazy, even if you have your 1 year old child in the car with you In a police state, they make house calls to wake you up and shoot you. The service is better but the protection is lacking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Here's some Vietnam vets getting arrested for refusing to leave the NYC memorial:
source Edited by Catholic Scientist, : syntax Edited by Catholic Scientist, : strike two
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ProtoTypical writes:
Yes, that's the feudal system but we've moved beyond that. In a democracy, we decide which rights we will grant each other - i.e. which ones are worth defending.People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend. Then a remnant of the feudal system survives, and will always survive, Ringo. Proto is correct. We have only those rights we can defend. People can tell themselves they have a right against unusual search and seizure but if they do not zealously defend that right then we get things like the TSA. Without constant defense of a right against the encroachment of government and society, even in those most disagreeable instances, then that "right" is nothing but platitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
We are society. In a democracy, we are the government. Without constant defense of a right against the encroachment of government and society, even in those most disagreeable instances, then that "right" is nothing but platitude. We have met the enemy and he is us. We must defend ourselves against the encroachment of ourselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Washington D.C. has had a Juvenile Curfew Act since 1995. Apparently it applies to second childhoods too.
Here's some Vietnam vets getting arrested for refusing to leave the NYC memorial:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024