NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily

[Svartalf]

What a complete load.

It's more like Animal Farm than 1984.

Problem is we're all horses.

[Warren Dew]

Only, the program only analyzes for terrorism and security items. That is what they would share. It's not going to share you secret cookie recipe or porn.

Sure ... "terrorism" or "security" issues like whether you're a member of an opposition political group, which seems also to be guiding IRS decisions.

When you have a sudden spate of similar sounding names for groups all claiming tax exempt status at almost the same time you would not want to check to see if they're legit, would you?

I'd want to check and see if every group is legit - not do it only for Tea Party groups while allowing progressive groups or groups led by Obama's brother to get through with minimal scrutiny. And I'd want it done promptly, and not serve as an excuse for years long delay.

[Warren Dew]

I don't know if this is the case, but I would like to see specific legislation from Congress stating that ANY information gathered by the government for national security purposes can ONLY be used for specified national security purposes such as tracking and apprehending terrorists...and NOTHING ELSE.

...and NOTHING ELSE.



You, of all people, are this naive?

Indeed. We're going to expect them to stay within the law when they're willing to flat out lie to the lawmakers?



Obviously he the NSA thought the lawmakers would not be happy with how the law was actually being skirted/ignored.

[Jason]

What a complete load.

It's more like Animal Farm than 1984.

Problem is we're all horses.

There's a pig or two about. The obvious ones are those claiming there's nothing to be concerned about, mocking those who are concerned, claiming it's all for the greater good, etc. The histrionics of sheeple like Seth is what they play on. The horses are subconsciously guided down the middle ground as they learn to ignore the increasing noise between the two. The cynical donkey adopts a sardonic tone.

[Svartalf]

Hee haw.

[Warren Dew]

What I'm wondering more and more these days is what happens when both the anarchists/libertarian-socialists (aka, left libertarians) and the right libertarians decide enough is enough? One side thinks it's the right wing that is the problem, the other thinks it's the left wing that is the problem. Are these two groups going to fight each other, or are they going to come together somehow to overthrow an increasingly authoritarian system?

The way things are lining up in the U.S. is that all the new anarchists seem to be anarcho-capitalist rather than social anarchists. Perhaps today's young people realize that social anarchism actually has tremendous infringements on individual liberty, or perhaps they just think that the Austrian school's accurate prediction of the housing bubble means Austrian school leaders must be right about everything, and not just about economics.

Anarcho-capitalism is a flavor of libertarianism, so they and traditionally minarchist libertarians like myself are natural allies. I have hopes that the anarcho-capitalists will eventually realize that complete anarchy will eventually devolve into, well, complete anarchy, and see the need for a minimal government. However, there are strains of anarcho-capitalism that believe that voluntaryism - which amounts to people providing their own policing, which is why guns are so emphasized in that group - can actually work, despite history suggesting it devolves into corrupt police states. Plus, of course, libertarians love to argue amongst themselves as much as with others, which suggests that the group will have difficulty coming together.

As for those who call themselves "libertarian-socialists", either they will figure out that the term is an oxymoron and choose between libertarian and socialist, or they'll continue to be deluded by their nonsensical political framework. Either way, there aren't enough of them in the U.S. to make a difference, though the situation may be different elsewhere.

[Jason]

So you're an All American Al-Qaeda-type ideology.

[Warren Dew]

So you're an All American Al-Qaeda-type ideology.

No. Al Qaeda is closer to socialist, though they're primarily about theocracy. Of course, that also puts them in opposition to libertarians, most of whom tend to be atheist.

[JimC]

So you're an All American Al-Qaeda-type ideology.

No. Al Qaeda is closer to socialist, though they're primarily about theocracy. Of course, that also puts them in opposition to libertarians, most of whom tend to be atheist.

Are you sure about that?

And the opposition from libertarians to Al Qaeda need have no connection with any atheist issue, simply that theocratic muslims have very prescriptive programs for human societies.

(I've just realised something else that shits me about these Al Qaeda arseholes - no u after the q! )

[Jason]

Meh. In Islam, theocracy is equatable to political ideology. Al-Qaeda is as much about political ideology as your libertarians are.

[Svartalf]

It sure is as much about socialism as the moon is about lobsters.

[Warren Dew]

So you're an All American Al-Qaeda-type ideology.

No. Al Qaeda is closer to socialist, though they're primarily about theocracy. Of course, that also puts them in opposition to libertarians, most of whom tend to be atheist.

Are you sure about that?

I'm not certain about the younger generation of anarcho capitalists; Rothbard was atheist but was tolerant of religion. Until recently, though, most avowed libertarians were objectivist, which is an atheist philosophy.

There is a much larger share of people who have a moderate libertarian philosophy and are religious, but they do not self identify as libertarian.

And the opposition from libertarians to Al Qaeda need have no connection with any atheist issue, simply that theocratic muslims have very prescriptive programs for human societies.

I think it would be difficult for a theocracy not to be quite prescriptive.

[pErvinalia]

The reason so many people are so blasé about this is because they don't fall victim to slippery-slope reasoning faults or overreaction.

I think it's more a case of resignation (as you yourself hinted at a bit further on), and helplessness. I think what is needed is an open conversation about this in society as to what sort of societies we want to live in. Governments shouldn't really be doing things of this scale in secret. They can keep their findings secret, but the process should be subject to open accountability. I think it's time for a wider conversation on this, particularly in light of the other pervasive surveillance technologies that we are subject to daily as well. It's just not acceptable in a liberal democracy for the government to be doing things of this scale and nature in the dark.

I don't care much for Prism, but keeping one eye on history while having an appreciation of modern media technology and how it is used to liberate far more than oppress, I can step back and know that in the long run, we're not getting more authoritarian - quite the opposite.

The real problem is the new dynamic brought by newer technologies. Newer technologies do indeed allow freer flow of information and connections between people. The question should then be - Why should this be a problem? It's actually not a problem. It's a good thing. The problem begins when the government is finding that it is harder to restrict/tailor a narrative to the voting public under such a free technological regime. Hence, the increasing levels of spying, control and distrust. That says more about the failings of the state apparatus, than about anything concerning crime or terrorism. What it clearly shows is that the government wants to restrict our access to information and who we share that information with. That's just not acceptable on a broad scale like this PRISM (and Echelon etc) is.

[pErvinalia]

What I'm wondering more and more these days is what happens when both the anarchists/libertarian-socialists (aka, left libertarians) and the right libertarians decide enough is enough? One side thinks it's the right wing that is the problem, the other thinks it's the left wing that is the problem. Are these two groups going to fight each other, or are they going to come together somehow to overthrow an increasingly authoritarian system?

The way things are lining up in the U.S. is that all the new anarchists seem to be anarcho-capitalist rather than social anarchists. Perhaps today's young people realize that social anarchism actually has tremendous infringements on individual liberty, or perhaps they just think that the Austrian school's accurate prediction of the housing bubble means Austrian school leaders must be right about everything, and not just about economics.

Anarcho-capitalism is a flavor of libertarianism, so they and traditionally minarchist libertarians like myself are natural allies. I have hopes that the anarcho-capitalists will eventually realize that complete anarchy will eventually devolve into, well, complete anarchy, and see the need for a minimal government. However, there are strains of anarcho-capitalism that believe that voluntaryism - which amounts to people providing their own policing, which is why guns are so emphasized in that group - can actually work, despite history suggesting it devolves into corrupt police states. Plus, of course, libertarians love to argue amongst themselves as much as with others, which suggests that the group will have difficulty coming together.

As for those who call themselves "libertarian-socialists", either they will figure out that the term is an oxymoron and choose between libertarian and socialist, or they'll continue to be deluded by their nonsensical political framework. Either way, there aren't enough of them in the U.S. to make a difference, though the situation may be different elsewhere.

Christ, I can't do this. Brings back too many painful memories from RDF.

[Audley Strange]

Objectivism is not Atheist, its God is Narcissus, though some heretics of the Faith believe it to be Plutus.

All faith positions are religious thus all are under the domain of some deity or other.