Skip to main content

View Diary: Putting Surveillance in Historical Context (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So I didn't offer facts, except when I did. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Simpson, Larsstephens
    Which means what?
    Exactly what it says: That no long-standing liberal republic has ever become something other than a liberal republic due to allowing its government to gather information.  That hyperbole implying otherwise is completely unfounded.
    What Republics have had the ability our government has to track things?
    Technological progress does not make history irrelevant.  The radio and telephone offered unprecedented surveillance opportunities to the governments of the 20th century, and yet somehow the existence of the same technological capabilities - and at least anecdotally many of the same abuses - did not cause the Western powers to resemble the Axis or the Communist bloc in how its citizens were treated.
    Your question should be, now that we have unprecedented surveillance ability are we really able to accurately make statements like, no Republic has ever fallen because of internal surveillance.
    You're welcome to argue that we're making novel mistakes and will be the first ever state to collapse into despotism because we allowed internal surveillance, but claims that have no basis in historical precedent or even extrapolation of historical trends need extraordinary evidence.  

    So what precisely is the logic of that statement?  Where is the magical alchemy where knowledge that before was a latent potential kept in check by the reality of politics in a liberal republic spontaneously erupts into a China-like state?  The danger lies principally in the enforcement actions governments take, not nearly as much the precipitating information.

    I can pick it apart piece by piece but I don't have the time or the patience to argue with someone so set in their ways they refuse to budge.
    Yeah, you're the "fastest gun in the West," whose arguments are so strong and honed you don't even have to speak them.  After all, you believe them, so what further argument or fact could be necessary to convince an intelligent citizen that history is wrong and you're right?

    Nothing makes a Republican angrier than a smile on a poor child's face.

    by Troubadour on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 02:49:40 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site