[voidfunc]

Idealist views like this get us nowhere either tho.

The reality is somewhat more murky. On a long enough time horizon your point makes sense, we might be able to get rid of the security state by slowly chipping away at ig over hundreds or thousands of years.

Most of us are going to be dead in about 40 years tho. Security state isn't going anywhere in that timeframe.

[_heimdall]

Why not? Change like that happens slowly, then all at once. I can't say I'm optimistic that it will be gotten rid of, but if its worth fighting for then it doesn't matter if it seems likely.

[Roark66]

>Most of us are going to be dead in about 40 years tho. Security state isn't going anywhere in that timeframe.

How would you know? Think about the collapse of the Soviet Union, or communism in other countries. 2-3 years before it was unthinkable.

[Zetaphor]

I'm curious to hear someone explain why you're being downvoted

[_factor]

Because it is defeatist and helps no one?

“Just give up, it’s a hard problem.”

[jll29]

Out of all places on the Web, this one should be where solutions to (get rid of/limit the surveillance state) are devised. If the HN community doesn't have the will or skill, who else has?

[CalRobert]

Maybe the dead in forty years comment. Though considering accelerating climate collapse and the possibility of nuclear conflict it’s not completely unreasonable in my view.

[PlatoIsADisease]

Its the demagogue problem in democracy.

People love idealism. It never works, but it sounds amazing.

Reddit, HN, and every democracy has the same problem... at least for a few years.

I think after this bout of Trumpism, the republicans will not be able to elect another populist demagogue for a generation. I think democrats need to do a round as well.