stackedmidgets's comments

Addict.

Technically, the US is supposed to be allied with most of those EU member governments. Violating the security of your allies isn't exactly a friendly move.

It was only a temporary fix last time, would be an even more temporary fix this time.

And American policy regarding spying on private people worldwide isn't bad for international relations? Isn't bad for relations with China? Isn't harmful to American businesses seeking to serve the Chinese market?

Won't work. Think a little harder. Why do you think this has happened?

Hint. Answer this brain-teaser: 'How can a piece of paper with words on it restrain legislators effectively?' Has history validated the proposition that constitutions are effective tools for restraining governments?

You asked for elaboration, so...

Chomsky agrees with what I said! And it's more than just Madison. Read the Federalist papers. Or this long letter from John Adams to John Taylor, source of this shopworn quote on democracy [1]:

>"You say, I “might have exhibited millions of plebeians sacrificed to the pride, folly, and ambition of monarcy and aristocracy.” This is very true. And I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."

...

>"Democracy is chargeable with all the blood that has been spilled for five-and-twenty years.

>Napoleon and all his generals were but creatures of democracy, as really as Rienzi, Theodore, Massaniello, Jack Cade, or Wat Tyler. This democratical hurricane, inundation, earthquake, pestilence, call it which you will, at last aroused and alarmed all the world, and produced a combination unexampled, to prevent its further progress."

Currently, our politicians quite rightly talk of the US as a democracy, because it is such a universal suffrage state within the shell of a republic.

>What exactly are you referring to? You seem to be arguing that the word fascism is overused, and then go on to explain that democracy would lead to tyranny, and at least the NSA understands that. This is so broken I really, really wish you could elaborate. Call it morbid curiosity.

I'm actually quite familiar with the Chomsky critique of the American system for restricting democracy. That's not what I'm referring to.

1. I dislike it when people use 'fascist' as an all-purpose insult meaning 'form of government that I don't like that people have been propagandized against.' I suggest that people actually read fascist tracts (like 'The Doctrine of Fascism' [2]) if they're going to use the term. When people use the word, their brains shut off. It's also vulgar to claim that fascism is just the 'unification of corporations and the state.'

Now, part of the problem is that fascists were themselves gooey about the definition of what their system was -- but it's clear that whatever economic system they chose to use was subordinate to their 'spiritual' goals -- and that 'spiritual' outlook is mostly absent in the US system. While the US system may share certain characteristics of fascist states, it is not itself fascistic, and proclaiming that it is just muddles the discussion. It confuses effects with causes.

The reason why that's important is because if you believe that secret fascists are the ones corrupting the republic, all you need to do is find the scapegoats and hang them. The truth is that the source of these abuses comes from a deeper source -- the idea that constitutions the source of some strange law-magic that can restrict the actions of people in government. Regardless of how clever it seemed in the 18th century, it's now quite obvious that paper with words on it is not a source of eldritch government-restricting powers.

2. Yes, the current state under democracy is entirely a predictable consequence of the political form. I would say that Chomsky's reading of 'Politics' is incorrect in a general sense while being correct in a couple specific aspects (saying that democracy is a counter-weight to oligarchy). It'd be very tough to make a case that Aristotle saw a political system based on the first principle that men are equal in any sense as workable (because he writes the opposite in Book V, paragraph 3 [3]). 'Politics' is an essentially cynical work that describes how all political systems tend to crumble with time and the influence of human vice. While I can see why Chomsky would interpret it in the way that he does, I'd say that he's cherry picking to make a point for his favored system. Much in the same way that the founders did, arguably, to lend a classical garland to their new republic.

Hope I've satisfied your morbid curiosity.

Anyway, the NSA's actions are consistent with the addled mission of the American state as a whole. You can't provide security for Europe, the Pacific regions, certain Middle East states, many parts of Asia, and the Americas without a global surveillance state to support that mission. The main issue is that the broad policies are not achievable and shouldn't be pursued in the first place. Trying to limit what the NSA can do while also trying to preserve current US policies is just confused. You can't have both privacy and Empire. The former impedes the latter too much.

Yet, tyrannical aggression, both internationally and domestically, are popular political platforms. 'The people' are just getting cold feet about what that requires. Just another point against giving the wheel of state to the fickle and blood-soaked hands of 'the people.'

[1]http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s... [2]http://www.upf.edu/materials/fhuma/nacionalismes/nacio/docs/... [3]http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html

Fascism has a particular meaning that most people misuse. While presidents like FDR took a lot of inspiration from the fascists, it's tough to say that the US is authentically fascistic. First of all, it's mistaken to proclaim that a government is something that it claims that it's not. Second, the US is too pluralistic in terms of policy towards culture to be considered fascist.

You can say that a system is bad or dysfunctional without likening it to the Italian and German/Austrian governments under Mussolini and Hitler. If you read Mussolini's speeches + books or Hitler's books + speeches (not that they're terribly interesting except as historical documents), you learn that most people using 'fascist' as a pejorative don't really understand what it means.

The US is just as it claims it is: a democracy. There are good reasons as to why thinkers ranging from the founding fathers of the US to Aristotle were skeptical about the long term viability of democracy as a system of government. All these brutal, freedom-sacrificing policies are absolutely necessary to maintain democratic government. This is something most modern Westerners are unwilling to acknowledge. Spooks in the NSA and elsewhere at least comprehend that what they do is necessary to maintain their government, as reprehensible as their actions are.

What do you get when you give 300m+ people political power? The same disaster that many of the founders predicted would happen: tyranny, social dissolution, and foul policies motivated by envy.

'Please stop pointing out that our staffer is a dumb collaborator.'

This is the real method by which Team Government encourages compliance. It'd be a real shame to see that tax loophole that you rely on closed. Nice company you got there. Would be real upsetting if your new corporate headquarters construction were to be held up waiting for a permit.

Mobsters in worse suits.

I'll be sorely disappointed in myself if I'm not on the list.

This is why those EU states are subordinate to the US and have been so since V-E day. Want to stop being subordinate? Kick out those soldiers.

Terrorists who are competent harden their communications to avoid US sigint, where the superiority of the US agencies is paramount and well-known.

The US is known to have particularly weak human intelligence networks (few spies actually capable of infiltrating foreign terrorist groups). Al Qaeda and the rest know that it's incredibly risky to use electronic communications, so the people that you'd want to monitor already know they're being targeted.

Naturally, the US government's response to this has been to bet more heavily on signals intelligence.

Before that, you'd be voted down and hollered at because there would be little credibility for it among common idiots. This has been the case for years, because a lot of the information about the NSA published by journalists was built on anonymous sourcing. Now, there's more documentary evidence available to support it, so the US government no longer enjoys the benefit of ignorant doubt.

Now, these stories can gain traction.

From a German perspective, it probably doesn't matter at all whether or not this story is even true or how the messages were retrieved if it is true. The US has earned the mistrust of the world.

To be fair, your governments lack the military strength to withstand the US. Germany is still under American occupation. To really throw off the yoke (which I support), you'll need to re-militarize.

All they really have to do is refuse to enforce American IP. New copycat competitors will emerge immediately.

Thank God. Can this fad die yet?

More likely his haircut, or some other negative quality.

Name changes are cheap, at least in America. Change your name, get a new haircut, and voila, you can begin building your new identity. This isn't even an issue with technology, per se.

The guy's not powerless, he just has too much faith in courts. Why else would you be fool enough to sue your psycho ex-girlfriend? Has anyone ever said "boy, I'm glad I got into a legal entanglement with that person who hates me, because it sure resolved the grudge!"

No. Going to the courts is a fantastic method for elongating a momentary hatred to a lifelong vendetta.

Also, this is a culture clash. If you banged an American girl as an itinerant teacher in 1850, her brothers and her father might have just tracked you down to shoot you. Forget about cyberstalkin' -- they would've just stalk-stalked you and killed you like a possum.

Malaysia's sexual mores in 201* != America's 201* mores.

They're not actually 'maximizing ad revenue.' They're usually trying to maximize pageviews. Understanding that distinction seems to be beyond a lot of the online media business these days.