Subject:
|
Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Dec 2001 06:23:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
442 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Which American Way are we giving up, exactly?
>
> The one in which the rights of the individual is ideally paramount.
I disagree. Two hundred years ago, as now, the rights of the individual
*were* paramount, but the definition of individual was very different and was
suited to the demands of the time. Would slave-dependent states have signed
the Constitution if it meant giving up slavery? Probably not, so the term
"individual" conveniently excluded slaves (who were, apparently, not created
equal). That's not a pleasant truth, but it's the truth, and it was necessary
to establish the country.
Today, it's not a pleasant truth, but a necessary truth, that certain rights
may need to be suspended in some very specific instances in order to preserve
the country. I don't deny that bounds will be overstepped or that corruption
will ensue; these must be dealt with accordingly. But it is quixotic to claim
that the rights of individual privacy always supercede the necessities of
national security. While it may be true that it's better to let ten guilty men
go free than to imprison one innocent man, it is certainly not true that it is
better to let 19 guilty men kill ~5K innocent people than it is to detain one
innocent man.
However, I would agree that great care must be maintained to ensure that
"national security" is a fine brush and not a spraycan.
> > To be fair, no one--and I mean no one--has put forth a reasonable or
> > realistic alternative to Bush's policy. <snip>
> > They're not going out with a big butterfly net to scoop up all olive-skinned
> > males.
>
> How about doing nothing beyond our borders and a lot more to increase
> security without the sacrifice of rights? Seems both realistic and
> reasonable to me.
Well, that's a worthy goal, but naming it is nothing at all like
accomplishing it. One might as well assert that we'd be better off securing a
sense of universal respect for one another; we probably would be better off,
but that wouldn't be any closer to implementing a real-world solution.
To assert a laudable but unattainable goal isn't really realistic or
reasonable.
> Now maybe rights to privacy seems small potatoes in comparison to almost 5K
> dead americans in New York, but the thing is -- you never know what those
> powers to surveillance are going to be put to, and that is the worry.
But that's *always* been the case, and it's *always* been the worry. I have
often asserted that today's technology makes irrelevant Jefferson's comment
about "entangling alliances," but my assertion has just as often been rejected
on the grounds that the principle is sound regardless of yesterday's, today's,
and tomorrow's techology. I would therefore make the claim that, in this case,
the ability to invade individuals' privacy has always existed, so the advent of
technology (and, frankly, the power to use it legally), doesn't make a tangible
difference.
> Dave!, you have obviously never looked over numerous pages of stuff obtained
> under the the Freedom of Information Act, or even simple discovery, that is
> just all this jumbo black marker graffitti over what had been meaningful
> evidentiary texts -- and I have. Do you think a lot of stuff is marked out
> because everything was done to the letter of the law? Please...!
You're asking for a specific answer about a hugely broad range of disparate
subjects, so of course there is no answer to give. I accept that, in many
cases, things have indeed been blocked out because they were "embarrassing" to
the agencies involved, but I also accept the idea that sometimes things are
blocked out because of real and legitimate security concerns. Without more
specific examples, I have no more specific answer.
> BTW, the slippery-slope is a concept used quite commonly by the Supreme
> Court. I don't exactly see what is so apparently fallacious about the human
> tendency to take a mile when only an inch has been given.
Nothing falacious about that at all, and in fact I've asserted it many times
as the precise reason why certain libertarian (small l) ideals are forever
unattainable. However, the falacy arises when we assume that if we the people
allow A to happen, and we the people allow B to happen, therefore we the people
will automatically allow C to happen. I don't deny that power tends to
corrupt, but, used in this context, the slippery slope argument assumes that no
point exists at which we the people will prevent C from taking place.
> Your attitude is well and good in the 21st century american game preserve,
> where the animals are well cared for and reasonably well entertained,
Let me implore you not to roll out the "sheep" metaphor again.
> but I think you are failing to see how quickly things CAN
> and MAY collapse into something a whole lot less fun and carefree.
I would argue that it SHOULD become something a whole lot less fun and
carefree, since that would be a more realistic view of the world.
> BTW, read Glockner's responses. Why do Europeans actually care about their
> rights? Why do they refuse to become as databased as Americans? What's the
> difference? Why does Greenspan say investors would rather put money into
> the U.S. -- is that a good thing? Think over your answers VERY carefully...
I expect there are a number of reasons, some benign and some malign. Let me
think...
The US economy, being quite strong in its own right, is an attractive
investment vehicle for wealthy citizens in nations whose economies are not as
strong. In addition, the US market has a broad and diverse range of
investment opportunities such as are not available in many other nations. The
US stock market is governed by tight Federal controls ensuring (though not,
obviously, guaranteeing) that fraud by brokers against clients is difficult and
severely punished. Further, the availability and liquidity of US domestic
assets allows quick purchase and sale of securities, enabling a domestic or
foreign investor to avoid being saddled indefinitely with a losing prospect
(within the strictures of the nature of the particular security, of course).
Moreover, the extant technology of the US market system is phenomenal and
phenomenally resilient; numerous brokerage firms whose head offices were
located in the WTC were open for business by September 14, and I know
first-hand that several were eager to trade even before that time. The point
in this case is that the resilience of the market and its support structures
speaks very well about the solidity of the US economy and the primary vehicle
for investment in it. Another nice feature of the US market is that foreign
citizens are not subject to Federal income tax on dividends or capital gains
but are instead taxed at a flat, treaty-agreed rate that may be attractive to
non-US investors.
Those are all the ones I can think of at 12:30 Sunday morning. I'll come up
with a bunch more later, if you'd like.
> the recent histories of China, South
> America, Russia (the USSR years), and Germany to name a mere four of
> hundreds of possible examples. If A and B tends to lead to C with a
> demonstrable accuracy of 80%, then I am willing to take steps to prevent C
> if it happens to be an undesirable eventuality.
Okay, but that's only really sound if we posit that pre-existing conditions
in the US are equivalent to those in China, South America, and the USSR, and
that C in those cases is similar and equally likely to result from A and B as
it would be in the US. It is still selective speculation based on incomplete
analogy.
> You come off as all logic and reason and then discard ideas out of hand
> simply because they are also the rhetorical ammo of some possibly
> marginalized groups? Have you REALLY considered the IDEAS of themselves, and
> not their association with perceived fringe groups?
Ad hominem. I have indeed considered the ideas and not the fringe groups
themselves, but often the ideas of fringe groups are only relevant if one
accepts the assumptions of the fringe groups, or if one assumes the existence
of as-yet-unseen-and-unnamed evidence, or if one accepts that the conclusions
of the fringe groups result from the group's assumptions.
> BTW, last time I looked it was a simple fact that the U.S. has one of the
> most incarcerated populations on the planet (by percentage, not sheer
> numbers) -- it used to be second only to the USSR, but the fall of that
> power bumps us up to #1 status. The incarcerated also have a funny way of
> looking like non-whites in the main. The north american game preserve
> already is the world's leading police state, you just haven't noticed this
> yet.
Anyone who publicly asserts that the US is a police state is effectively
disproving the assertion that the US is a police state. You are equating the
so-called "political prisoners" of the USSR with the incarcerated population of
the US. I recognize that this is a bridge into the politics of the drug war
that you mention below, so I'll address that part a few paragraphs down. For
what it's worth, I feel that all drug offenders who are incarcerated solely for
drug use or possession should be freed, but if they've committed other crimes,
then they should remain in prison.
As far as the non-whites in prison issue, I agree that the demographics are
shockingly skewed, but you seem to be assuming that the cause is far simpler
than is really the case. It can be statistically shown, for instance, that
lower-income individuals are more often incarcerated for crimes than
higher-income individuals. First of all, this has been the case in nearly
every society for many centuries, so it's pointless to argue about it as if
it's a new phenomenon resultant from a so-called police state. Secondly, the
myriad causes must be considered, rather than simply saying "they're in jail
because they're non-white;" while the result may appear that basic, countless
cultural, societal, economic, and familial causes (to name just a few) are at
play. The fact that Ashcroft can listen to your phone call is irrelevant to
that issue.
Finally, by asserting that "I just haven't noticed it yet," you are joining
the ranks of Campus Crusaders who assert that I'll accept God once I've seen
him. You are requiring me to make a conclusive, reasonable judgment based on
your unreasonable assertion.
> Do you think that the drug war is more an economic/political, or more a
> moral/health issue? Note that Congress gave the problem over to a law
> enforcement agency (the DEA) and not a dependency cessation program (the AMA
> perhaps?). Which solution might have worked? Has the DEA solution worked?
Obviously it's economic/political. If the DEA and possession/use laws were
eliminated, it would be an economic/health issue. What's your point?
> Is it your view that the KGB had substantially more ability to harass the
> average person then does the DEA, NSA, or the IRS?
"More" is a devilishly tricky word in this case. I would say that the DEA,
NSA, and IRS were sustantially less able to "disappear" an individual than was
the KGB. I would also say that the KGB was more readily able to incarcerate an
individuals on the basis of speech alone.
It's also imprecise to lump the DEA, NSA, and IRS into a single group, since
their methods, jurisdictions, and abilities are greatly different. The KGB was
a monolithic entity able by charter to reach into any aspect of a Soviet
citizen's life. I would assert therefore that "more" or "less" ability to
harass is a catch-all phrase without specific worth in this argument. Further,
if you group enough lesser agencies together under one banner then of course
you're going to get to a point at which the gestalt has "more" ability to
harass than any other token agency. One could suggest that Microsoft, Intel,
Apple, Verizon, and TCI have more combined ability to harass an individual than
the KGB, but what would be the point?
> Guilty until proven innocent, similar to a presumption commonly made in U.S.
> tax court, is not a very fun position from which to defend oneself. My
> guess is that you would have no idea how to contest such a claim in a court
> of law in the U.S. -- not as a belligerant claimant in propia persona
> defending his rights. Pray that you never have to face such a calamity.
I don't know what to do if my furnace breaks, other than retain the services
of someone able to undertake repairs. If I were called upon to defend myself in
the legal arena, I would probably retain the services of someone able to
undertake my defense in the legal arena. I expect that it would indeed not be
pleasant, and if I'd truly done nothing legally wrong then I'd probably be
inclined to believe that the US is a police state more able to harass than the
KGB. However, that would not make it true.
Then again, I don't pray, so maybe I'm damned in any case.
> But what would you do if you were not afforded the rights of a citizen in the
> first place? What if you were perceived as belonging to a fringe terrorist
> group and your former rights as a U.S. citizen were summarily denied you?
Obviously this requires an answer entirely outside of my personal experience
or yours. If I am to speculate, however, I must require you to name which
actions of mine caused me to be labeled a fringe terrorist. Otherwise I've
been set an impossible task.
> Ever seen cops pile things on top of your original artwork, forever damaging
> it, so they can continue to trash your house? Ever seen cops walk into court
> with a Halliburton briefcase they took from your house and now use as their
> own? Ever read the enumeration of things taken from your home only to note
> that many things were taken and not accounted for? Ever seen the
> subornation of perjury and the concealment of exonerating evidence in
> action? Ever lost your car because you were trying to purchase a lid of
> marijuana on a street corner. Ever seen a cop driving that same car within
> the week? Ever had a cop plant drugs on you to make the collar good when it
> wasn't? Ever seen a crime perpetrated by a policeman become a criminal
> charge against the victim? Ever work for the Federal program UNICOR? Ever
> been handcuffed, held for over 6 hours face down in the middle of the
> street, and beaten intermittently -- only to then be released without so
> much as a simple apology? [All of the above has happened to people I know
> personally in the Los Angeles area.]
These are, of course, anecdotal examples. I might counter-assert that my
friend the cop has personally stopped a preschool-age child from being murdered
by her stepfather, or that another cop has personally taken a bullet to protect
a not-so-innocent bystander, or that yet another cop has been instrumental in
reducing the numbers of burglaries and assaults within his beat, or that nine
years ago a cop's sudden appearance kept me from being shot by a robber while I
worked 3rd shift at a 7-11.
Do my examples prove that the US is a police-perfect utopia? Of course not,
and neither do your examples prove the opposite. I would further point out
that, without any further documentation (which you understandably can't provide
here) your examples require me to draw a conclusion solely on the basis of
hearsay.
Well, what kind of answer would satisfy you? You're acting as if Federal
Police Policy required Officer Bob to take your friend's car and to beat your
other friend. The issue in these cases is corruption, as I'm sure you're
aware. Why have the victims in your anecdotal examples sought no recourse?
Have they all tried and all failed? Have some tried and some failed? Without
knowledge of the resolution of these admittedly terrible incidents, there's
obviously no way I can answer you.
> Are hackers/crackers terrorists?
You're very fond of positing open-ended questions that seem to require
absolute answers. My answer in this case is yes, some hackers/crackers are
terrorists, just as some librarians are terrorists. Some hackers/crackers are
not terrorists, just as some librarians are not terrorists. Are you implying
that all hackers/crackers have been pursued with the same vigor afforded to
bomb-wielding terrorists? I disagree. In any case, the illegal accessing of
confidental materials is criminal; hackers/crackers that do so are therefore
criminals by definition--do you assert otherwise?
In anticipation of a possible response, I hasten to point out that, if they
are acting within the written law, then government agents who access
confidential materials are by definition *not* breaking the law.
> Is my speech, these very words, protected -- or does it mark me for possible
> surveillance?
Probably both, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
> Dave!, you just don't know what you have been missing. But that's cool,
> stay the path of the civil rights version of Doubting Thomas and you may
> just find out!
Oh, Richard! That's simple argument from fear, and it's no more persuasive
here than it has been in other debates in which I've been warned that I'll feel
the fires of hell unless I repent.
> I stand for the immortal ideals of the United States and the current crisis
> be damned. To be frank, I think the onus is on the other side to show that
> these 200+ year old ideals are poorly conceived and that they should be
> easily abandoned in favor of ultra-weak, band-aid fixes that give the mere
> appearance that something is being done to protect us.
Well, I would be greatly interested to see how Jefferson et al would handle
today's situation. In any case, we have yet to establish which ideals of the
United States are immortal.
Dave!
And anyway, where's your MOC?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
