Wither Liberty
The two pieces below (especially the Guardian) are worth the time...it frightens me that we are increasingly accepting the notion that 'if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.' Historically the accumulation of such information by government agencies (and this is only the stuff they tell us about (eg- wire taps in the US were leaked rather than presented to the public)) has never been a sign of a free society.
What is the difference between a terrorist today and an enemy of the state in the former USSR both in terms of how the government treats them and how the population at large regards them? Is it possible that we too are sacrificing and stigmatizing a minority to the benefit of chimerical ideology held by the majority? Though today such questions may seem absurd and exaggerated I think they deserve serious thought and consideration.
Do you really want your government to know where you drove, when you did it, and even (thanks to internet and phone surveillance) why you did it? Isn’t the very basis of liberal democracy the protection and preservation of a private sphere?
I think I should re-visit Orwell’s 1984 to better understand the risks of where we might be heading.
Guardian
realy short news
What is the difference between a terrorist today and an enemy of the state in the former USSR both in terms of how the government treats them and how the population at large regards them? Is it possible that we too are sacrificing and stigmatizing a minority to the benefit of chimerical ideology held by the majority? Though today such questions may seem absurd and exaggerated I think they deserve serious thought and consideration.
Do you really want your government to know where you drove, when you did it, and even (thanks to internet and phone surveillance) why you did it? Isn’t the very basis of liberal democracy the protection and preservation of a private sphere?
I think I should re-visit Orwell’s 1984 to better understand the risks of where we might be heading.
Guardian
realy short news
posted by Germain at 14:39
1 Comments:
I agree with the sentiment that we should be deeply suspicious of each accretion of power by the national government (be it the federal government or the crown), but I must admit I am bored by the constant rehearsal of the security vs. civil liberties argument that treats the two as mutually exclusive propositions. I want both, and am willing to tolerate some compromise of each to keep both. I would be surprised if anyone but the most callow ACLU attorney found that controversial. As long as we don't slip into that comfortably worn rhetorical groove, the Guardian's piece has some merit.
The second paragraph of the post, however, gives me some trouble, particularly, "What is the difference between a terrorist today and an enemy of the state in the former USSR both in terms of how the government treats them and how the population at large regards them?" If the comparison is only "in terms of" those two items, okay, go ahead and compare, but be careful that you don't accidentally smuggle in the righteousness of one cause and impute it to the vicious other. Absent such moral equivocation, what is the end toward which such a comparison is directed? NB: it can't be said that morality doesn't enter the equation because the difference between, for example, locking up rapists and locking up those who disagree with the latest tax plan is the nature of the actions of those who are locked up.
Post a Comment
<< Home