Banning natural gas hookups in new homes and future bans of gasoline-powered cars come to mind. I think governments that do such things lose legitimacy.
Would you pay someone to follow you everywhere to collect your fingerprints and file them with the local police department 24/7?
That's whats happening - you are paying someone to investigate you, without reasonable suspicion or probably cause. Its literally illegal for police to do this, but legal for apple.
Who exactly is an elite? I knew people who definitely weren't a decade ago, got rich in tech, and act like the people we used to rant about in private.
It feels very cyclical, and ten years is not as long as you'd think, on a cosmic scale.
At some point this weekend, in a backyard in DC. Politicians of all stripes will gather with business owners, celebrities and foreign dignitaries, eat hot dogs and discuss how the country will be ran.
The elites are everyone who is invited to the cookout.
Why do people like to suck all the color out of language? I don't feel that statement would have been improved by listing every dietary preference possible.
For me it’s the condescending left wing of a lot of tech companies who want to control what information is being shared because of belief that only they know what’s truly right and wrong. See Project Veritas and the Twitter exec.
Most frustrating is the irony that they became wealthy and successful due to the systems (capitalism, police/law and order, low taxes) they now claim to hate.
It would seem the Democrats and to a lesser extent the Republicans are the new thought police, much like various religious groups in the 1900s who codified their opinion of "christianity" into law. Each side trying to force whatever on the populace for their personal gain. Democrats are pronouns, forced vaccination, forced slavery via taxes, and Republicans are unchecked police power, civil forfeiture, and 'trust the courts' which almost always rule with the powers that be.
An elite is anyone with enough money and/or societal and political influence, to get invited to events like Davos, Bilderberg, etc., to discuss their plans for shaping world policy. They essentially act like unelected oligarchs. The policies they elect to implement via their various subordinate organizations may or may not actually succeed, however. But they can try.
Some of this is valid concerns, but a strong vibe of ”anti democracy” in there too. Government is a direct extension of interests and will of the people (at least it should be.)
In this vein the EU privacy regulations at least reflect an opposing force to the worst concerns mentioned.
If collective regulation by elected officials is used to drive down society’s resource consumption or protect public health and it is implemented fairly and not invading _too much_ on other primary concerns (like privacy and protection from unfair litigation) I’m not sure we should be so alarmed about stuff like this (compared to Mad Max / Water World future threatening our children at least.)
This is blatantly false, and calling the opinion to limit the power of government "anti democracy" is pure authoritarian Orwellian doublespeak.
> Government is a direct extension of interests and will of the people (at least it should be.)
This is definitely false in America.
The American government hasn't been a "direct extension of interests and will of the people" in multiple decades, if not half a century, and won't be until the regulatory capture, rampant monopolies, anticompetitive behavior, two-party system, bribery disguised as lobbying, and disproportionate representation of special interest groups all end.
Until then, limiting the power of government is the only sane course of action.
Yeah, I put the "anti democracy" in quotes bc I wasn't quite sure. I'm looking for a term for this sentiment. Any suggestions?
I'm not sure libertarianism, conservativity or "right wing" hit the mark either. It is a strong sentiment anyway.
Perhaps "anti democracy" fits better when the thinking in question gets exported and adapted to this side of the pond.
Here most governments are mostly relatively functional, representative and quite a bit more socialistic too. Here the thinking I'm referring to tends to manifest as distrust of government and media, skipping voting or giving "protest votes" to strange fringe parties all contributing to the erosion of the said strong and representative government.
I was also a little bit thinking about USA when I added the "at least it should be". I can see the point better in that situation, though I can't completely agree. I would add erosion of public education to the list of things to get rid of btw.
> “ Thanks to a new provision in the trillion-dollar infrastructure bill,” a couple of op-ed writers tell us in The Hill, “your car will be used against you in a court of law. Under this long-ignored provision, carmakers will be required to start monitoring drivers by 2026 using unspecified technology to search for signs of drinking.”
Anyone even remotely concerned about privacy or constitutional rights should be very worried about a government-mandated poorly-defined surveillance device "for our own good", such as this one.
Well, we just need to contextualize it in terms they understand. For instance, let's publicize who has had abortions or STD's or watched certain types of porn or sent sexually explicit text messages - let's put it all out there! Oh wait...now people care.
That's an interesting take considering the recent vaccine mandate program was also, in a way, a surveillance program. Making lists of people who took the vaccine, and those who didn't, and those who didn't were targeted and controlled.
It's not anything new, they've been using fear to push authoritarian measures for ages and the virus scare was a perfect opportunity. Another classic is playing with people's emotions concerning the safety of their children. "We need this and that massive breach of privacy to protect our children from pedophiles."
Much like "We're going to scan your phone for child porn", "we're going to track you for carbon footprint" is using a good social cause to justify enslavement.
It's obvious you can be against the horrendous crime of child exploitation but also know that all surveillance by governments is abused.
> A black box on automobiles that would be used to track mileage to determine how much drivers should pay for the roads in lieu of standardized fuel taxes
Libertarians often don't know what they're really asking for.
Lately I been feeling a bit like this, like I was travelling recently and was cut off from my account for several days (while on the road) because I forgot ti supply my government issued ID number to the bank which is now regulation.
Honestly, I can see why people love the idea of cryptos after this experience.
The experience made me feel like a criminal and quite vulnerable.
29 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 79.1 ms ] threadThat's whats happening - you are paying someone to investigate you, without reasonable suspicion or probably cause. Its literally illegal for police to do this, but legal for apple.
It feels very cyclical, and ten years is not as long as you'd think, on a cosmic scale.
The elites are everyone who is invited to the cookout.
(Not every American eats pork.)
Most frustrating is the irony that they became wealthy and successful due to the systems (capitalism, police/law and order, low taxes) they now claim to hate.
In this vein the EU privacy regulations at least reflect an opposing force to the worst concerns mentioned.
If collective regulation by elected officials is used to drive down society’s resource consumption or protect public health and it is implemented fairly and not invading _too much_ on other primary concerns (like privacy and protection from unfair litigation) I’m not sure we should be so alarmed about stuff like this (compared to Mad Max / Water World future threatening our children at least.)
This is blatantly false, and calling the opinion to limit the power of government "anti democracy" is pure authoritarian Orwellian doublespeak.
> Government is a direct extension of interests and will of the people (at least it should be.)
This is definitely false in America.
The American government hasn't been a "direct extension of interests and will of the people" in multiple decades, if not half a century, and won't be until the regulatory capture, rampant monopolies, anticompetitive behavior, two-party system, bribery disguised as lobbying, and disproportionate representation of special interest groups all end.
Until then, limiting the power of government is the only sane course of action.
I'm not sure libertarianism, conservativity or "right wing" hit the mark either. It is a strong sentiment anyway.
Perhaps "anti democracy" fits better when the thinking in question gets exported and adapted to this side of the pond.
Here most governments are mostly relatively functional, representative and quite a bit more socialistic too. Here the thinking I'm referring to tends to manifest as distrust of government and media, skipping voting or giving "protest votes" to strange fringe parties all contributing to the erosion of the said strong and representative government.
I was also a little bit thinking about USA when I added the "at least it should be". I can see the point better in that situation, though I can't completely agree. I would add erosion of public education to the list of things to get rid of btw.
Anyone even remotely concerned about privacy or constitutional rights should be very worried about a government-mandated poorly-defined surveillance device "for our own good", such as this one.
There goes 95% of America.
That's how you change the percentages.
It's obvious you can be against the horrendous crime of child exploitation but also know that all surveillance by governments is abused.
I agree, but I feel no need to specify government here. Surveillance is abused and is abuse.
Libertarians often don't know what they're really asking for.
Honestly, I can see why people love the idea of cryptos after this experience.
The experience made me feel like a criminal and quite vulnerable.