The NSA and your privacy

[scspkr99]

This requires a better response but for now I'll just say I agree with a lot of that but then I reject that concept of freedom, it's a fraud.

[rickyarbino]

Yeah I agree but which level of poverty? Poverty, food banks, payday loans just to get through the week have all been massively on the increase in the past year or so despite the UK claiming/bragging about economic growth. People don't really have a great deal of choice over the austerity measures put in place over the past 4 years apart from voting for a different party in the next elections 4 years later. It became very clear after a year or so that austerity has, and continues to be, a huge failure especially on the poorest in society.. but if the party in power want to stick with it, we have to suck it up and accept it.

But getting a bit sidetracked.. my point about the whole illusion of freedom and stuff is that the American government, and other western governments but not to the same degree, have the potential to abuse the public and take advantage. Giving/allowing any organisation this much power in a society that sits back and allows those things to be carried out despite disagreeing with it is dangerous. So I don't really see it as a privacy issue, more about power and the potential to abuse that power.

Economic growth has very little to do with the living standards of a state's citizens, imo. Also, we do technically agree to all of this shit in being citizens, statelessness is the way forward imo.

[Muncey]

This requires a better response but for now I'll just say I agree with a lot of that but then I reject that concept of freedom, it's a fraud.

Yeah I guess I too reject the concept of freedom, its why I said the illusion of freedom.. America pretty heavily promotes itself and its citizens as free along with how others aren't free, which is apparently a good enough reason to invade other countries.

Economic growth has very little to do with the living standards of a state's citizens, imo. Also, we do technically agree to all of this shit in being citizens, statelessness is the way forward imo.

Well it does a bit because the biggest contributor to economic growth is consumption.. but if the middle class get richer while the poor get poorer as long as the middle class are getting richer quicker and spending it the economy will grow while poverty increases. Its an okay indicator of the living standards of the citizens but the assumption that economic growth means living standards are going up is bullshit.

I dunno if I agree that we technically agree to this just because we're citizens, whats the point in ever trying to change anything about the system/politics if we technically all agree by default? That way of thinking just seems to me like you're happy to bend of a barrel and wait to be fucked.

[rickyarbino]

Consumption isn't about standard of living though, it's about how much shit the people in the country pay for; if we pay for shit like sweets, 12" s, club nights and other random shit by using things like payday loans, then economic growth is bound to increase, but that really says nothing about the standard of living.
About poverty increasing, that's only the case when the parameters that dictate population size are in accordance, poverty has more to do with overpopulation than anything else, imo.


The point of trying to change things is that we eventually realize that what we've agreed to doesn't best suit our needs. I suppose that doesn't mean that we should lay down and lap up the bullshit, but I think that's why these issues have, and will, arise. It's a risk that comes about whenever people agree that one, or some, individuals should be more powerful than others. It does draw attention to the fact that in standing against these practices we effectively stand against the government, and when it doesn't comply we pretty much have to revolt in order to get anything done. The fact that the american gov't has nukes is what justifies laying down and lapping up the crap, imo.

[Muncey]

Consumption isn't about standard of living though, it's about how much shit the people in the country pay for; if we pay for shit like sweets, 12" s, club nights and other random shit by using things like payday loans, then economic growth is bound to increase, but that really says nothing about the standard of living.
About poverty increasing, that's only the case when the parameters that dictate population size are in accordance, poverty has more to do with overpopulation than anything else, imo.

People don't use payday loans for sweets and 12" though, those are luxuries.. payday loans are typically for necessities; meaning people can't afford the essentials to live. If consumption is high its a good indicator of standard of living because people are spending money and in an economy the rich don't typically make up a large proportion of consumption, the poor do.. the rich tend to do more saving.. theres only so many private jets one rich person can buy, poor families still have mouths to feed week in week out. Rich countries have better standards of living than poor countries, so in the grand scheme of things it does speak a lot about the standard of living.. my point is a small percentage change from say last year does not mean people are better off, it speaks very little of standards of living. I wouldn't agree that overpopulation is more to do with poverty either, austerity measures are far more damaging than overpopulation. If somewhere is overpopulated it'll naturally become less populated as people emigrate. Scrap/lower a load of benefits, fix wages in real terms for 30 years then increase cost of living and you'll soon see poverty. This doesn't really have much to do with the NSA though, not sure what the point of this discussion is lol.. austerity measures by the Government have made the poorest poorer without a doubt and they (and everybody else) has to suck it up and take it; at least til the next election.

The point of trying to change things is that we eventually realize that what we've agreed to doesn't best suit our needs. I suppose that doesn't mean that we should lay down and lap up the bullshit, but I think that's why these issues have, and will, arise. It's a risk that comes about whenever people agree that one, or some, individuals should be more powerful than others. It does draw attention to the fact that in standing against these practices we effectively stand against the government, and when it doesn't comply we pretty much have to revolt in order to get anything done. The fact that the american gov't has nukes is what justifies laying down and lapping up the crap, imo.

I agree with the bold bit. I'm not sure I agree that trying to change things means we realise it doesn't suit our needs.. I'd argue its the realisation of 'the illusion of freedom'. Its sort of in agreement with your point but importantly its the realisation that we're being fucked and really we can't do much about it. People protest and call for revolts on grand scales not because they think these issues are important and change needs to happen but they realise this is the only way to even make change a likely possibility. The realisation that not only do we not want these things, but we can't really change them if we wanted to. The realisation that really, in this free society, we aren't that free...

[rickyarbino]

Tbf, my bit on payday loans was an extrapolation of Agent's antics with them. The point I'm making is that if the money people spend isn't theirs then their standard of living must be low. You, by your own means, cannot ensure a 'good' (air quotes because I'm using 'good' to mean something a bit like desirable, or esteemable etc.) lifestyle for yourself and the people you care about because you aren't in charge of the means by which your lifestyle is regulated. In theory, the government is supposed to be in charge of this process, and the people are supposed to be in charge of the government. What we find is that this isn't exactly the case when the government acts outside of the desires, though not necessarily the interests, of the people.

The reason the rich don't reflect as large a portion of consumption is that in modern economical systems, they tend to be out numbered by the poor while having access to far more resources than them. This is where that bit about population comes in. People only migrate if they have the means to do so, typically this requires money; which poor people don't have a lot of; so large numbers of people needing large numbers of stuff and not being able to get it means that there's too many people wanting too much stuff in 'too small' (air quotes because this isn't directly related to a state's geometric area(s)) a space to contain the stuff they need. I think it's a discussion on the source of the issues between people and governments.


_________________


I think that your closing points present an impasse for us lol. I think that we are still practicably free to engage in revolution and reform, just that there are a number of reasons that deter us from doing so, I've got nukes to put me off, but to a lot of people the notion of revolution doesn't even occur. I mean, even if we were to revolt, it's not like we wouldn't be painted as terrorists etc, which wouldn't be helpful in compelling people to stand together in spite of differing views for a greater good. People respond more to fear than reason. I do think that if enough of the right people got together they could effectively overwhelm any opposing force, that's the same principle which tells me that there's not much goot to come out of it atm though. It seems to parallel the notion that individualism leads one to lay down and lap up more than collectivism does; individually we most definitely cannot change these things, but collectively we quite possibly could. It's up to us to take the initiative though.

To any NSA inspectors monitoring this thread, I'd like to make it very clear that I do not think that revolution is the only viable option. I'm just observing that, with the right conditions, it could be the easiest. I do not intend to make any personal attacks on the US government, but to reflect on it so as to better understand what I personally would like from a government.