Saving the Internet from the NSA

[JimC]

C'mon Audley... the panel of leaders we "choose from" is not itself made by us, and the choice is among the corrupt and incompetent, I don't call it a choice, for if I had a choice, all those submitted to my suffrage would be cleaning toilets in Burkina Faso.

It is a flawed system, no doubt, and the process of choosing is warped by wealth, power and self-interest, but I'd still rather have a flawed choice than no choice at all...

[Audley Strange]

C'mon Audley... the panel of leaders we "choose from" is not itself made by us, and the choice is among the corrupt and incompetent, I don't call it a choice, for if I had a choice, all those submitted to my suffrage would be cleaning toilets in Burkina Faso.

Oh I'm not denying any of that. However this happens because we are complacent. A few assassinated ministers and bankers in 2008 and our economies would be in much better condition. Instead we shrug say "whatyagonnado" and then keep employing scumbags. I think we like actually it since we can blame the Government for all our woes rather than accept we've fucked up by perpetuating ineptitude and corruption in that vocation.

[pErvinalia]

The use of "we" here is the problem. "We" the us - those of us who know how corrupt and self-interested most politicians are, are a big minority. The other "we" are the rest of the sheep who are so indoctrinated up to their eyeballs, and in debt up to their eyeballs, that they can't possibly conceive of revolting. It's not as simple as saying in a democracy the people get who they deserve. That might work in a proper democracy, but we are a LONG way from a proper purely functioning democracy.

[Mysturji]

... perhaps we should be more cautious on ... who we vote in to protect us? ...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

We choose our leaders. Rather than rail against an agency doing the job given to it by it's regime perhaps we should be more cautious of which leaders we choose if they find it acceptable and we don't. More and more politics seems to be inevitably trans-national and we have seen for decades a political Caste emerge which does not represent the people but their own interests as a collective. We're complacent about it, cynical about it, but we still keep them in power.

Well, we vote, and members of the government are selected on the basis of the counting of ballots, but I'm under no illusions that any of them are there to protect us.

[Audley Strange]

... perhaps we should be more cautious on ... who we vote in to protect us? ...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

We choose our leaders. Rather than rail against an agency doing the job given to it by it's regime perhaps we should be more cautious of which leaders we choose if they find it acceptable and we don't. More and more politics seems to be inevitably trans-national and we have seen for decades a political Caste emerge which does not represent the people but their own interests as a collective. We're complacent about it, cynical about it, but we still keep them in power.

Well, we vote, and members of the government are selected on the basis of the counting of ballots, but I'm under no illusions that any of them are there to protect us.

Nor am I, but they are. That's exactly the problem. Some murderous idiots blow up a school and they go into full alert mode because if they don't and more people die and they might look bad, so instead they allow those who have the most lurid scare-stories to frame the security question. Usually it's quasi-autonomous intelligence agencies, who have to be alarmist and if they even accidentally let the occasional one slip bonus funding!

Little erosions to our civil liberties are indeed a concern, however what should be more concerning is our own tolerance for them.

[Mysturji]

Something I wrote a while ago somewhere else, which seems apropos here (BTW Where the fuck is my "Solve the world's problems here!" thread?):

An alternative to democracy

Being a liberal (small "l"), I am - by default - immediately suspicious of anyone who seeks power over others. This is not to say that I think all politicians are authoritarian megalomaniacs: Some of them must hold the best interests of the public close to their hearts, but as we know, nice guys finish last, and being a nice guy myself, I can vouch for the veracity of that aphorism. Therefore I would like to suggest an alternative to the democratic process for selecting the members of government.

The government should be chosen by lottery, much like juries are selected. Everyone who is not excluded for some valid reason (see below) must by law be on the electoral register, and each year a random selection of candidates are chosen from this pool to work in government for a period of five years. Logically, some people must be excluded from the selection process: Non-citizens, non-residents, minors, convicted felons, lunatics, idiots, and (obviously) politicians.

Once selected, provided they pass a vetting process and psychometric tests to ensure they are not one of the above, they spend their first year learning the ropes, being mentored by a second year member of government. The second year, besides mentoring first-years, they may choose a department in which to work (subject to availability), under one or more senior members. From the third year, they may put themselves forward, or be nominated for senior roles within the government, including Cabinet positions. Candidates are selected by elections where only members of the government may vote.

Serving members of government may be relieved of their duties for health reasons, or dismissed for incompetence or misconduct. Otherwise, once in government, a person must serve their full term, for which they are paid a fair salary (periodically set by fifth-year members, to come into effect the following year). A person may only serve one term in government.

This system would have many benefits; Politicians and political parties are done away with at a stroke, as are the tedious and expensive bun-fights known as national elections; No-one can hang around in government for too long, lining their pockets or messing things up on a national level; Successive governments won't be continually undoing the previous government's work and starting again from scratch, thus saving taxpayers' money and allowing for long-term planning; Everyone can feel a part of the process of government; Senior members of government are selected by their peers based on merit, rather than smarm, and best of all; Those with political ambitions are kept out of positions of political power.

Couldn't be any worse, could it?

[Seth]

Something I wrote a while ago somewhere else, which seems apropos here (BTW Where the fuck is my "Solve the world's problems here!" thread?):

An alternative to democracy

Being a liberal (small "l"), I am - by default - immediately suspicious of anyone who seeks power over others. This is not to say that I think all politicians are authoritarian megalomaniacs: Some of them must hold the best interests of the public close to their hearts, but as we know, nice guys finish last, and being a nice guy myself, I can vouch for the veracity of that aphorism. Therefore I would like to suggest an alternative to the democratic process for selecting the members of government.

The government should be chosen by lottery, much like juries are selected. Everyone who is not excluded for some valid reason (see below) must by law be on the electoral register, and each year a random selection of candidates are chosen from this pool to work in government for a period of five years. Logically, some people must be excluded from the selection process: Non-citizens, non-residents, minors, convicted felons, lunatics, idiots, and (obviously) politicians.

LAWYERS!!!! You forgot the most evil and harmful kind of politician...

Once selected, provided they pass a vetting process and psychometric tests to ensure they are not one of the above, they spend their first year learning the ropes, being mentored by a second year member of government. The second year, besides mentoring first-years, they may choose a department in which to work (subject to availability), under one or more senior members. From the third year, they may put themselves forward, or be nominated for senior roles within the government, including Cabinet positions. Candidates are selected by elections where only members of the government may vote.

Nah. Don't want a Progressive core of unelected bureaucrats running everything forever. Term limit ALL public service positions. You get five years and then you have to go find a job in the real world...oh, and you don't get to take a job in government until AFTER you've done five years in the private sector so you understand how business actually works.

Serving members of government may be relieved of their duties for health reasons, or dismissed for incompetence or misconduct. Otherwise, once in government, a person must serve their full term, for which they are paid a fair salary (periodically set by fifth-year members, to come into effect the following year).

Can't agree. This puts potential incompetents in positions of power and we have enough of that. Best way to deal with that is to absolutely forbid public sector unions and all forms of Civil Service bureaucracy. Public employees should work at the pleasure of the public, as managed by their elected representatives, and should be subject to being fired at will and without cause. Public employment should NEVER be made a sinecure.

A person may only serve one term in government.

Totally down with that.

This system would have many benefits; Politicians and political parties are done away with at a stroke, as are the tedious and expensive bun-fights known as national elections; No-one can hang around in government for too long, lining their pockets or messing things up on a national level; Successive governments won't be continually undoing the previous government's work and starting again from scratch, thus saving taxpayers' money and allowing for long-term planning; Everyone can feel a part of the process of government; Senior members of government are selected by their peers based on merit, rather than smarm, and best of all; Those with political ambitions are kept out of positions of political power.

Couldn't be any worse, could it?

Lots of problems with your idea that could indeed make it much worse.

The key to preventing corruption in government is to keep government small, relatively powerless, and always mindful of its duty to the people by making it hard to hire but easy as pie to fire any government employee, including elected politicians.

I like the idea of a "vote of no confidence" at any time that allows 33 percent of the electorate to force any politician to resign. If a politician is failing to adequately serve 33 percent of the public he's tasked with representing, he shouldn't be in office. This would prevent party politics much more effectively as all politicians would have to compromise and serve EVERYONE they represent at least enough to keep them from forcing a vote.

[piscator]

Along with some generally good intentions, what you have, Seth, is a prescription for chaos.
While being conveniently vague about making civil servants easy to fire, you would cycle elected executives and policymakers out before they get much practical knowledge of the details. This will have the effect of making the most grovelling, insinuating, and sociopathic career civil servants even more powerful as their n00b bosses rely on them even more to make the trains run on time. Then when it comes out that one industry or another has been buying favors with hookers 'n blow and the elected representatives clean house in the Tolstoyan bureaucracies, nobody knows WTF is going on because they can't decipher their predecessor's filing systems, personality cults, and other artifacts of their fiefdoms. Welcome to fucking Italy, where everything gets redone every few years and the underworld is the only organization that can make anything happen because it's the only one with any continuity of leadership.
How do you think NSA turned into Audrey II? It was handy to have around, then grew too big and complex for accountability as overseers came and went. The MIC in full flight...J. Edgar Hoover-style.

[Seth]

Along with some generally good intentions, what you have, Seth, is a prescription for chaos.
While being conveniently vague about making civil servants easy to fire, you would cycle elected executives and policymakers out before they get much practical knowledge of the details.

Damned right! The less they know the less harm they can do.

This will have the effect of making the most grovelling, insinuating, and sociopathic career civil servants even more powerful as their n00b bosses rely on them even more to make the trains run on time.

No, you don't understand there ARE NO career civil servants. NOBODY gets to inhabit a government post for more than five years.

Then when it comes out that one industry or another has been buying favors with hookers 'n blow and the elected representatives clean house in the Tolstoyan bureaucracies, nobody knows WTF is going on because they can't decipher their predecessor's filing systems, personality cults, and other artifacts of their fiefdoms.

Great! I love government inability to get anything done.

Welcome to fucking Italy, where everything gets redone every few years and the underworld is the only organization that can make anything happen because it's the only one with any continuity of leadership.

Your cognitive disconnect is in thinking that only government can properly get things done. Private enterprise is always able to deal with such things much more efficiently in response to the needs of the marketplace.

How do you think NSA turned into Audrey II? It was handy to have around, then grew too big and complex for accountability as overseers came and went. The MIC in full flight...J. Edgar Hoover-style.

It grew too big because like all government agencies it's a parasitical government agency slopping at the public trough and consuming endless amounts of taxpayer money because there is no free-market force requiring it to compete and be economically viable (not to mention continuously justify it's own existence). Like almost all federal government agencies it persists because it exists and its function is entirely Darwinian. It primarily seeks to survive for its own sake and not because it serves any useful purpose to the habitat it lives within. Like cancer or disease viruses.

[piscator]

Private enterprise is always able to deal with such things much more efficiently in response to the needs of the marketplace.

So you live in a market? How much for your liberties?

[Seth]

Private enterprise is always able to deal with such things much more efficiently in response to the needs of the marketplace.

So you live in a market? How much for your liberties?

You can't afford it.

[piscator]

So you're saying they're not for sale?

[Seth]

So you're saying they're not for sale?

Since when does being in a market require anyone to sell anything to anyone else if they don't want to? The essence of a free market is that nobody can compel you to sell or buy anything at all without your full consent and agreement.

Anyway, I didn't say my rights were not for sale, I said you couldn't afford them. Nor could anyone else. But I'm free to sell my rights if I want to...mostly.

[piscator]

See Seth, a government isn't a retail store engaged in marketeering. It's a flawed rhetorical analogy to denigrate our country and the good things it stands for into some flea market of consumerism. At minimum, it dishonors those who gave their lives to the American Ideal.
That's why I can't buy into the Rush Limbaugh "Needs of the marketplace" line of manure futures.
But by all means feel "free" to engage in whatever sort of rhetorical penis polishing you desire.

[Blind groper]

Seth ignores history.

There have been many times and places where a system closer to his stated wishes held sway. One version is called warlordism.

In fact, the only times and places where human rights were protected were those times and places with strong democratic governments. Look to any other system and see what comes of your rights!