Wouldn't It Be Something If We Had A President Who Believed In Liberty?
from the to-dream-a-little-dream dept
Dan Gillmor has an absolutely fantastic "wishful thinking" speech he'd love to see from a future Presidential candidate, one in which liberty takes a front seat, rather than is seen as something that needs to be chipped away. Go read the whole thing, but here's a snippet to suck you in:When people say, "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide," ask them if it's fine to install cameras in their homes, not just in the living room but the bedroom and bathroom. Ask them if they'd mind wearing a microphone and video camera every day, so others can check on what they've said and done.Part of the problem we have today is that very few elected officials care about liberty. They care about power, and they believe, incorrectly, that their job involves ditching liberty in an attempt to retain power (which they falsely argue is about "protecting Americans" despite little evidence that the power grab protects anyone but their own interests). It would be an amazing step forward if there were a President who remembered why liberty was such an important issue to our founding fathers.
You are guilty of something. I guarantee it. Lawmakers have created countless new crimes and punishments, and allowed law enforcement to extend old laws in dangerous ways. Have you ever told anything short of the absolute truth when filling out an online form to use some service? We can charge you with a felony for that. And, by the way, we don't need to convict you at trial. If you are a target, we can ruin you financially if you try to defend yourself. This is what we expect in banana republics and police states, not here. And as the surveillance state expands, it will create more targets among people like you.
Our political leaders have made a calculation in recent years. They believe you are too frightened, too cowardly, to face the truth – and that you think liberty is much less important than temporary safety.
We are human. Terrorism unleashes our deepest fears, and our most lethal fury, even though the risk for any one of us is vanishingly low. We must challenge the fear mongers, and ourselves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, liberty, politics, president
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmm...
Oh yeah, he didn't make it out of the primary and was treated horridly by the establishment because they wanted Mitt Romney.
Sure worked out well, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
Mr. Broke Clock would not have been much of a difference in changing any of that, I tell you what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
also, the left-winger we elected hasn't done anything to rid ourselves of the real issue, so stop looking at the problem like it's an "us vs. them" thing. Someone, somewhere is going to have to fix this problem, and the chances are that he's going to come from either the left or the right wing to some extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right and Left and Right
There are some models that kinda suggest that. In the 20th century, the thought was that the ultra-right was fascism and the ultra-left was communism (think European politics in the early 1900s), and as things moved towards the center the graph bowed along a second axis from despotism to libertarianism (not contemporary US libertarianism, mind you) or even anarchism.
But if you try to apply that model to the current US regime, it will get bent out of shape.
Instead, what I see is a juxtaposition of the parties' platforms as they are now compared to what they were before.
In the 90s I was a moderate liberal or left-centrist. Then the Democratic party swung far to the right of me. In the 70s, the GOP has gone to some-place not even on the map, given the religion-centric end results of the Southern Strategy, and their total failure to adhere to the small government ideal in favor of an outsourced government model. Given the GOP primaries in 2012 and watching the candidates contort themselves to toe the GOP lines, I'm not sure that the GOP positions are even compatible with themselves, let alone reality.
Regardless, campaigning tends to be about wedge issues, and demos and 'pubs both otherwise follow this pro-corporate Bush-era plan. We vote based on abortions and gun control our representatives take away free speech, privacy and habeas corpus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real issue: the wealthy elite and multinational corps hoarding all they can
But how is the status quo working out for you? Einstein famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result.
Maybe it's time to take a risk and try something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enough already
Einstein probably never said that, and if he did he was wrong. Even in the context of physics this is either wrong or meaningless (according to our current theories), and that's given perfect information. Part of life is figuring out which patterns are strong and which can be broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
"But if we don't give bigger and bigger weapons to the mafia thugs, who's going to save us from the mafia don??"
Yeah, good luck with that.
(Also, as an an-cap myself, let me say that "state rights" is not a euphemism for anarcho-capitalism. Ron Paul is a minarchist\constitutionalist. AnCaps do not believe in states or constitutions.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
THERE IS NO RON PAUL!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people who say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." are implying, without saying, that you only have something to hide if you're doing something illegal. That's false. We all have a lot of things that're perfectly legal, completely innocuous, and we still want them hidden from the public because they're nobody's business but ours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't want the NSA operatives' children seeing their exam papers ahead of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who believes that is not just wrong, but is unwittingly arguing for evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Discretion <> Deception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not.
Google has been doing THE EXACT SAME THING FOR YEARS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at Obama. He campaigned on reigning in the Unconstitutional spy programs being run under Bush. Plus a bunch of other feel good mottoes. Such as "hope, change and yes we can".
Now look at him. He's got the whole world on spy lockdown and not a damn things changed. In fact we're having re-runs in the Middle East now.
Washington corrupts almost all who enter it. Wyden seems to be a rare exception. It would be interesting to see how much someone like Wyden might change, if he were to become president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You need to move the capital - and keep moving it around too fast for the hangers on to keep up. Maybe put Congress on a train!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think one single person can make any of this better. that should be the lesson learned from the Obama Presidency but I don't think it ever will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Corruption isn't something that happens without consent - it's not iron + oxygen = rust. You need two parties to tango for it to happen.
Maybe a better way of putting it would be "Washington enables the already corrupted and the easily corruptible." I think that speaks more to the character of politicians that hold office and power in America. It also puts the blame squarely where it belongs instead of moving it off to an anthropomorphized object called "corruption".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Bargain and the Con
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bargain and the Con
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bargain and the Con
In Britain it all started with Maggie Thatcher saying "there is no alternative". Too many people believed her and now all the politicians have to do is to subliminally echo that phrase - and they can get away with anything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bargain and the Con
Also our rights are inherent and can't be abridged. Should a corrupt government attempt to abridge our rights it is, by definition, invalid and illegitimate. It doesn't take a court to affirm our inherent rights. So, a government program that scoops up my email without a warrent that names me as an individual and shows probable cause of criminality is, by definition, illegal and those who are running such a program are criminal.
The Constitution can be read and interpreted using commonsense and simple humanity. The trouble is that we have 200 years of warped legalese layered over the top of it upon which the existing power structure rests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe, this thing may be an airborne internet transmissible virus that is going around that affects mainly people in a position of power, any position of power no matter how low it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people can't handle having power over others for very long, a few can't handle having any power at all for even a moment. This is why we vote people out of office on a regular basis.
The problem is, that power is irresistible to the easily corrupted, to the extent that wanting to be elected to a public office really ought to disqualify you from the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is, that power is irresistible to the easily corrupted, to the extent that wanting to be elected to a public office really ought to disqualify you from the job.
See Masnick !!! It's in your nature to be corrupted by power, and you're inability to handle even a little power has corrupted you as well..
After what use is it having the power to stifle free speech and censor speech you don't agree with, if you don't abuse it ?
You'll never be anything better than what you do, and you have shown over and over your willingness to abuse ANY power you have for your own gains..
Don't expect anyone to think you are any better that any Government or NSA, because are exactly THE SAME !!!!..
The fact you don't see that in yourself is a worry!
What is your moral and ethical position on this Masnick ??
How many days (if at all) will it take for this comment to be posted ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More wishful crap
Mike, you have a basic problem. You define liberty basically in the most selfish way, that is to say unlimited liberty for you, and everyone else can adjust themselves accordingly.
Your liberties are not infringed when you send a digital version of an uncovered postcard to someone - you have to expect that one or more of the people handling the email might read it.
When you are in public, or broadcast on the public airwaves (with your cellular phone), or when you post in public places on the internet, your liberty is not cut when someone else notices (and even records) your actions.
The sort of liberty you seek is the liberty to hide all of your public activities, to force others and the legal system to turn a blind eye. You want to be able to share your communications through third parties services, and you want them to give you absolute, utter, and total security and privacy while doing it - while under no legal obligation to do so.
Oh, and you want the government to be completely transparent, in a manner that would make it impossible to do anything to secure the country or to work to prevent crime ahead of time - and you would want all of their work in prosecution to be entirely public as well. After all, transparency should go to all levels, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More wishful crap
A week from next Tuesday, my foot.
You're an utter fucktard and a failure at being a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But really - Ron Paul would've been the solution. Good job Americans in not picking him! You idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can thank the establishment for choosing Mitt Romney and treating him horridly at the RNC.
Hell, former chairs of the RNC were saying what they did to Ron Paul was beyond horrendous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ron Paul is also clinically insane.
So as much as Obama has disappointed me, he was clearly a superior choice over insane Paul and senile McCain. We already had 8 years of the Shrub, a man with the intellectual agility of a soap dish: it's actually refreshing to have someone with a functional mind.
(I can respect evil. I despise stupid.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ron Paul is also clinically insane."
THIS ... Soooo much THIS !!
A misogynistic fundie or a lunatic or someone who at least appears reasonable and stable ? Easy choice. I shudder to think how much worse things could be with either of the other two.The thing about Paul is not just the insanity, but how he likes to imply that he can just make things happen once he's 'in control'. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of 'how shit works' realizes that this isn't how our government worked .. ever. If one man would just walk in and just change stuff because he wanted it that way he'd be .. a DICTATOR .. derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinical insanity.
Ron Paul is also clinically insane.
As one of the clinically insane, I take offense at being associated with Ron Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ron Paul would have been, at best, a different way of showing that the President is powerless (from Obama, who has exposed it greatly. Bush might have been the last president to hold up the illusion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
imo, everyone who wrote in ron paul let down the side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyone in that office can.
1) The way the military is deployed/used
2) Use of the presidential pardon. "On this day all you have to do to be absolved of your past crimes is write them down along with who was involved and submit them in the next 14 days to the President's Commission on Truth. The pardon for those crimes are automatic. These confessions asking for absolution will be made public at www.igotminehowaboutyou.gov. Anyone who decides to not ask for a pardon and is implicated in a crime by another's pardon request is subject to the punishment under the law for that crime."
You want change? The above would be change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul and other ding bats
If it was just the privacy issues he would be great to vote for, but too much bat-crap crazy stuff along with it
I am so blessed that we have obama. Sure I may disagree with the NSA true. However, what do we get with no regulations on corporations? similar issues. Equifax is watching and don't forget it. Least NSA has some rules on what can be done with the mined data.
How about being declined for a loan because you facebook said you listened to rap music?
Mr. Paul is against americans with disabilities act. People at any time can become a member of this class. Rich or poor.
“There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations who can only be held in check through the extension of governmental power.”---President Rosevelt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul and other ding bats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul and other ding bats
You mean the rules that let them do anything they want with it? Some rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul and other ding bats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It goes beyond you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tragedy of it all is that we need to keep this farcical situation until we find a better alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the tragedy might be that you think there's something to find. We have to make another alternative. It's becoming apparent that that hammer can only be forged with iron and blood and a lot of heat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You want to use force to change things?
You are under 30 aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian Author: The Naive Idiot
The state is an institution that initiates violence against peaceful people. It is immoral and nothing you do will change that. It cannot be abolished until children are raised to understand its moral nature and learn to abhor it and not assume its necessity.
Politics is a government program and anyone participating should be aware of the opportunity costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitutional Checks and Balances.
There is something called Bremerman's Conjecture, reasoning from the theory of quantum physics, that no computer can process more than 2 X 10^ 47 bits per second per gram. And that is for a computer in more or less Big-Bang state, infinitely hot and infinitely dense. If you make some reasonable assumptions (no galactic civilizations turning whole planets into computers, etc., vide Arthur Clarke and Robert Heinlein), 256 bits of complexity is for practical purposes infinite. If you want to be absolutely safe against science fiction, you might go to 512 bits. The leading private-key ciphers are at 256 bits, barring bugs and "back doors." Of course, the bugs and "back doors"are the interesting question.
Much the same comments would apply to certificates, or Kerberos-type keyservers. This may be a bit more expensive, but in practice, the limiting factor is the cost of telecommunications bandwidth (particularly subscriber loops), and additional encryption is a small matter.
-------------------------------------------------
A related point is that we have to get out of the habit of solving problems by military means, notably problems relating to energy.
see: Randolph Bourne, "War Is the Health of the State," 1918
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/bourne.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitutional Checks and Balances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Checks and Balances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Checks and Balances.
How sentimental to start thinking about the glory days of piracy. Bound to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitutional Checks and Balances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We'll said, I guess it is not lost on Masnick that his CENSORSHIP and stifling of free speech that he constantly engages in makes him (and Techdirt) NO BETTER than the worst of those who want to supress liberty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha, absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha, absurd
Are you arguing that Obama considers citizens' liberty a high priority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ha, absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ha, absurd
I think you're mistaken; that's just one of the things a president gets criticized for. Sometimes it's something dishonest, other times it's being soft on terrorism, or any number of things. For example, Bush's failures after hurricane Katrina were not called anti-liberty (that I recall), just stupid, slow, insensitive, and incompetent. I think what you're seeing is that so many of Obama's failures actually are anti-liberty that it's become a common refrain - but not incorrectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ha, absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speeches are great...
Power corrupts, and the illusion here is that any one person can somehow be immune long enough to do something useful. Ultimately by the time they are effective, they are...
...Same as the old boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Constitution vs. Starship Troopers
Ultimately, it the power of force that determines the legitimacy of a regime. A government is usually entrusted with a monopoly on the use of force (at least force, as made legitimate by the justice system).
But when the state (by way of the courts) interprets the constitution contrary to the plain language there is no recourse except to act outside the system, or to tolerate their misjudgement.
We can call the state criminal or illegitimate, but it is their guns that say otherwise, until an alternative regime emerges, or the international courts are empowered to intervene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, I voted for O...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rand Paul 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I have stated before.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As I have stated before.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changing the Leader, doesn't really change the government.
A new president takes office. He changes the cabinet. Maybe the cabinet changes out the people how report to them.
Below that, nothing much changes. FBI agents,CIA, NSA, these people still work there. Doing the same job the always did, pretty much the same way the did.
And doing so, they influence things up the chain, in the end, influencing the presidents policies. I am reminded of an a silly poem about corporate structure. Something like:
Chairman - Stronger than a locomotive... Talks to god.
CEO - as strong as locomotive.... Gets policy from god.
....
Secretary - kicks locomotive out of her way.... SHE IS GOD.
Same principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]