You Can't Vote Out National Security Bureaucrats: And They, Not Elected Officials, Really Run The Show

from the well,-that's-unfortunate dept

Tue, Oct 28th 2014 10:18am — Mike Masnick

A year ago, we noted a rather odd statement from President Obama, concerning some of the Snowden leaks. He more or less admitted that with each new report in the press, he then had to go ask the NSA what it was up to. That seemed somewhat concerning to us -- suggesting that the administration wasn't actually aware of what the NSA was up to until after it leaked to the press. Combine that with our more recent story of how James Clapper is basically ignoring the substance of President Obama's called for surveillance reforms, and you might begin to wonder who really runs the show when it comes to surveillance. And, indeed, according to a guy who knows quite well, the national security bureaucracy basically calls the shots, and the President has little to no power. That's the basic summary of an interview with Michael Glennon under the title Vote all you want. The secret government won't change in the Boston Globe.

Glennon is the author of a new book called National Security and Double Government, as summarized by the Boston Globe:

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.

And, yes, of course, there have long been conspiracy theory books about the "shadow government" and the like, but this one's from someone who actually worked on these issues.

He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

Basically, the story that Glennon describes is sort of an exact replica of the concerns that many people have about how lobbyists push legislators in a particular direction. While many like to ascribe nefarious intent to lobbying efforts, the reality is that oftentimes legislators don't fully understand a particular or specific area, and the people they turn to are the lobbyists. And, to some extent that's reasonable. You'd rather that regulators and legislators actually are informed about the issues they're making decisions on, but too often they don't understand those areas at all. The problem is that the "experts" who are readily available aren't unbiased purveyors of truth, but are those who have a very specific agenda.

The same thing is true of government bureaucrats within the intelligence community. They're going to advise elected officials in ways that continually push and expand their own capabilities and powers, rather than limit them. And while what happens with lobbyists is often not directly publicly viewable, there can at least be some public recognition of policies and regulations that come out of those discussions. When it comes to the intelligence community, many of the results are kept entirely secret, so there's basically no pushback and no "other side" heard. The intelligence community acts as secret lobbyists for the expansion of the surveillance state, and the government basically says "okay." And that doesn't even begin to go down the road of recognizing how much of this "expansion" of the surveillance state also happens to massively benefit the private corporations that former intelligence officials jump to right after leaving the government. Glennon covers all that and more:

It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”

And the end result is basically that elected officials don't really have the power to do anything, even if they're technically "in power."

I think the American people are deluded... that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy.... But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.

All the more reason why Snowden's revelations were so important. They've helped expose just a tiny fraction of these policies being decided in near total secrecy by the intelligence community to further its own agenda -- leading to some much needed sunlight, finally forcing at least a tiny bit of debate into that corner of the world that thrives on being able to expand in secret.

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: bureaucrats, michael glennon, national security, nsa, policy, power, surveillance

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Kaden (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:28am

It's almost like no one's ever seen Yes Minister...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:31am

Apples to Oranges
Sorry, comparing lobbyists to bureaucrats reveals the intent of the screed.

Lobbyists are entirely outside of gov't control - bureaucrats at the level being decried are APPOINTED by the gov't. They can be replaced...by the very people we elect.

Now, just like Congress, they aren't replaced with each election but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

As an electorate, we get what we 'pay' for. If the sullen masses are more interested in the latest Kardashian exploits that doesn't mean something can't be done, just that it's fairly difficult.

Take Super PACs (or some variation thereof) - the law says that they must be primarily social welfare oriented. The IRS 'interpretation' of the law clearly violates the letter and intent of the law. If a President appointed someone who clearly wanted to change that interpretation, it would be changed pretty quickly (as gov't change goes anyway). But we don't have/haven't had that for a long time. Lots of us hoped Obama might be that, but sadly his inexperience allowed the status quo to reign.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:32am

Rome
One of the many reasons the Roman Republic failed was that the interests of the military no longer matched the interests of the senate... Just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:33am

And even when the people know...
And even when the public "wakes up", what can be done to fix it short of a revolution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vidiot (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:34am

Status quo rules
I've heard this repeated for at least twenty years... that it doesn't matter an awful lot who gets elected, since policy is effectively shaped by tens of thousands of mid-level bureaucrats, and they pretty much don't care who got elected, what party and what their campaign promises were. I haven't seen it disproved yet... bad news for progress, but good news in the sense that dimwitted partisans can't get much done to advance their agendas either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:39am

Re: Status quo rules
Unless, of course their agenda matches that of the 'dimwitted' bureaucrats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:39am

Re: Apples to Oranges
They can be replaced...by the very people we elect.

Except the long winded process needed to actually fire them is likely to be longer that their working life, and while it is being followed the bureaucrat is paid to sit at home and do nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hij (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:40am

Who gets elected?
So what you are saying is that the US should elect Ph.D. mathematicians with expertise in cryptography to federal political positions. Good luck with that. Between American anti-intellectualism and technologists' arrogance that is not likely to happen on a large enough scale to make a difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:40am

This is fairly known for a while now. Both totalitarian and the corporate powers have rooted themselves into our Governments (generally speaking). The question now is how it will develop and how to fix it if voting right won't really change a thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:48am

I think an out of control intelligence community is caused by weak leaders in all three branches of government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:50am

If the people really in charge of the government are neither chosen directly by the people nor can they be removed by the people, you no longer have a democracy. Wake up America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:57am

Re:
Nor a republic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:02am

Re:
There hasn't been the obligatory terrible American remake yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:07am

Of course they do. They probably have dirt on every politician in the country, if not the world.

I don't think there is any doubt they use what they collect.

I certainly don't believe a word that Clapper says. After all, he blatantly lied to Congress. He has no credibility and yet he is still in charge. That's telling in my mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:10am

Re: Apples to Oranges
Um, I don't think getting rid of civil servants is as easy as you make it out to be. In fact, it is extremely difficult to fire a bureaucrat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:12am

Re:
My first thought was Douglas Adams, but at least I don't have to listen to Clapper's poetry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:20am

We didn't get the brain implants or the flying car
...or the orbital habitats or the cybernetic enhancements...

...but we did get our cyberpunk dystopia delivered right on schedule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:22am

Jail
Defund the agencies, and then arrest all the former employees and throw them in jail on random made up charges just like they do with anyone else they don't like. Then you can fire them for being security risks.

By the time it gets to court, everything will be disassembled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: Apples to Oranges
Of course one could always hand them a cellphone and point the nearest the nearest cop at them yelling "Gun, Gun", and let the inevitable fallout ensue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:38am

Re: Jail
I certainly like the idea of jailing the ones who have acted illegally, but from a procedural point, you don't even need to do that. Dissolve/defund the agency and you get one of two positive outcomes:

- Employees keep coming to work and acting against the will of the people, but can't legally get paid. Eventually, they have to go get a job that provides an income.
- Employees stop coming to work (whether or not they quit) and thus stop acting against the will of the people.

Either way, any further actions that rely on "qualified immunity" to keep them out of court would lack immunity since their employer has no legitimate purpose under the amended law, so whether or not they are fired, anything they do "in the course of their job" that exceeds what a private citizen can do would expose them to the same liability as an overreaching private citizen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Mexico Mark, 28 Oct 2014 @ 11:50am

My .02 (literally)
If we keep feeding the beasts, they will only grow larger and more dangerous.

There may not be any effective granular accountability or transparency. However, enough consensus in Congress to change the funding of entire departments to $.02 per year would (painfully) fix the problem. I'm betting defunding an organization like the NSA would cause other agencies to fall over themselves in an effort to ensure they are not next in line.

If something is really important, re-fund it at a drastically reduced rate, and with serious changes in management (and tighter restrictions against influence peddling of exiting officials). Ensure there is a charter and controls in place to prevent this dangerous debacle again for our lifetimes, at least.

As a suggestion, any charter should have elements that immediately end funding without the requirement for a Congressional vote should violations occur. Primacy of the U.S. Constitution (and clearly forbidding "Constitution fee zones on U.S. soil) above all other laws, executive orders, and treaties should be one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whoever, 28 Oct 2014 @ 12:31pm

Backbone
Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.

Of course Obama had other options. He just does not have the backbone to force them through. He doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the intelligence community or the military. IMHO, he is a great orator, but ultimately a weak leader.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 12:53pm

Re: My .02 (literally)
If we keep feeding the beasts, they will only grow larger and more dangerous.

Ronald Reagan tried starving the beast with tax cuts. Didn't work. No reductions of payroll or number of employees. Only one agency disappeared (ICC) and that was already in the works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:04pm

We can as a nation stop throwing tax money at them , and also shut it down and completely recreate from scratch they only exist because we allow them to exist removing their sanctions is our power , and self defeatist nonsense needs to be pushed aside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:05pm

Accurate and true...
If voting really could change things, it would be illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:07pm

You can vote someone in who replaces them with an intelligent leader.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:08pm

Re:
"Weak" isn't necessarily what I'd call them. For example, Holder does not make the impression that he's "weak". Just that he considers "Justice" overrated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:08pm

Bloody good reading :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:13pm

Defunding Agencies
I'm pretty sure that the first and foremost purpose of accumulated biographical leverage on our representatives is to ensure the continuance and thus the budgets of these agencies. If someone tried to defund the NSA for example, he'd find his career demolished and his life forfeit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Jail
- Employees keep coming to work and acting against the will of the people, but can't legally get paid.

Uh, you haven't read the news? Keith Alexander has retired from the NSA but keeps close ties to it. Banks can hand him a literal million dollars a month in return for not getting hacked by the NSA.

This outsourcing of blackmail leads to tax-deductible ways of paying the extortion fees and keep the money flowing into the NSA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:18pm

Re: Backbone
He could have become a second JFK if he put his aspirations to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:20pm

Re: Defunding Agencies
JFK tried it with the CIA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:27pm

Obama is a weak leader
As will be all future presidents of the US...

...until there is massive reform or bloody revolution.

One or the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:31pm

If there is any hope left for change...
it would be that some good soul pretends to be an evil bastard pretending to do good for the public for a couple of decades until he finally gains enough power to stop pretending, without getting corrupt enough in the time between to actually become an evil bastard.
That is exhausting just thinking about, let alone do in real life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: My .02 (literally)
Perhaps because Reagan didn't actually do much of that tax-cutting. Although he did reduce the overt tax rate percentages, he offset those by reducing tax exemptions. Two bills he supported in 1982 and 1984 had the net effect of being the largest tax increases made during peacetime in US history even to this day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: Apples to Oranges
So you see the problem then
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Jail
Uh, you haven't read the news? Keith Alexander has retired from the NSA but keeps close ties to it. Banks can hand him a literal million dollars a month in return for not getting hacked by the NSA.
That only works on a tiny scale, and there's no indication that banks buying it view it as extortion money rather than a more generic security blanket against the Evil Foreign Cyber-Terrorists. If the entire NSA is stripped of its funding and its mission, then, as I said above, they lose any pretense of "qualified immunity" and can be pursued for any further damage they cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 2:06pm

Re: Backbone
As bad as Obama has been, odds are our next president is going to be worse. If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will likely expand the surveillance to go on a witch hunt for anyone who has had anything to do with wikileaks. Remember, she was embarrassed by the huge document dump and I'm sure she holds a grudge.

If a republic is elected, he will likely route money to his partner companies via the NSA et al.

IMO, Hillary will be worse, since she will be convinced she is doing the right thing.

I currently intend to vote for Mickey Mouse in the next election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tomczerniawski, 28 Oct 2014 @ 2:24pm

Huh... so, Splinter Cell was a documentary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irving, 28 Oct 2014 @ 2:39pm

Voting only changes the name of the guy who gets to sit in the comfy chair.

If you want to change the way things actually work, that takes a revolution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 2:42pm

Re: And even when the people know...
Revolution is how it's fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew A. Sawtell, 28 Oct 2014 @ 2:43pm

When it comes to the Beltway, it is all about the Mandrains!
It does not matter what style of government, if it get big enough and old enough, there will be Mandarins to contend with:

http://blog.chinadaily.com.cn/blog-135031-10048.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 2:49pm

Re: Backbone
Of course Obama had other options. He just does not have the backbone to force them through.

Yeah, except I'm not sure it's "backbone" so much as a lack of experience. I don't think it's that he's afraid to promote his plan - it's that he doesn't HAVE a plan.

In the end, it all comes back to Obama. He is the commander in chief and has the final word in all military operations - and the NSA is a military organization - if he chooses to wield that power. The cabinet heads were all appointed by him. If the Justice department decides to prosecute whistleblowers, that's on him (doubly so because he also has the power to pardon.) If the CDC decides bicycle helmets are more important than epidemic control, that's on him (unless there was a specific earmark in the budget, in which case it's on him AND Congress.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 3:47pm

Choice candidates for 2016
Over Mr. Mouse, I think Mr. No Confidence has a better platform.

...though Sideshow Bob Terwilliger is tempting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Backbone
"I currently intend to vote for Mickey Mouse in the next election."

Might I suggest writing in Mr. R. U. Sirius?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 4:37pm

Its worse that this book thinks. The elected office holders are not just impotent figureheads - they are often actively complicit. As soon as some politician figured out that 'keep the public fearful and they will reelect me' worked, we were lost to the unholy alliance of a secret bureaucratic security shadow-government and a cabal of elected officials who realize that the key to reelection is maintaining the public in fear of threats internal and external - Ebola, terrorists, radical Islam, terrorists, drug cartels, domestic terrorists. Each threat is used for political posturing and electioneering (have politicians been "tough on crime" forever...?) and all these threats have served to entrench a secret security bureaucracy with intrusive surveillance and police powers far beyond what the Constitution would ever allow. We are told, over and over, that 'these measures, these laws, are needed to keep the public safe' - as if the fundamental safety of the nation were at risk from every external force and anyone who isn't wholly within the control of the security state. As long as the public is kept fearful and ignorant ("national security" requires absolutely everything be kept classified, even from elected officials...) the power of the bureaucracy grows. And as long as running as being 'strong on defense, and strong for national security' is a political winner, we'll continue to see it. Look most recently at the eager rush by some politicians of both parties to jump on the 'quarantine all returning healthcare workers for Ebola' bandwagon. That's another attempt to play off public fearmongering, and clearly political grandstanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 28 Oct 2014 @ 5:28pm

Re:
I was about to mention that show. But the thing is, Yes, Minister is an example of how to do unelected bureaucrats right; Sir Humphrey is an experienced government employee who started as a mere clerk and slowly earned positions of greater responsibility, and also has a chain of command that can and will drop the hammer on him if he screws up or starts taking kickbacks. He also adheres strictly to the long-standing policy that the Civil Service should never, ever, under any circumstances take sides in any issue where electoral politics are involved.

Now I'm not saying the system is perfect by any means; for one thing, it has a way of producing senior officials who got their jobs not for competence at their job but their skill at the last true British blood-sport, Office Politics. But at its best, it produces under-secretaries who can advise and train elected officials the way a veteran NCO does for newly-commissioned officers in the armed forces.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles (profile), 28 Oct 2014 @ 5:52pm

Re: Defunding Agencies
As Faramir said, then my life is forfeit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2014 @ 10:30pm

Re: We didn't get the brain implants or the flying car
I got a rock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG, 29 Oct 2014 @ 1:23am

?..he then had to go ask the NSA what it was up to"??!
Obama rarely has to ask. He fully supports the broad domestic surveillance programs at the nsa. Remember all those empty promises about government transparency? WTF?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2014 @ 4:09am

The ability to vote out elected officials has proven to be remarkably ineffective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2014 @ 6:19am

with fire and sword then the government be purged.

If voting will have no effect on the downward spiral America has been going in regards to their government respecting citizens rights and the constitution then the only way will become a revolution to take back your land of the free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 29 Oct 2014 @ 6:29am

Re: ?..he then had to go ask the NSA what it was up to"??!
But he is transparent. He's transparently supportive of broad domestic surveillance programs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 29 Oct 2014 @ 11:20am

Oops! There goes another one!!
Barely a day goes by now that does not prove that all those wack job conspiracy nutters were right on the money all along.

At the rate we're exposing the corporate government's daily cover-ups and criminal conspiracies, there won't be a single secret left in Washington by the year 2020.

I can hardly wait till we finally get to the aliens cover-up! :)

Are they real or are they simply an Ace-in-the-hole false flag for that "outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence.", that Kissinger proposed to scare the world's civilian populations so badly that "individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being, granted to them by their world government."

So much to learn, so little time.

----
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Oct 2014 @ 12:17pm

Conspiracy nutters
A recent article on the JFK assassination anniversary acknowledged that even though the nutters had nutty ideas doesn't mean they were uninspired. At the time, government was rife with conspiracies and power plays going on, and we could only guess at exactly what they were.

These days we have a better look at that time in history (but not all the puzzle pieces).

It may not be lizard men, but the gazillionaires and the military-intelligence-industrial complex can look and act pretty reptilian at times.

And we DO have our police state. We DO have our corporate-dominated cyberpunk dystopia. We're just missing the flying cars and orbital habitats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 30 Oct 2014 @ 2:38am

Re: Conspiracy nutters
The Flying Cars and Orbital Habitats are specifically for the wealthy only, so first they have to work out some way to literally separate themselves from the rabble, or, as is more likely the case, eliminate the rabble altogether, save those few minions needed to fill any positions that robots cannot handle... and of course some lobotomized sex slaves.

The orbital habitats are normally designed simply to keep the poor working masses and the industrial factory ruined and polluted atmosphere of the Mad Max earth, away from the clean computerized and environmentally controlled homes of the wealthy and well placed, who own the factories and industries below.

With the advent of the computer and robotics, this whole scenario may no longer even be needed, as the whole idea of human slave labor becomes obsolete when one has access to the ability to manufacture a mechanical slave for any purpose, at will, that needs no food or water and never gets paid a dime.

With the advances in genetics soon to come, the wealthy can then create a properly engineered "pet" human species for fun and recreation and pretend to be gods.

Nothing says Superior Race better than one's own Inferior Pet Race. :)

A fascist's wet dream come true.

Of course this means that the whole idea of keeping huge poor populations trapped in cities so they have no choice but to work in the factories of the wealthy, is also obsolete.

Walking along that same path, this means that most of us are now obsolete - mere eaters consuming the limited food and water supplies that could be enjoyed by the worthy wealthy were we no longer here.

I don't think we'll ever see orbital cities around this planet.

On the other hand Flying Cars are not allowed yet because we unwashed eaters are still here in vast numbers and in order to make us useful to our various owners, borders and language barriers and customs/dress barriers need to remain in place, so the wealthy masters can keep tabs on their private horde of impoverished workers 24/7.

The modern Tower of Babylon concept - Divide and conquer.

Flying cars would allow the public far too much mobility and access to the planet at large, with far too little control over the public's movement by the Boys in Power.

Can you say No Fly List?
I knew you could. :)

So Flying Cars, Antigravity, Vortex Energy Devices, even Hydrogen fuel - among a slew of other public enabling gizmos - simply have to wait till the Final Solution is complete and only the wealthy and worthy are left to enjoy them.

At least, that's how I read the tea leaves. :)

----
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 30 Oct 2014 @ 2:50am

Re:
...by the sword...

Methinks they're actually hoping that the general rabble will indeed rise up and revolt against the masters - as they obviously see themselves now.

After all, the technology you see is at the very least ten years old and more likely twenty years old. Couple that with the fact that corporate government has had a nearly unlimited (taxpayers) budget for Crowd Control Research for the last fifty years and you might get an inkling of why they might want the gen-pub to do the revolution thing.

In one foul swoop, using devices that nobody even knew existed and thus could not build any defense against, the corporatocracy would wipe out almost all the active dissenters in America, in a single motion, leaving only the sheep.

Just a thought. :)

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 30 Oct 2014 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: And even when the people know...
You'd be fighting friends and neighbors who would see you as a terrorist. The mainstream media is in the hands of 6 major corporations all intent on maintaining the status quo, remember.

...this "expansion" of the surveillance state also happens to massively benefit the private corporations that former intelligence officials jump to right after leaving the government

So let's not be hearing any more about Socialism, okay? Unless you want to call it "Corporate Socialism," in which case I agree with you.

And yes, they are a boogeyman and yes, they should be feared.

The solution is to vote people into office who will sort this mess out once and for all, and to support them no matter what the mainstream media says about them...

...so now you see what the problem is. Violence won't clean this mess up, it'll just make a bigger mess. The most effective revolution needs to happen within ourselves. That's when things will change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Oct 2014 @ 12:00pm

Elected officials become either corrupt or useless.
Vote all you want. It won't change a thing.

No, the only way to manage the situation is to recognize the disenfranchisement and consider other options.

Some of those options involve blood and fire.

But we're not going to get any reform through elections.

Revolutions, even ones against immeasurable firepower, are remarkably effective. Our historical experts on counter-insurgency point out there is no real cure for it, except to win the hearts and minds of the people i.e. through clemency of the people and good governance. It is grievance that fuels an insurgency despite any power of the oppressors.

And yes those friends and neighbors who regard the insurrection as terrorists just haven't been touched yet by the government's loving hand. Sympathizers come from those who know people who've been disappeared, or beaten or robbed or shot. Revolutionaries come from the victims or their families. Often, they're people with nothing left to lose.

If managed carefully this could be handled without blood. Often, revolutions begin with actions of sabotage. The government retaliates by taking (more) lives, and then the civil war becomes bloody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Oct 2014 @ 12:22pm

We all gotta rock.
Everyone underestimates the power of rock 'n' roll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Oct 2014 @ 12:26pm

Jail is really pretty sucky.
Actually, let's figure some better way to penalize those who act illegally. Our jails are impacted and cruel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 31 Oct 2014 @ 12:14am

Re:
If the ability to vote out (s)elected officials proved itself to be effective, it would be outlawed immediately.

The onliest reason you are still allowed to Vote, is simply because the whole process has been thoroughly compromised to such an extent that those playing the Great Game know they have nothing to worry about from the pointless votings of the general public.

Since all that matters is that a Player gets the Majority of Total Cast Votes, it really does not matter how many people actually cast their votes or how many of their votes are actually counted.

Recent legislation in many states to eliminate the voting rights of a vast swath of Americans will lead to even fewer votes still and this trend will continue because its the cheapest way to legally cheat the Vote.

Eventually, a politician will be electable by winning 50+ percent of a total vote that equates to less than ten percent of Americans. Whether you like it or not, that is definitely NOT how a democracy was supposed to work.

You're being managed.

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 31 Oct 2014 @ 3:13am

Re: Elected officials become either corrupt or useless.
Show me a revolution that hasn't ended with an almighty bloodbath followed by power vacuum, followed by a paranoid, repressive regime.

Hearts and minds are the problem; not enough of them are voting third party, and as I said before your acts of sabotage will be treated as terrorism and PEOPLE YOU KNOW will be turned against you when the media portrays you as a fanatical terrorist hell-bent on causing trouble.

It'll take a while to arrive at the critical mass required to turn our friends and neighbors; there's a lot of disbelief and partisanship to overcome and the media keeps it that way because united we stand, divided we fall.

Maintaining those divisions keeps us too busy fighting with each other to take on the powers that be.

So as I said, we need to work on hearts and minds and persuade them to vote third parts in enough numbers to make a difference. If a Socialist can get elected in Seattle, a Pirate can, too. Get enough Pirates in, and things will change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]