Your brought up morals, yet state a Sharia based society could be more lawful; pick a side.
I was trying to say something similar to you! I keep bringing up morals/ethics because you seem to be operating on the assumption that there is some inherent correlation between law and morality/ethics. I absolutely reject this! Many of the most heinous and evil mass atrocities in the history of the world have been enacted via the law.
And yet, people cling to the fairy tale notion that following the law more or less means living a moral life.
My point is that
just because something is against the law, that does not mean it is wrong. Any more than something would be right
just because it isn't against the law. Many laws are themselves immoral/unethical.
There's numerous ways of reporting without "repercussions"
Not to overstep myself here, but I'd suggest that you've never attempted to challenge the gov (institution of your choice) on a matter that cuts to the core assumptions of government. Every instance I know of 1st/2nd hand resulted in: getting ignored (best case), getting peepee smacked, career destruction.
Now, that barely amounts to anecdote, let alone evidence. I don't want to claim that these handful of cases represent all possible cases. But when I combine them with a decade+ of observing and thinking about how systems and bureaucracies operate, I think I'm identifying a pattern.
Power is diffuse at the individual level; it is concentrated at the organizational. No regular person will be as powerful as their organization. Organizations can get away with hammering the nail that sticks out. It's a whole hell of a lot easier that instituting organizational change. Why do you think we have repeated instances of the same bad behaviors over and over? Because no one ever bothered to change the system.
Which segues to the next point:
I never said the system isn't broken, I just can't get behind the thought that the whole system is broken.
I believe it was Einstein who said something like, "Doing something again and again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity."
Time for an analogous thought experiment:
Imagine a machine that takes inputs and produces widgets. It's supposed to give us different kinds of widgets depending on what we input (say, raw materials). We talk a lot about the machine's design, and the principles that drive it's internal behavior. At some point however, we notice that it isn't producing the widgets we want. We still talk a lot about the design and principles, but we can't see inside the machine any more - it was upgraded with radiation shielding at some point. Soon enough, the machine is not only producing widget we don't want, but ones that actually hurt us!
Now we start
arguing about the design and principles. But the machine - it's a smart machine, with the ability to upgrade itself. It was also built generations ago. Let's think of it as code for a second (like software with the ability to upgrade). Even though we can see the 'source code' from the original design document, we can't see the current code. It has been intentionally hidden from us. We can maybe see parts of it, and we still see (most) of the output widgets.
So we have a partially black box. We know the original code used to program it. We know only what it allows us to about its current code base. Some of its widgets hurt us. Some might even be 'evil'. But hey, most of them are still arguably useful.
Any machine that does not operate as intended is, (I would argue) by definition, broken. Our black box is broken. It seems to me that the sensible reaction is to find out
why it is broken. There's no magic keebler elves climbing into it every once in a while to mess with the output. The machine
itself is creating the problems. It is the system that needs fixing.
So I hope that actually helped to clarify my thinking. Complaining about the results of a system, but rejecting the possibility that the system is the cause of those results is a common human tendency I have a very hard time sympathizing with. It's like the person trying to dig themselves out of a hole. Or using shitty disposable razors to shave, complaining about it, buying ointments and such to treat the symptoms, but then going back for more shitty razors.
To have that thought, than how can you trust anyone?
This is the best question I've heard in quite a long time. One, I think, that is actually pretty illuminating.
But first, to answer: I don't! Not unequivocally. I retain my moral prerogative and
obligation to make each decision myself. I can accept expertise, advice, guidance, etc. But none of that abrogates my (and your, and everyone else's) moral obligation to take responsibility for their own actions. I do not let the government live my life for me. I do not trust the FDA to never allow anything on the market that might harm me, I do not trust speed limits to keep me out of accidents, I do not trust government bureaucrats to know best how all of our children ought to be raised, etc. etc. etc.
So, I think this question or worry is might show us
why we don't want to believe that the system (whatever system that might be, from the federal gov, to local gov, from your unit, to your church, from your company to your club)
is the problem.
Lets stop stacking bandaids on top of each other, stop treating the symptoms, and start dealing with the root problem.
Nice post. I'd request some paragraphing so that it's a bit easier to read.
You're spot on about future uses being a primary (not secondary) concern here. Not only do these powers belong to the current 'administration' (I'm using that loosely to refer to whoever is in power - not necessarily just the Presidency), but every succeeding one. Not only do
these powers pass down, but they will expand, as all governmental powers inevitably do.
it is not all that far-fetched to believe that a state with the power to surveil nearly everything about your life will eventually have the power to predict your behavior and thoughts
Not only is it not far-fetched, this is reality. Now. Combine enough data points from disparate sources you can predict behavior. Likewise, you can expose thoughts. There's a widespread (and totally, 100% false) meme out there that meta-data is somehow less revealing. It is often
far more revealing than the content. Especially in aggregate.
