Edward Snowden: American Hero

#351
#351
Vol Main said:
Beck is now saying that he has an insider who fears for his life, with leaked documents which will bring down everybody, Democrats and Republicans. It is probably another one of Beck's big nothings, but he is really playing it up. No, I am not one of his listeners, but this announcement is out on the interwebs.
Click to expand...


Said guy will only testify on live tv to congress
 
#355
#355
SamRebel35 said:
When is this divulging supposed to occur?
Click to expand...

It is expected any time, but you know how Beck is with these things...says one thing and then says something else. He spoke as if he would break the story on his show, then claimed the leaker so feared for his life that he wanted to do it in the Congress. Beck claims to have one blockbuster document. The last time Beck had one of those, it turned out to be a routine procedural document in some government bureaucracy which only an idiot could mistake for news.
 
#356
#356
Gramps said:
I agree. He has got his moment in the spotlight.
The next light he sees may be his last, when the bomb goes boom.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with all the spying on the public, but I don't agree with this nimrod popping up in China and continuing to run his mouth either.
 
#357
#357
Carl Pickens said:
I don't agree with all the spying on the public, but I don't agree with this nimrod popping up in China and continuing to run his mouth either.
Click to expand...

If his purpose was to inform the American public, I think that Hong Kong was a particularly bad place for him to go.
 
#359
#359
82_VOL_83 said:
Yes, I understand California and some country called CB. I refuse to accept that as even being a possibility. Much like Danl's refusal to answer TRUT's question which is equally implausible. The real issue is why would the two of you even throw that out as a possibility? Should a force great enough to overwhelm the military and armed populace of the US land on our soil, no amount of secrets by the US government are going to stop that. You guys need to come up with a "more realistic" analogy or answer TRUT's question.
Click to expand...

You really just like to get some words in the conversation, don't you?

I answered therealUT's question; I know this is hard for you to understand, but not everyone cowers to a 65-year-old college student who thinks the world operates like a philosophy text.

Also, of the two scenarios, the state secret one is certainly more plausible. If you're not willing to have any classified information, clearly your battle strategy will be ineffective... but that's not even the point. Given the hypothetical scenario, we have posters on this site that would allow liberty to be completely lost on their watch instead of permitting the creation of a piece of classified information.

Which, of course, is just stupid.
 
#360
#360
Vol Main said:
If his purpose was to inform the American public, I think that Hong Kong was a particularly bad place for him to go.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think USA would risk sending a team after him there and risk a war. They would protect him in exchange for info.
 
#362
#362
lawgator1 said:
The statements by the reporter and Snoweden are a little grandiose, self important, and otherwise "aren't we great martyrs" for my tastes. There's a lot of self-congratulating going on.
Click to expand...


I'm surprised no one is taking me to task for this post. Are others, even supporters of him, also getting a little uncomfortable with the seemingly constant attention whore aspect of this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#363
#363
Obsessed said:
Putin invited him as well. Offered protection.
Click to expand...

Russia would be another particularly bad place for him to go. At this point, he must be very concerned about his physical safety, so who knows what he will decide to do? I would not be greatly surprised to see the Chinese turn him back over to U.S. authorities.
 
#365
#365
lawgator1 said:
I'm surprised no one is taking me to task for this post. Are others, even supporters of him, also getting a little uncomfortable with the seemingly constant attention whore aspect of this?
Click to expand...

Why would this make anybody feel uncomfortable?
 
#366
#366
YorkVol said:
Right, so you agree that the defense of your money is a cooperative effort between you and the bank. So long as you secure your ATM card and Pin and the bank secures your account number and access then your money is secure.

Similarly, security of liberty is a cooperative effort between the people and the government. So long as you do your part, i.e. follow certain laws so that you don't impact on the liberty of others, and the government does its part, enforces those laws and provides for the common defense, then liberty should be secured.
Click to expand...

I still think your analogy is wide of the mark. There are a vast number of functional disanalogies between living under a government and being a customer of a bank. For example, I can choose to take part in the bank, and thus choose to be subject to their rules. If there exists no bank with which I am satisfied, I can keep my money. I cannot do so with government.

The vast majority of individuals do not choose (so long as we are speaking of genuine choice), either explicitly or tacitly, the government with which they live under; and, further, the vast majority of individuals do not possess the ability to simply say, "Well, there exist no governments with which I am satisfied, so I will just live according to my own law", thus declaring they are no longer subject to the laws of any governments. For, if most individuals make this proclamation, the government which claims possession of the territory in which they reside, will ignore said proclamation and still impose their laws on said individual. Banks lack this might.

YorkVol said:
In an ideal world where everyone truly respected and cooperated with each other, there would be no need for the bank to secure the account numbers, or even lock their vaults. We would each have our basket full of money and could walk in and retrieve it without question. Extend that to the free society and, sure, ideally there would be no enemies in the borders of that free country.

But, as you and I both know full well, we don't live in that world: there are thieves and there are enemies to our liberty. Consequently, banks need locks and we need to encrypt our communications.
Click to expand...

Your analogy still fails to hold. This time, it fails on the notion of cooperation. In a bank, I both choose the bank and, in doing so, choose whether or not to cooperate with thieves. Further, a bank possesses my money. Money of which I have the power to do what I want. If I want to lock it away from others, I can cooperate with whomever I so please to lock it away, spend it, burn it, etc.. A government does not possess my liberty. Unlike money, in which I transfer to a bank and say, "Hold on to this and, based solely on trust, let me have some of it when I want it", I do not turn to the government and say, "Here is my liberty, enslave me, and let me be free when I want to". In fact, the latter sentence does not make coherent sense. If taking my liberty is up to me and I have the discretion to take it when I want, then I cannot transfer it to the government (I cannot transfer it to anyone, if that is the case). If taking my liberty is not up to me and I do not have the discretion, then I actually do not have liberty. I can no more say, "Here, hold on to my liberty", then I can say, "Hey, you can enslave me unless I don't like it, in which case I'll leave". To say such things is just senseless word-play. If liberty is a real concept (and maybe it is not), then liberty and government are disanalogous to money and banks.

YorkVol said:
So, if the government does the same...well, Herodotus was right.
Click to expand...

Of course he is right, and this plays off the point I made above. Once individuals have surrendered their liberty, they have become slaves in some form or fashion. Being a slave means, as explained above, that one is not at the discretion to simply tell their master that they no longer enjoy being a slave and so will no longer be a slave. If that is the case, then they have not given up any liberties to begin with. So, the liberties are surrendered, the people are enslaved, and it takes superior might, not simply a request, to overcome the master and thus escape the bondage of slavery.

Further, if it takes superior might to overcome the master, then what is implied is the master has more might than the slave. If the master has more might than the slave, then what stops the master from taking more liberties from the slave? Certainly not a request from the slave not to take their liberties; certainly not even a demand. Superior might is all that can be called upon to reverse the situation.

When the master is the state and the slaves are the citizens, and the master has at least more might than the individual citizen, then how does the citizen gain superior might? It might be through numbers (divide and conquer v. unite and overcome). But, if you have a program in which the master has also invaded the privacy of communications of the slaves, then how are these slaves ever to unite and overcome? On top of that, the master has superior weaponry and is working to take away all weaponry from the slaves. Further, the master can, based on nothing more than suspicion, remove the slave from the community of his/her comrades and detain said slave in isolation indefinitely.

The only way to avoid this is to have individuals that represent the interests of the citizens running the government. Since information and knowledge work with desire to produce interest, the government cannot hide information and knowledge from the citizen and still proclaim to represent the interest of the citizen. The interest of the individual citizen, therefore, must be replaced by some theory of the common good or interest of the whole, in which generality replaces particularity. But, if that is the case, then decisions are being made not based on representation of the interests of actual citizens; they are being made based on representation of some theoretically general "common good". What does "representative government" mean in such context though? Why not simply have a dictator, since what is happening is that the theory is telling the citizens what is good for them anyway? Again, just make the citizens slaves "for their own good".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#367
#367
notabed22 said:
Also, of the two scenarios, the state secret one is certainly more plausible.
Click to expand...

Negative. Plausibility involves probability and there is a zero percent chance of knowing anything about the future, since the future has no truth-value. So, both are equally not plausible.

By the way, I am not 65. I'm in my 30s.
 
#368
#368
SamRebel35 said:
Why would this make anybody feel uncomfortable?
Click to expand...


Because the claim is that this program was unmasked out of patriotic duty to let people know how the program worked, but now that he's done that he and the reporter seem to be taking a 10 day, worldwide, victory lap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#369
#369
lawgator1 said:
Because the claim is that this program was unmasked out of patriotic duty to let people know how the program worked, but now that he's done that he and the reporter seem to be taking a 10 day, worldwide, victory lap.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? If one thinks the program needed to be exposed, why does it matter whether or not the individual who exposed the program has ulterior motives?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#370
#370
therealUT said:
Why does that matter? If one thinks the program needed to be exposed, why does it matter whether or not the individual who exposed the program has ulterior motives?
Click to expand...


You are right, they are not directly connected. Its just off putting to me.

I remember back in undergrad there was a guy at UF who led an anti-apartheid protest and long-term sit in of sorts at UF's main administration building. He would drone on and on in the school paper or the Gainesville Sun about what great sacrifice he was making to lead it, and pat himself on the back for being so courageous and well-meaning. Went on for along time. Was just really annoying
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#371
#371
Joe Biden exposed the program in 2006 and didn't support it. He didn't run to China. Unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#373
#373
notabed22 said:
You really just like to get some words in the conversation, don't you?

I answered therealUT's question; I know this is hard for you to understand, but not everyone cowers to a 65-year-old college student who thinks the world operates like a philosophy text.

Also, of the two scenarios, the state secret one is certainly more plausible. If you're not willing to have any classified information, clearly your battle strategy will be ineffective... but that's not even the point. Given the hypothetical scenario, we have posters on this site that would allow liberty to be completely lost on their watch instead of permitting the creation of a piece of classified information.

Which, of course, is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Well duh.....just trying to make an absolutely, stupidly absurd scenario a little stupider (or more stupid, which ever works for you).....looks like I was able to as you are still trying to address it via my post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#374
#374
Obsessed said:
I disagree. I don't think USA would risk sending a team after him there and risk a war. They would protect him in exchange for info.
Click to expand...

That edifies his dilemma, the statement of his purpose versus concern for capture. The Chinese are known for temporizing. They might promise to protect him on one day and then turn him over on the next. He would have to spill a lot of beans for them to keep him, and that would make him look exactly like a traitor.
 
#375
#375
Vol Main said:
That edifies his dilemma, the statement of his purpose versus concern for capture. The Chinese are known for temporizing. They might promise to protect him on one day and then turn him over on the next. He would have to spill a lot of beans for them to keep him, and that would make him look exactly like a traitor.
Click to expand...

I concur.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top