[extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality

[Lee Corbin]

Samantha writes

> > There is, unfortunately, at the present time NO ALTERNATIVE but for
> > citizens to keep a close enough watch on each other---or enable
> > their governments to be able to keep such a watch---to ward off
> > total destruction.
> 
> How close is close?

Just---pray for us---the very minimum it takes to keep WMD out of
the hands of small groups and individuals.

> What do you mean "no alternative".

No alternative to millions of deaths.

> How would you watch if you don't know what you are looking for?
> If you do know then there are other means of more or less just-
> in-time detection.    

That sounds just fine to me.

> If, and it is a large if, nut jobs could easily take out cities, then  
> I would still prefer to live under that chance occurrence than the  
> very certain evils of total surveillance.

Your feelings will change the day that several million people die
in San Francisco or New York.

> > Therefore, the absolute *minimum* intrusion into our lives must
> > logically be arranged---either now, when we can do so calmly and
> > rationally---or later, after the first cities have gone up.
> 
> What does this look like?  How is it rational to govern that much of  
> our lives on the worse case scenario?  Where are the trade-offs?

There is no simple answer that I know of. I can only hope that 
Western nations have elected people who aren't so clueless that
they see no danger, or aren't so overbearing that they use the
real dangers to persecute the innocent. Alas, it will be a fine
balance, and the only thing for sure is that we will take---and
are taking---risks.

> > But the bottom line is: unless it's a threat to *everything*---
> > outside monitoring of what individuals are doing ought to be
> > prevented (by checks and balances, of course).
> 
> A threat to even a city in not a threat to everything.

Your life will be affected in tremendous ways by the first nuclear
attack upon the nation in which you live.

Lee