[extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 27, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:

> 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.
>

That minimum is very intense surveillance of everyone.  Not good.

>> What do you mean "no alternative".
>
> No alternative to millions of deaths.

Why live your live or advocate running others lives based on such fears?

>
>> 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.

But you can't know what you are looking for completely, can you?

>
>> 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.
>

No, they will not.  The nuts have one if we orient all of life around  
finding and stopping them.

>>> 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.

You know and I know that evil (and/or clue free) SOBs are in charge.   
Now what?

> Alas, it will be a fine
> balance, and the only thing for sure is that we will take---and
> are taking---risks.

I will take my chances with the terrorists over total government lock  
down.

>
>>> 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.
>

My life is already tremendously affected by the mass paranoia and  
uses thereof that have been going on for the last five years.  I  
don't need any more of this.

- samantha