[in2liberty]

First, I'm a big fan... but:

I'm struggling with why you don't open arms embrace the Gen-X / Gen Y's actual attitude towards a government that can grab any of them and shame them into compliance is the moral voting decision.

There is an actual synthesis available, the state collects all kinds of data, but it cannot be used against its citizens.

Using any that data to help solve ANY domestic crime becomes the greater crime - it is traitorous for any public employee to do so. We have a long legal history or fruit of the poisoned tree, Gen X / Gen Y can simply ensure PRISM and its ilk - we save and extend that, and harshly punish a few civil servants.

Lesson taught.

Its similar to the militarization of the police. Why not expect and cheer Gen Y / Gen X to say out loud, "we don't care if more cops die because they have only a vest"?

Why not expect and cheer, the total destruction of the bureaucracy your work pillories?

Why valorize the near criminal firm behavior the 40 year s and a watch created?

I'm Gen X and I'm totally comfy with the idea of a state that has to rebuild itself around 1M Snowdens ready to heroically crush state malfeasance for $, fame, or patriotism.

It dawns on me you aren't a fan of Nassim Taleb.

I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it.

[cstross]

I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it.

Then you prefer to get your ideology and news pre-digested, do you?

(I reckon it's always a mistake to restrict your reading so that it conforms to your own worldview.)

I'm not a libertarian. Libertarianism is a specifically American ideology that can be pigeon-holed best as right-anarchism. I'm not American: I'm a leftist with a strong attachment to social contracts, civil liberties, and freedom. If it causes you to stop buying my books because it doesn't gel with your preconception of what I ought to be, that's fine by me. But you don't get to tell me not to talk about it.

[lukifer]

I've been tempted to try to coin the term "paleolibertarian": the original meaning of the word was much more left-leaning. http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rc

I think there is an oppurtunity for a coalition between the far left and the far right over civil liberties, if only we can "agree to disagree" on economic theories until the rule of law under the Constitution has been restored. (There's even a good brand hook built-in: the Green Tea Party.)

[nl]

To quote Charlie:

I'm not American

All this talk of "the Constitution" as though it is some kind of 100% correct holy document handed down from on high to our superior ancestors is pretty irrelevant in the rest of the world.

[rmc]

And countries with a constitution often change or reboot it. Not all countries with a constitution view it as some holy sacred document that doesn't need replacing. Ireland reset its constitution a few times, France is on like it's "Fifth Republic" by now.

[saraid216]

A good number of Americans treat the Constitution the way a good number of Christians treat the Bible. Veneration of its text, deviation is grounds for condemnation, have neither read it nor actually studied it from any useful (historical, ethical, or otherwise) context, asserts meaningless claims about their original intention, and invoke it mainly as an appeal to authority via clobber verses or legal sounding language.

It's extremely frustrating.

[saraid216]

Talking about "restoring the Constitution" is a good way to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth throwing in with. I believe in the future, not the past. Rather than holding up a piece of Scripture and warning me not to sin from the straight and narrow, I'd like to be presented with a vision for life lived.

Or, more succinctly, "Build bridges, not guard rails." It irritates me that American politics is often an exclusive-or choice between freedom and justice.

[lukifer]

Oh, I totally agree; the Constitution derives its authority from human rights principles which transcend nationality. I would love to see amendments which strengthened those rights and extended some or all protections to non-citizens.

The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. (The Constitution has always been somewhat broken, given our history with slavery, suffrage, and wartime abuses, but it's a more comforting narrative for most conservatives.)

If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment, I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. Whether you believe in a big or small government, we deserve one that we genuinely believe reflects our values, rather than the blatant corruption and "lesser evils" we live with now. If you remove the left-right smokescreen, Americans agree on more issues than it would seem; restoring faith in the democratic process would catalyze new progress in other arenas from there.

[saraid216]

> The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved.

But it's not a first step towards that goal. A significant number of people who chant "Restore the Constitution" mean "before the Fourteenth Amendment".

> If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment

That's not restoration.

> I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections.

That's fine. You don't need to rally behind "Restore the Constitution" to advocate for that.

[lukifer]

Like it or not, democracy requires coalitions to get things done, most especially in a country as culturally diverse as the US. While I also find some parts of the Tea Party abhorrent, I belive they are a necessary ally against the overreach of government. Note that that the first significant pushback against drones, and genuine use of the filibuster, came from none other than Rand Paul.

We can keep bickering over our disagreements, or we can unite over our common ground. The latter is bound to have much higher efficacy.

[ameister14]

I see talk about 'restoring the Constitution' a lot; but the truth is the Constitution is inherently flawed. It was broken (or fixed) the first time within a few years of its ratification, and failed utterly with the Civil War. In the process, the government of the United States actually became much more stable.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it's about the Constitution right now. I think the problem is that civic priorities have shifted.

[tracker1]

The Bill of Rights (first "fix") was mainly to restore certain civil protections that were established in the Articles of Confederation that the Constitutions ratification took away, or didn't expressly spell out (10th Amendment).

I think after the 1830's decision to use the commerce clause in more encroach into a broader role that it was a pragmatic decision at the time... however, that expanded role continued into what we have today. We should emphatically NOT have domestic arms of the U.S. Government with the power that the DoJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, DEA, ICE and their ilk are holding.

[ameister14]

Not really talking Bill of Rights, more alluding to Judicial Review, a process not provided for within the constitution and in fact specifically not included.

And the truth is, after the Civil War we shifted from a Federation into a Nation, with a National government. It's a situation we either have to accept or attempt to change, but that's what exists.

[rmc]

The US Constitution has a bit about privacy for US citizens. People like me, or @cstross would not be covered by it, and the NSA would legally be allowed to spy on us. Go beyond the US Constitution.

[lukifer]

Huh, didn't realize that Stross is British. The fight against spying there seems even more uphill, to say the least.

While the existing Constitution should be upheld as a first step, I do believe that some or all of the human rights protections should extend to all persons, not just citizens, and that spying on allies during peacetime is unacceptable. On a practical level, international spying is just a run-around for domestic spying anyway: we snoop on the UK's servers, they snoop on ours, and whoops, data on our own citzens!

I also think there is an oppurtunity for transnational democratic organizations, as depicted in Neal Stephenson's concept of "phyles". With enough people banding together worldwide, we can protect human rights with force, yet without violence.

[hyperventilator]

>Go beyond the US Constitution

Yes. But now your are talking about a world government. Do you think the one you hate would not have a major role? If they didn't have a major role would that really be a world government? Your country could try to negotiate anti-spying treaties, but your government is likely complicit. Maybe there is a seed for world governance here, but more likely politicians will play both sides as they always do.

[rmc]

<snark>The EU.</snark>

In actual fact, you can just expand a constitution to explicitly include privacy for all humans, regardless of citizenship/nationality. The US courts could hold the US government to that standard.

[BrianEatWorld]

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but your own concept of Libertarianism seems to be similarly pre-digested as it reflects, not the core beliefs, but the political movement as portrayed by the linear spectrum of news outlets, not the true circular spectrum of political beliefs.

It also is not an solely American ideology as concepts such as the flat tax and equality before the law can be seen in the Leveller Movement of 17th Century Britain. http://www.levellers.org/lev.htm

[unalone]

The government is not a monolithic entity. The evils of intrusive surveillance doesn't make, say, social programs, or economic regulation, evil just because they're other large government programs. Libertarianism is great if you're already wealthy; it's... problematic... if you're starting off from a position of relatively little power.

> I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it.

This is astonishingly condescending of you.

[in2liberty]

I'm not insisting we throw out the state because of PRISM.

It seems like you basically agree with my question of CSTROSS.

The last bit, was just me letting him know, putting his politics in front of his art means some won't make it to his art.

I like keanu reeves bc he doesn't let me know what he thinks. I'm weird that way.

[unalone]

And putting politics "in front of his art" will probably convince some of the, you know, thousands of people who read his blog posts on Hacker News and elsewhere, that maybe his books are worth picking up and buying.

Regardless, what you said was pretty rude.

[jacquesm]

> that maybe his books are worth picking up and buying.

They are, no matter what your politics. It's good stuff.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> putting his politics in front of his art means some won't make it to his art.

And a lot of artists are 100% ok with that. Mr Stross seems to be among them. Last time I heard that sentiment expressed was recently - a folk band who mentioned that they just weren't interested in playing a paying gig for a British National Party member.

To me it feels like personal integrity. But then I'm in broad agreement with Mr Stross' political views (and the folk band too) so it's not much of a challenge. I wouldn't want to be a fan of a far-right artist anyway.

[saraid216]

> I'm weird that way.

Dick. You are a dick. Just letting you know.

[rst]

"Fruit of the poisoned tree" is a peculiarly American doctrine which is recent as these things go; Wikipedia traces it to a court case from 1920.

And it's a somewhat problematic way of dealing with misconduct by the authorities. For one thing, it relies on them to correctly report where they're getting their information. Fast-forward to the recent NSA/DEA leaks, including memos offering agents explicit guidance in "parallel construction", a euphemism for constructing false case histories in which the existence of evidence from the NSA dragnet is concealed from the courts. Where this is happening, the exclusionary rule has failed as a constraint on the cops.

[fnordfnordfnord]

> We have a long legal history or fruit of the poisoned tree,

We had that. It is eviscerated by things like "Parallel Construction", "Exigent Circumstances", and really low standards for "Probable Cause". WRT domestic law enforcement (like drug cases), police may violate laws, peoples' rights in all manner of ways. Prosecutors usually get to keep the evidence if police can show "good faith".

[tracker1]

Personally, I lean very libertarian (with pragmatism towards said ideals). And although i think that GenX/Y (tail end of X myself) are far more open to free expression than many generations (though the 60's/70's did have a lot of protesting, you can see the impacts that started there). I think there are plenty of people that are very closed off, and closed minded.

Positions of power tend to be obtained by those that seek it out. Those that seek out power and achieve it are generally those that are both charismatic, and ambitious. This can be a dangerous combination. When you combine this with people who love raw technology, the opportunity to work with said technology will often outweigh the moral obligation someone should have with their larger community.

This is why things like PRISM can happen, and actually start being used before leaks happen. Many people I know would have not had the fortitude (I think myself included) to actually take the steps to speak out.

[pessimizer]

Is this Dada?