Identity politics
Alarmist but interesting stuff (ten minutes long but worth watching). For those of us who are more frightened of our governments than of terrorists are concerned about the surveillance society. None of this stuff seems to serve us.You often hear "well, if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". But who is deciding what "wrong" is. I already do things that the Man thinks are wrong (although I doubt that things like ripping CDs and burning them for others would be most people's idea of "wrong", it's illegal). The law doesn't always serve me, particularly when it seeks to protect me from myself (which I resent its doing because, erm, what's it to you after all?).
And it is sold to us under the banner of "security". Does being surveilled by CTVs make me feel more secure? Maybe. Does being fingerprinted at customs? Hmmm. Having a common database for government organisations? Well, yes, if I can trust my government. But I can't, can I? It has lied to me many times, spends my money on toys I don't want it to have and harms others when I don't want it to. Increasingly, it's difficult to see the government as something that represents us. It looks a lot more like something imposed on us.
posted by Dr Zen @ 2:07 pm
7 Comments:
This stuff makes you realise how hopelessly inefficient Big Brother was, spying on you through your own TV set. How he would have dreamed of implanting the device in your own subcutaneous layers. It makes you think the 9/11 conspiracy nuts do actually have a point in this respect: it did make this terrifying business more feasible, and so, on a question of "cui bono", has benefitted the forces of state repression far more than it has some be-turbanned, disaffected Saudi rich boy hiding in a cave in Tora Bora. ID cards, meanwhile, which in Europe are a hangover from the Nazi Occupation but which nobody wants to scrap just because they're a little tainted, are making inroads in the UK and the US. But you'll be fine as long you're doing nothing wrong. The Brits argued that all the way through the great Irish miscarriages of justice. Americans will still argue regardless of Guantanamo, of extraordinary rendition and so on. Ask Khalid el-Masri if innocence is sufficient reason to have nothing to fear.
Finally, somewhere you and I see directly eye-to-eye. I think it was Ben Franklin (probably among others) who said that anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. It seems to be a constant throughout the history of civilization that governments seek to exert more control than should ever be reasonable. And it uses fear to gain acceptance for its methodology, and we all like sheep just baa-baa-baa along for the ride. I think it was this aspect of the current situation that cemented my vote for Kerry in 2004.
Personally, I believe that the current terrorist climate in the Middle-East is a lot more temporary than the ramifications of this move toward Big-Brotherism...
The law doesn't always serve me, particularly when it seeks to protect me from myself (which I resent its doing because, erm, what's it to you after all?).
Dude, how very rightish of you. ;)
I don't really agree that nannyism is a necessary part of leftism. Society can be concerned about me without feeling the need to tell me what I should do about its concern.
Anyway, the right has tended to pursue restrictiveness and the imposition of its morality, whereas the left has tended to liberalness.
Society can be concerned about me without feeling the need to tell me what I should do about its concern.
There's nothing about an individualistic philosophy that precludes concern. It's because I'm concerned for my fellow man that I believe in leaving him the fuck alone to do as he pleases. If he asks for my help, that's another thing entirely.
Anyway, the right has tended to pursue restrictiveness and the imposition of its morality, whereas the left has tended to liberalness.
In my country of late this is certainly true. I'm thinking specifically of gay marriage. Neither party we have here is very close to (or even within shooting distance of) its original philosophy anymore. But I'm still allowed to find it funny hearing you sound like a libertarian. Next thing you'll be wanting to legalize the marijuana.
"There's nothing about an individualistic philosophy that precludes concern."
Ultimately, there is. Particularly as rightists such as Don have it (believing that if everyone pursues their own interests selfishly and rationally, the common end will be good -- "invisible hand" and all that).
As for morality, rightists tend to be conservatives, believing things was better in the good old days. They tend to see change as a bad thing, destroying structures that they depend on. They're not entirely wrong about that (maybe I'm just getting old) because the mindless worship of change is not entirely positive (although conservatives tend to ignore that it is on the whole positive).
I'm a staunch supporter of legalising all drugs, actually, and I've said so on my blog. I'm far more liberal than you DREAM, lady. When I'm running the place, there'll be crack added to the water!
I'm a staunch supporter of legalising all drugs, actually, and I've said so on my blog.
Yes, I know dear, I read your blog. I was just teasing-like.
Post a Comment
<< Home