Once individuals can synthesize viruses, armed drones, atomic bombs and AIs in their cellars, there will be a myriad ways of things going terribly wrong (in addition to the myriads of things that can already go wrong).
Once individuals can synthesize viruses, armed drones, atomic bombs and AIs in their cellars, there will be a myriad ways of things going terribly wrong (in addition to the myriads of things that can already go wrong).
Here is my problem, or my main problem, with this line of thinking. America is founded upon the idea that individual liberties are basis for all other liberties, and while I can understand the reasoning that the national security apparatus finds the shifting sands of power from nation states to individuals a potential security threat, they have embraced this thought process without bringing it to the people in an upfront manner as should be properly done in a constitutional representative democracy. This model of thinking, at least in the USA, is a complete rewriting of what we consider our government should be, and a rewiting that is happening with no informing the people, and one that will most certainly have more unintended consequences than anyone can yet imagine.
I am certain of one thing, and that is the worst things will befall those who so eagerly trade liberty for security, at the hands of those who promise to protect.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what "idea" America was founded upon. The whole talk of "trading liberty for security" has become a religious dogma now, when originally it was meant only as an observation about a narrow group of cases. We will have to have more centralized security and more surveillance if we want to survive our technological growth. I'd much prefer to live in such "dystopia"[0] than in a country whose people got sick and died believing in the idea that individual liberties of a random dude with access to an advanced genome sequencing machine are basis for all other liberties.
[0] - personally I'm rooting for something closer to the United Federation of Planets.
On the contrary, I think it is of the utmost importance that America was founded by We The People and that if you completely undermine the mandate of government by the people as set in the preamble of the Constitution then you are essentially declaring American government illegitimate.
"We will have to have more centralized security and more surveillance if we want to survive our technological growth." ... "personally I'm rooting for something closer to the United Federation of Planets."
Do you really not see the danger of this? I understand the theoretical justifications globalists/universalists have, because they think the idea of national sovereignty is an old relic of the past, but I think such a viewpoint fails to take into account the primary issue: centralization is a weakness, not a strength. In just about every structure, especially one in which massive power flows, a centralized structure is much easier to subvert, manipulate, and control to more nefarious ends.
"I'd much prefer to live in such "dystopia""
That's your prerogative, and I'm not sure if you are an American or not, but I have personally sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I'm not about to just give up on the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people and their freedoms and liberties for purported security.
This is what makes America exceptional in an increasingly European post-colonial world.
And I'd rather die on my feet that live on my knees.
As far as I'm concerned, freedom is it's own end and needs no further justification. I mean, to be free is to have agency, and to be subjugated is to be denied that agency. And from what I can see, it's our agency, our free will (or the illusion thereof), our freedom to make decisions, that fundamentally makes us human. Without that, I see no reason to live at all.
That's your opinion, you have a right to it. And it would be perfectly good thing if you were the only human in the universe. But I think you haven't simulated the evolution of a system where such thing was the primary value and there is more than one human present - where you can't have everyone having perfect freedom to do anything. Let's try and do it.
First, you start with humans who value their freedom to do anything. It means that I value my freedom of taking food you collected. You value your freedom to fight me back. The system is one of violence defining bounderies of freedoms. It's not a very productive system. Humans are smart, so we notice that if we mutually agreed to suspend our freedom of taking the resources of others (which we will now call "theft" or "robbery"), we can reduce our defense spending and put the work to satisfying other goals. It works well, but it's a fragile arrangement - the first person to defect and draw their sword gets the resources of the rest. So (skipping some stages) we figure out that we may codify the agreement to not steal/rob and outsource the enforcement (including violence) to a group of people that will get some of our resources as a reward. And hence, the rule of law is born, and everyone is happier and more productive.
Going through this process is what defines civilization. And I want to live in a civilization.
And hence, the rule of law is born,
But so very much of what passes for "law" today is nothing of the sort. But my view of what constitutes a valid law is pretty much a reflection of what Bastiat had to say (minus the religious stuff):
[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...
I'm not sure I would agree with that. From my perspective, all coordination requires is voluntary collaboration and free exchange. After all, people can (and do) choose to do things for "the greater good" even when they don't have to.
I was born here, I don't want to move and I don't want to pay taxes. What will your civilization do with me?
I'm not going to do it voluntarily.
Obviously it's not your fault, but building unrealistic system 100% conforming to your values vs building realistic system that conforms 90% to them is interesting question.
I think this is true for all institutions. Change need to be first enabled and then forced. This is because institution is not a solid thing, it's a while loop. A process that needs to feed itself to exist. So it has natural inertia to stay the same.
I think democracy is enabled by efficient taxation of businessmen. So you no longer need aristocracy as middlemen to collect taxes.
It's enforced by necessity of defense. You can motivate peasants to defend "their country". But you have to let the vote for it to feel theirs. This worked at an age when you needed lot's of fingers to pull lots of triggers. There was proof of concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition
Looks like weapons technology and general resentment against conscription is enabling whatever comes after democracy.
Would you argue that our system is much more based on taxation than on decentralization of decision making? Isn't taxation a form of decentralization of decision making as you move the means to make decisions to a central pool? Also, why do you have to let people vote to feel what? What is WotFC a proof of concept for? How will weapon technology and resentment against conscription shape, what are possible scenarios you have in mind?
In geopolitical way of thinking, a state is always competing with other states. Not because we are bad people, but for the simple fact that states that can hold their own are likely to survive. Certain type of political "evolution".
To succeed in that competition you need armed forces. For that, you need manpower, equipment and supplies. All can be bought with money. So successful taxation is essential for any nation.
When traders and banks started to amass wealth at end of medieval period, any state that could tap into that flux of money had upper hand. But taxing individuals or sales actions or anything like that is more difficult than taxing nobles based on the land they hold. It helps a lot if those people have some sort of motivation to pay taxes. Concept of nation state provides such patriotic feelings. Now you are paying taxes for your people, not your feudal lord. Accounting and bureaucracy in general are also key elements.
French revolution established democracy and right after that the French levee en masse could defend the country against very big and powerful nations. Despite the facts that the french were short of money, had few trained troops and only little time. It showed that you could compensate with motivated and numerous troops. Imagine if you had democracy and money? This happened in the period where rifle had become more important in the battlefield than trained cavalry.
Possible scenarios? I think cryprocurrency will put traditional taxation in a binge. Governments need to tax what they can control, income and sales are going to be difficult. Taxation of energy seems easiest. Both persons and companies need energy. And it has some legitimacy with environmental concerns. Another big one is going to be information, it's difficult to lay cables without government knowing about it.
National identities don't seem to be important to people anymore. Conscription seems to become unneeded as well as unpopular. Bureaucracy is not going anywhere.
Political power seems to be shifting towards military-industrial big players. I don't think we will see feudalism. But maybe a modern version of powerful families of Venetian Republic. This time more with company allegiance than family ties.
Was that more understandable?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev%C3%A9e_en_masse
EDIT: I just would like to add that technological progress seems inevitable. But speed of technological development seems often biased. It's likely that current power structures pour R/D money on technologies that keep them in power. And it's completely possible that some unforeseen technology emerges and changes the picture totally.
I like Swedish arms production for this reason. For example they develop new anti-tank missiles to keep infantry relevant in the battlefield. Which in a way promotes democracy.
Paraphrased, can't remember the source
The thing couldn't even shoot through two sides of a car door.
And this is still very low in the category of actual damage - close to the top I'd put a resourceful teenager halting a desalination plant or crashing the power grid in some country using only his laptop. Actually, I'm still a bit surprised it hasn't happened yet given the laughable state of infosec in the industries.
The point of the quote is - our technological advancements tend to raise the amount of damage a single person can do by using products of the system against the system itself. And this is a big problem, because while you can hope for some level of control over countries or even corporations, with 7 billion people on this planet, some accident is bound to occur eventually, and individuals hell-bent on destroying the world pop up by pure chance.
This thing is optimistically as powerful as a handgun. Any random teenager with over $50K and two years of time to sink into this kind of project can get a gun.
A teenager with $50K can obtain a car and just run people over, too. That's both more likely and more effective.
> The point of the quote is - our technological advancements tend to raise the amount of damage a single person can do
Our technological advancements also tend to raise the amount of "the sky is falling" paranoia. When drones first started getting popular, I saw several articles about how terrorists were going to build smart bombs with GPS-guided drones. This is a legitimately plausible scenario. The question is whether someone with the resources to build a drone with sufficient range and carrying capacity to do real damage could do the same without drones, and the answer is most certainly yes.
New tech doesn't necessarily mean more danger, even if it means new types of danger.
> Our technological advancements also tend to raise the amount of "the sky is falling" paranoia.
I've noticed that too. I don't want to sound paranoid about technology in general, and I'm not worried about terrorists doing their terrorist things. I'm worried what an average random individual could do, whether by accident or on purpose. Most of the popular dangers don't multiply the power of an individual enough. But biotech does.
Thanks. I missed that. How did he manage to get these for 1/10th the cost? Still, I'm pretty sure a black-market handgun or a beater car can each be obtained for <$4k.
> Most of the popular dangers don't multiply the power of an individual enough. But biotech does.
I could see that. I'm not sure how much biotech is really going to be accessible, though. I think much of it will end up locked down (legally), and I suspect that the regulations will be fairly effective. There are already biological agents that people can harvest, but it's relatively uncommon.
I don't know, but one of the way I used to source (much smaller) HV capacitors for free was disassembling flash modules from single-use cameras that were thrown away after film was extracted from it. Generally, there are ways. In my city there is an electronics market where you can source a lot of parts (some extracted from old devices) cheap. I haven't asked for how much they sell those big HV capacitors in Shenzhen yet, but I'm willing to bet it won't be anywhere near $800/pc.
> I'm not sure how much biotech is really going to be accessible, though. I think much of it will end up locked down (legally), and I suspect that the regulations will be fairly effective.
I don't know either; we'll find out in a decade. But I don't see it effectively locked down in the longer (10+ years) run, unless something slows down current wave of progress that is happening around biotech equipment. Like with 3D printers, a lot of things you needed shit ton of money for can now be done with DIY equipment in a garage. This gave rise to community biolabs (biohackerspaces).
> There are already biological agents that people can harvest, but it's relatively uncommon.
True. I ascribe this to people generally not being evil or having murderous instincts. What worries me more are accidents and incentives-induced-stupidity. As an example of the latter, the most common bioattack people are doing right now is coming to work sick. It's actually mind-blowing that so many companies (outside IT) force people directly or indirectly to come in sick, even though it results in other employees getting infected and overall productivity in the company taking a hit.
" individuals hell-bent on destroying the world "
Ha, on Criminal Minds my favorite quote is from a scene where it was observed that a teenaged boy profiled as a sociopath. The boss replied "Every teenaged boy profiles as a sociopath; you know that!"I'll start worrying when the actual amount of danger exceeds what a rural teenager can do with access to a farm supply store and $20.
I disagree that the shotgun would be easier because of ammo issue. It may be as you say in the US of A, but in Europe it's not that easy to get your hands on live rounds. Also, I doubt people often sell ammo to a 12 year old - so in order to get it, you'd have to interact with a grownup. Railguns are easier; your parents will never know what you're building even if you're spending your lunch money on high voltage capacitors.
Is the oldest source that I remember (from page 37).
> Moore’s Law of Mad Science: Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.
Also remember you cannot trade liberty for security.
I'm quite happy to give up the freedom to run, say, a toxic waste dump in my garden to prevent my neighbour from having the same freedom.
In what year would you consider the US to first be a free country?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We are not yet in the age of some automated gun turrets. If you want to blame guns, then blame all knives, baseball bats, axes and whatnot. All shall be banned, no? I say yes, I see no difference between being shot and stabbed to death, for both you need a clear intent, but accedents can (and do) happen.
Seriously, how hard is to understand that weapons are not bought only for attack, but also for self-defense, ALSO for sport/fun, as collectibles etc. In fact, it takes a extremely dull character who needs to commit a crime with a weapon and goes to store to get registered for one. I mean, seriously, this is what you are saying? Because this isn't ahppening. Ban guns, and you'll severely restrict common citizen's access to them, but not so much criminal's one. In fact, i would expect illegal arms trafficking to skyrocket. War on drugs all over again.
There should be a check (of rules/laws knowledge, mental capability, clean criminal record etc.) before selling a gun. Guns for civilians shouldn't be full automatic either. But that's it. Rest is about living in freedom, or in a system that doesn't trust its own citizens and needs to control them. Just look at any news how power-greedy politicians are.
Who are you to tell other people they should abandon their hobbies ie of practise shooting, just because you feel that their real power to overthrow their government is "small"? You would be surprised how untrue this really is if whole nation would stood up to its government. But without guns, of course they wouldn't stand a chance
The whole rationale behind the "guns will protect our liberty" movement is that it is much easier to kill people with guns than with baseball bats and knives. It's just that in practice the people being killed relatively quickly and effortlessly with guns are real civilians and not hypothetical fascist stormtroopers.
However it seems that most low tech insurgencies fighting against the advanced conventional militaries of the West always seem to win, from Vietnam right up to Afghanistan / Iraq.
But it didn't really work during the US Civil War.
How can you possibly judge that? For all you know, having 300 million guns in America is keeping the earth's magnetosphere intact through some weird quantum effect. It's highly unlikely, but you have no idea what the actual benefit of the 2nd amendment is because there is no possible way to empirically determine what the past would have been like without it.
This is not a difficult problem.
It was given in order to establish militias, which the government can use to prevent insurrections and invasions, per section 8 of the US constitution.
No government allows its citizens the right to overthrow it. I have no idea why people think that? Do you?
Because they had, in fact, just overthrown an oppressive government. I have no idea why you think the founders did not consider that potential outcome. Jefferson even said "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion".
Can you think of another example of the right of the militia to bear arms ever being codified, anywhere in the world? Why would it need to be?
The right is specifically stated as being one of the people's rights. The militia is a reason, not the subject.
If the First Amendment had read "A well educated Legislature, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed" would you argue that only legislators had the right to keep and read books? No, you would not. Nor would anyone else, because that would be a nonsensical interpretation.
If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787)
The official US government question was already answered the 1860's. Many people had the mistaken idea that government allowed them the right to rebel against it. About 600,000 people found out the hard way that it was never their right.
People need to get their egos in check, because government always wins.
Probably worth mentioning the quote from Ben Franklin so often paraphrased out of context was, actually, an argument for taxation and federal military power (specifically to fund defense of the frontier against Native Americans), not a warning against it.
[0]http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-ben...