However, what our democratically elected government does to us is very much within our own power to change, and we have the ability to hold them to account.
We do not elect the Director of National Intelligence and we did not have a public debate about secret laws. The only reason these things are coming to light is due to the extralegal actions of one brave man, one technologist, one individual. Not due to "our democracy".
None of that would be possible in a country like China.
Even as individual people we don't live by moral absolutes. It's a bit weird to expect our government to.
As a foreigner I don't really consider USG spying on its citizens any more or less unjustified than spying on us foreigners. Just because you are born somewhere should not dictate how your rights can be violated. People should be treated and considered the same, especially when it comes to stuff happening over the internet. I don't think anyone can honestly argue otherwise on moral grounds, and the moment you throw in "but in real world ..." the argument loses its substance.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
To get somewhere as a species we need to leave behind this 'ends justifies the means' BS and start living by the principles we have all agreed to are absolute.
What could change something, if one were to actually think freely, would be to have no secrets. Then suddenly what was stealing, is now just someone wasting their own time. BOOM. But of course, you can't have slavery and sitting fat on doing nothing without secrets, so that's not within the framework of allowed options.
That's nonsense.
I'm not sure your argument really disputes my point though.
I am pretty sure you don't understand it, so maybe that can make up for your doubt in this matter.
But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that governments attempt against rival governments.
Those are secrets of people, not of nations.
But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that governments attempt against rival governments.
There is a huge difference between organizations and people, I never proposed such a thing when it comes to people vs. nations.
Yes, now please bother to read the next two sentences of my original post and then think about it, because I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.
Spying on each other is a natural consequence of needing to have an edge on the competition. Therefore, it's actually harder to justify not doing so if you know that your competition, say China, will do so with little compunction.
Whilst we're waiting for this sunny amazing utopia with no walls, no ownership and no scarcity of commodities to happen, espionage and similar behaviours will continue.
When it comes to ideas however, scarcity is artificial.
When it comes to the physical scarcity, we are awaiting the heat death of the universe (= competition doesn't lead anyone anywhere, except into a giant joke that's on them), whilst sitting next to a ball of gas which blasts more energy than we could even imagine into space ( = competing over the scraps falling from that table while polluting our planet is also a game only idiots can play with sincerity).
Spying on each other is a natural consequence of needing to have an edge on the competition.
What need to have an edge? What competition, what danger is man facing, but man? Peaceful progress may be slower than constant war, but so what? What good is progress that just amounts to the "need" for even more bullshit? This expedition isn't going anywhere.
You're on hacker news, so quite possibly work in the tech industry. Would you give up everything you knew, if it could be shown that technology by its nature encourages the kind of behaviour which feeds back into itself until we're screaming down the road into the future at breakneck speed, needing more and more to sate our desire for progress?
Are you prepared to give up the mass production line?
Are you prepared to give up cheap disposable items which make us devalue our commodities?
Are you prepared to have children by quota, so that we can control the ever increasing size of the human race and don't have to cut ever thinner the quotients of natural resources available to each?
You have something I want. It's my nature, I'm inclined to covet. I can either take it by force, by tact or by stealth. Unless you can change my intrinsic nature (me being any given human, anywhere), you cannot solve the issue of scarcity.
Only a few ideas put food in bellies, fire in the fireplace and water in the bath. This is a consequence of ideas being somewhat tortuously tied to meatspace, where the more prosaic rules. Nobility is a fine thing, but a poor provider.
I will always compete with you, because you are not me. Whether you're an individual or nation state, we are in competition. Either play and win, perhaps draw, or don't and be subsumed.
I will always compete with you, because you are not me.
That's like something straight of Mein Kampf. The trouble with sick people is that they assume everyone else HAS to be sick, too.
My statement was a simple description of the behaviour of individuals and states, and how each acts as their own agent. Some are more kind and selfless, and will go with less so that those around them can be lifted up, many others aren't so thoughtful. What do we do when an overwhelming majority of people and nations act primarily in their own interests first, even to the overwhelming detriment of those around them?
That you'd rather retreat into invective rather than critique my statements is telling. That you decided to Darwin the exchange is just a bit sad. Certainly what I am saying is somewhat bleak, I am a pessimist, but whilst bleak I do not think it an unrealistic portrayal of human behaviour. If it is, then perhaps I am too easily given over to misanthropy.
There are those wonderful moments where we rise above self interest and insensibility, I love it when that happens. I whole-heartily encourage people to pursue these outcomes, but the reason that states spy on each other is a realistic expectation that you cannot expect others to behave in a way that will not be detrimental to you, or your peoples interests.
It should also be noted that spying is not a natural by-product of war, but perhaps a better alternative. Tact and guile over brute force is preferable, honesty and jolly co-operation is of course best.
ps. You haven't said what you're prepared to give up so that we can curtail the rate of progress to a more sensible pace, and therefore not to pursue our interests so aggressively.
People do no such thing. They are just members of the tribe and are highly suspicious of members of other tribes, like all primates.
We also spy on the same people & aggregate the data so that instead of doing it themselves, they only have to breach one data trove.