I'd recommend addressing the actual problem, which the all-encompassing surveillance is a symptom of. The actual problem is that there is a government in place. For more information, look up Stefan Molyneux, Larken Rose, Michael Huemer, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, etc.
As a very simple example, why are laws like SOPA and CISPA passed in secret, unless there's a massive uprising against them? Obviously, they're passed in secret, or stealthily, or all of a sudden - they're just rammed through exactly because they know the people would be against these laws if they only fucking KNEW ABOUT THEM.
Did you think defeating SOPA would be meaningful in the grand scheme of things? If they're passing one law that's harmful to the masses and against their will, why wouldn't they pass another? .. and another, and another?
Well, if they're passing harmful and unnecessary laws all the fucking time, do you think they just might not be on your side? I mean, how difficult is it to figure out that "your" representatives don't actually represent you? They're constantly passing laws that are against your will, after all. Oh, and they're extorting you too! (It's called "taxation" to make it more palatable)
Now then, since it's obvious that the government and its legislators are not on your side - contrary to what people commonly believe, strangely enough - doesn't it make you wonder whether having a government is a good idea in the first place?
Did you even read what I wrote? But I get it. It's difficult to process this information.
> No one should take you seriously
Don't just take my word for it. Go investigate the collective works of the people I listed above. If you do that, you'll agree with me (unless you've been severely traumatized as a child).
> I don't see what espousing that ideology is going to get you.
Me? -Possibly nothing. But it's good if I can help ordinary people everywhere avoid whatever seriously unpleasant fate awaits us all if we don't wake up in time. People not being subjected to coercion is not much of an ideology by the way.
But for example, why would other people let Mike pollute the water despite everyone else having signed the "Filter Pact"? Mike's selfish actions would directly affect other people making a living, and therefore, some kind of intervention would be warranted - and would happen too! After that, everything is fine again.
Even if you're silly enough to argue against your own freedom, you can't just leave things at presenting a problem, expecting it would not get solved, and thinking you've proven that freedom "doesn't work".
It's not up to us. All we can do is decide what structure the government will take.
Wow. At least you're being original :p
> All we can do is decide what structure the government will take.
Actually, as long as we have rulers, we can't even do that. You may be aware of the US quickly turning into a nasty police state. Do you think the people being "governed" had a say in that?
The only possible solution is to have no rulers.
In the last century the Chinese and Russians collectively agreed to give up concepts of property and privilege for the betterment of all. Except, some of them only pretended to do that. So they ended up with everyone else's property and privilege.
It's not hard to convince every single person that they should not be ruled. It's impossible to convince every single person that they should not rule. There's always someone who thinks they could do it better if they were in charge.