It is, we were talking about whether or not believing that the government goes beyond public data collection in the pursuit of large scale monitoring is paranoid. You originally said that it was, but given your subsequent statements I'm confident that if pressed you'd define "public" as the space found just outside of your skull. So the original question is meaningless.
> I'm generally fine with the status quo definition! Are you?
Nope, I'm not a big fan of the resulting laws that thinking enables - the outlawing of interracial marriage, war on drugs, etc.
> Everyone and anyone has the ... authority to collect and then act on that information.
Some have authority to a greater number of actions than others, I thought I made my point obvious with the phrase "monopoly on violence". If you're suggesting that Nabisco is equal to the USG in range of authority and action... well you're just being thick.
> There's no such thing as "the government". It's just a bunch of people and a shit ton of paperwork.
No, it isn't paperwork - it is a monopoly on violence over a geographic area. It is the ability to define one killing as murder and the other as capital punishment. By your logic: if all the paperwork in DC were to instantly vaporize then so to would the state's authority to use deadly force. The state's power is not derived from paperwork.
> Do you like that it works this way?
Nope, the logic for it does not follow and the unsound foundation has led a huge number of convoluted rules and exceptions.
> Why are they going to raid you?
I already said that it is impossible to know, I can't predict future laws - I even provided a silly example. So again, lets not be thick.
> I feel like this applies equally to private corporations...
I don't feel that I have a right to any information held by another private individual or corporation, just as I have no right to the fruit of their labor. But I do have that right in the case of the government - the very definition of a public resource. I think the cost of maintaining state secrets of all kinds, to include submarine locations, far outweighs the benefit - the concept itself needs to go the way of "the divine right of kings".
It is, we were talking about whether or not believing that the government goes beyond public data collection in the pursuit of large scale monitoring is paranoid. You originally said that it was, but given your subsequent statements I'm confident that if pressed you'd define "public" as the space found just outside of your skull. So the original question is meaningless.
> I'm generally fine with the status quo definition! Are you?
Nope, I'm not a big fan of the resulting laws that thinking enables - the outlawing of interracial marriage, war on drugs, etc.
> Everyone and anyone has the ... authority to collect and then act on that information.
Some have authority to a greater number of actions than others, I thought I made my point obvious with the phrase "monopoly on violence". If you're suggesting that Nabisco is equal to the USG in range of authority and action... well you're just being thick.
> There's no such thing as "the government". It's just a bunch of people and a shit ton of paperwork.
No, it isn't paperwork - it is a monopoly on violence over a geographic area. It is the ability to define one killing as murder and the other as capital punishment. By your logic: if all the paperwork in DC were to instantly vaporize then so to would the state's authority to use deadly force. The state's power is not derived from paperwork.
> Do you like that it works this way?
Nope, the logic for it does not follow and the unsound foundation has led a huge number of convoluted rules and exceptions.
> Why are they going to raid you?
I already said that it is impossible to know, I can't predict future laws - I even provided a silly example. So again, lets not be thick.
> I feel like this applies equally to private corporations...
I don't feel that I have a right to any information held by another private individual or corporation, just as I have no right to the fruit of their labor. But I do have that right in the case of the government - the very definition of a public resource. I think the cost of maintaining state secrets of all kinds, to include submarine locations, far outweighs the benefit - the concept itself needs to go the way of "the divine right of kings".