The Snowden moment is only but a point in time when democracy realized it had been subverted. The "act" of takeover happened way earlier than that when the idea of secret ballot was compromised with complete erosion of individual privacy. Naturally modern day people will not realize the looming dangers of a tyranny until the tyranny itself manifests into some form that affects them individually.
Two examples in the world exist where a surveillance state has actually succeeded: Singapore and also in some ways China. It only depends on what percentage of people feel they're prosperous and doing well; which is an odd metric because there is, for example, a significant percentage of people in North Korea who will be happy to attack America at first chance. Despite the economic disaster they've been forced to live into.
> Rampant individualism probably emboldens all this.
It does complicate the matter. But even in a group it'd be very difficult -- nearly impossible -- to take down a surveillance state with sweeping coverage and the ability to surgically dissect and disable strategies of any such a group however large. In my opinion it is very much a feeling of going after a "lost cause" that most people seem to have internalized -- not necessarily a selfish stand which kind of alienates them even more.
"for example, a significant percentage of people in North Korea who will be happy to attack America at first chance. Despite the economic disaster they've been forced to live into."
Not really. ALL people in North America will gladly attack America, because hate to America(USA, America is a continent) is instilled to them since preschool.
They don't know they are in an economic disaster, because the media tells them other countries are in worse position. They are told that people form other countries wear nice clothes just like actors in order to make them believe they are rich. Most people believe the propaganda because they are surrounded by it.
It is not very different from the US, for instance since the US backed coup d' Etat to Ukrainian democratically elected Government, western media have told several lies that people just bought because all the media agreed:
1. That taking over a democratically elected Government was justified(from the country that usually invades countries for "democracy and freedom") because of corruption. Never mind the people that they put on place is as corrupt or worse.
2. Spending 6.500 million dollars to interfere in other country is totally ok, if you are the USA. Of course if someone else tries to influence US election it is a crime.
3. That Putin was a monster that wanted to "expand his Empire". This is the most ridiculous thing you could hear ever from the biggest country on Earth that has problems just defending his country.
But most (North)Americans bought it without a thought, because of things like "manufacturing consent".
Most people just naturally aligns with the majority. If you control the most watched media, you could tell people what is right to believe... Until it becomes so clear that they are being duped, that's it.
In Western countries you are free to watch or read whatever you want, but the media that is most watched is totally controlled. They don't care about a few guys knowing the truth because in a democracy the mass is king and you control the mass.
Is Singapore a surveillance state? I worked there last April and I loved the place. People seemed busy and prosperous. I was there a week before I saw any police what so ever, and then it was three young guys in uniform walking down the street and they seemed very friendly (as all police I have ever talked with in the US, BTW). I thought it looked like a great place to live!
Nope, it's a democratic constitutional republic, and people would do well to remember that is the correct term for our enshrined form of government (though it has veered from it largely).
You seem to be quickly concluding that democracy is dead in America because of surveillance. That surveillance may be illegal but it doesnt change how the officers of government are chosen. America is still a democracy, unless you truly believe that surveillance has already been converted into controlled brainwashing. (I do not believe that to be the case.)
Hate to say this but I agree!
At the moment I have following feelings:
The Snowden moment is only but a point in time when democracy realized it had been subverted. The "act" of takeover happened way earlier than that when the idea of secret ballot was compromised with complete erosion of individual privacy. Naturally modern day people will not realize the looming dangers of a tyranny until the tyranny itself manifests into some form that affects them individually.
Two examples in the world exist where a surveillance state has actually succeeded: Singapore and also in some ways China. It only depends on what percentage of people feel they're prosperous and doing well; which is an odd metric because there is, for example, a significant percentage of people in North Korea who will be happy to attack America at first chance. Despite the economic disaster they've been forced to live into.
> Rampant individualism probably emboldens all this.
It does complicate the matter. But even in a group it'd be very difficult -- nearly impossible -- to take down a surveillance state with sweeping coverage and the ability to surgically dissect and disable strategies of any such a group however large. In my opinion it is very much a feeling of going after a "lost cause" that most people seem to have internalized -- not necessarily a selfish stand which kind of alienates them even more.