Either people fell for good marketing or for the irrational belief that power does not change people.
It was George W. Bush who once said in an interview that whoever becomes president after him, what he will get told every day (meaning security briefings etc) will change him. I think that's probably true only insofar as you as a president accept the basic premise that you are the Chief Watchdog of The American People and have to use ever more centralised power to guard your sheep.
Edit: This is not really on topic concerning the issues raised in the article linked, I know. I am just replying.
I voted for Obama in 2008 because of the major candidates, he had the best track record regarding civil liberties. I looked at the track record, and I was also deeply concerned that the approaches to health insurance law proposed by McCain would lead eventually to massive federal regulation of the sort we got under the PPACA.
The thing though is I don't think that it's just the security briefings. Obama didn't slowly change. He ran out of the gate running the wrong direction and by April 2009, the EFF was calling the way state secrets privilege was invoked under the Obama administration "Worse than Bush." Instead what have we got for our troubles? more bodyscanners at airports, mobile bodyscanners deployed at various places, the DoJ arguing in court that random body cavity searches in airports would be Constitutional (EPIC v. DHS) and that the President has the Constitutional authority to target any American anywhere in the world with lethal military force (in the Al-Awlaki case) and that state secrets privilege extended to evidence against the accused.
And through this whole process we are told that the Republicans would be worse and so we should just accept what we are given, and support our President as the fundamental protections of our liberty are assaulted again and again by the executive branch.
This is where the voting for the lesser evil leads, because a lesser evil unopposed for fear of a greater one can do far more damage than a greater one where such opposition exists.
If you think the key to maximizing freedom/civil liberties comes from voting for the lesser of evils amongst Democrats and Republicans, you are greatly mistaken. Both care only about extending their power and playing to the tune of their special interests. Everything else is just marketing.
Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. This, however, drastically relies on that notion being true. A backfire would be catastrophic.
If the jackal is breaking your windows you'll probably do something direct and immediate to defend yourself. If it's slinking just beyond the tree line you might decide to put another log on the fire and sip hot chocolate.
I think there's a somewhat decent argument to be made here. I consider Obama to be governing as a somewhat center-right politician, and although I know that's not universally accepted, I think if you look at his policies objectively, it's at least a fairly plausible statement. However, there are right wing factions that have, from the start, been fairly fanatically opposed to Obama (race might play some role, but given the political history of the last 10 years, I would not be surprised if the right would have reacted similarly to almost ANY democratic president). This fanatical opposition led to the rise of the Tea Party, which has moved the Republican party even further right and solidified the congressional republican strategy of opposition at any cost - clearly counter-productive to getting anything done.
Now, in my view, this radical far-right constituency would not have been nearly as vocal if a president such as McCain was in office. That's not to say that they wouldn't be there, but I don't think they would have nearly as prominent of a place in the Republican party, and I don't think that the Tea Party would exist at all. When a party is responsible for governing, it's hard for it to go too far off the deep end (I hope). Even far right Republicans would have had trouble vilifying a center-right Republican president, which is how I believe McCain would have governed. With a bit less opposition, such a president could and perhaps would have governed in a similar way as Obama has, but would have faced far less obstructionism. I'm not saying that McCain would have been a better president than Obama - I think the opposite is true, and Sarah Palin flat-out scares me. Instead, I just think that congressional Republicans have dug in their heels so far that even a Democrat who agrees with them on most fundamental issues is seen as a closet socialist Muslim out to destroy the US as we know it. With that kind of view and a minimum of 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, it's hard to see how a moderate or even slightly right Democrat could govern successfully.
That being said, this year's crop of GOP candidates is pretty scary, and I don't know how well this logic applies. I think a figure like John Huntsman might be able to successfully tame the far right wing of his party while governing from a fairly centrist position, but he may be the only one. Romney is hard to get a read on - if he's just moved to the right rhetorically to get through the primaries, then he might govern in a reasonable manner. However, if he truly believes some of the things that he has said this summer/fall, or has boxed himself in too much with campaign promises, his presidency could be fairly catastrophic. In my view, the only "productive" reason to vote for the "greater" of two evils is if you think that the two candidates would in reality govern quite similarly but one would be unable to get anything done due to extreme obstructionism. If the two candidates would govern very differently, then it seems highly counter-productive to vote for what you see as the greater of two evils.
Well, I believe that if the republicans loose again, they will have to readjust their positions anyway. But as you said about Romney, this is the primaries and they are try to find the center of the constituents who will vote in those primaries. So judging them right now is not a very good barometer.
I would like to think that, but everyone said that there would be a moderating readjustment on the part of the Republicans after 2008 too...
Understand that I'm making this a bit as a devil's advocate argument - I will still almost certainly be voting for Obama in 2012 (the only republican I could even consider voting for would be Huntsman, based solely on their acceptance of science). But I was responding to the question of how it could be at all productive to vote against the "lesser of two evils" in such a choice. I think there is a valid devil's advocate argument that in the face of such unmitigated obstructionism, the government as a whole might be more productive with a moderate republican in office than a democrat acting like a moderate republican (like we have now). I'm NOT saying that I approve of that situation, or that it's a good situation, I just think that it's one way to look at the situation we're in. Not sure why that view got down-voted...
Change will likely not happen within the current electoral system. Don't get forced into a "lesser of two evils" choice. Think outside the box. Think outside your current broken political system.
I'd have to say that the American political system is broken. Just two parties, with similar ideas. You need to have more opinions represented. Right now, you're choosing between "bad" and "worse".
Should we vote for the greater evil instead? Not vote? I think that in a first-past-the-post voting system the best option is to vote for the realistic candidate you think is best, then spend a lot of time and energy loudly making your beliefs heard.
Opposing someone whose policies are opposed to civil liberties (like Bush) limits them far more than opposing someone who talks a lot about how important the civil liberties are but erodes them anyway (like Obama). So yes. Voting for the greater evil strikes me as a very rational approach here.
Opposing someone whose policies are opposed to civil liberties (like Bush)
Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to point out that "civil liberties" is a very broad category. I think that if you examine the question deeper, you'll find that Obama also explicitly eschews some kinds of civil liberties.
Liberals, and specifically Obama, are openly hostile to one's right to property and the fruits of one's labor. And they're not too keen on the sovereignty of the individual: their right to decide their own values, and act as they deem best to maximize their own values.
The way our current system, with a single "left/right" dimension, divides up support for these seems to demand that we all take a position on which grouping -- column A or column B -- are more important, and that's very unfortunate. But even more unfortunate is that the media seem to implicitly consider only those in Column A to really be civil liberties, while either ignoring, or considering as an entirely different species -- those from Column B.
> Liberals, and specifically Obama, are openly hostile to one's right to property and the fruits of one's labor. And they're not too keen on the sovereignty of the individual: their right to decide their own values, and act as they deem best to maximize their own values.
I'm sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification. There are those that call themselves liberal but have a point of view exactly as you describe, but there is nothing that requires someone who is liberal to be against property rights and determination in individual's work.
Of course it is, but so is the claim that Conservatives hate the "Column A" civil liberties. For example, despite it seeming to be a core GOP plank, I only know 2 people opposed to gay marriage (one of them my father <sigh>).
So: yes, it's an oversimplification. But part of what I was saying is that when we're stuck with only 2 parties (in practice), and a single "left/right" dimension, then these awful generalizations are all that we have to work with.
I don't think that the two oversimplifications are on the same level. Lots of prominent GOP politicians espouse positions that are very openly against gay marriage (as do some Democrats, unfortunately). But you'd be very hard pressed to find many "liberal" politicians who are against property rights and an individual being allowed to reap the fruits of their labor. Yes, liberals are marginally more likely to see situations where public good might trump these to some extent (e.g. more progressive taxation to pay for a social safety net), but to say that liberals are "against" these things flat out is not accurate.
Finally, the fact that someone else made an oversimplification isn't really a great justification to do it yourself...
the fact that someone else made an oversimplification isn't really a great justification to do it yourself.
That's not what I intended to convey. I'm trying to say that, when you've only got two choices, the resolution of your choices is horrendously coarse. In the end, the system as it exists today forces us to look through lenses that oversimplify like this.
I don't think that the two oversimplifications are on the same level. But you'd be very hard pressed to find many "liberal" politicians who are against property rights.
On the contrary. Most controversially, it seems to me at least that most of the cards that the Democratic party is playing these days are in the "class struggle" suit. Beyond that, though, I'd say that the very fact that you're not noticing it demonstrates how ingrained it has become. For example, consider the way that environmental legislation takes away a person's rights to his property without any compensation[1].
Also, no one has commented on the personal sovereignty aspect of civil liberties. This is the idea that each of us has different priorities, and we should be allowed (without endangering others) to maximize those values. "Nanny state" laws like smoking bans, mandates for motorcycle helmets, and yesterday's calls by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to ban flavored cigars [1] clearly curtail my civil libeties, and it seems to me that these tend to be championed by the left.
[1] I was once advised to chop down a tree on my property because it was expected to show up on the list of endangered species; once it was there, I wouldn't be allowed to do anything to develop my property.
As I watch my score on this post waver up and down, it seems that this is a controversial point.
I find this surprising. Perhaps some down-voters could respond regarding their downvotes.
I believe that my post is topical, certainly with respect to its parent; and it's at least trying to add a finer level to the discussion, rather than just a throwaway.
Is it that you don't regard those "Column B" things like property rights as "civil liberties"? Is it that you think this A/B distinction along left-right lines is the natural order of morality, and I should just accept it?
This doesn't make any sense to me. This argument assumes that the output of Bush is the same as the output of Obama, which is most certainly not the case. I agree that there are disturbing similarities, but economic and social outlook is very different between those two presidents.
The main problem is that the system does not allow for effective involvement of the people. The key to solving this isn't to vote for the worst option possible, but rather to reform and change the system itself.
Indeed. Obama and Biden have been pretty big supporters of MPAA and RIAA, which isn't really a surprise when you know he received a lot of his donations from them. US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations, otherwise it will always lead to situations like these, with the politicians, even in the highest Office, being in the pocket of the Corporations and signing new laws in their favor, regardless of what the population at large that voted for them wants.
I agree that we have a problem today. But it's really unfortunate that when people see this, they immediately jump toward a solution that would cut to the very core of the First Amendment.
It's the politicians who are really the evil ones here. It's to be expected that corporations will jockey for favor, and it's the job of the politicians to honestly weigh all sides and do what's best for the country.
In that light, why would want to curtail the freedoms of the People in order to allow the politicians to keep following the same evil patterns? And that goes double, when the restrictions being contemplated can't possibly be policed. There are far more ways that a private entity can support a politician than through money or even in-kind support. For example, corporations could still easily and untraceably give favored politicians insider tips for when to buy and sell stock.
As far as I can see, the only way to block the problem without shredding our 1st Amendment is by taking away from the politicians the product they're selling to private interests. That is, strip the government of power so that it doesn't have the ability to create winners and losers.
I think that donations are sort of a red herring. As long as the MPAA and RIAA can afford to hire people to live in Washington DC and befriend politicians and explain in detail how SOPA will Create Jobs or whatever you'll have pretty much the same problem. Campaign donations are cheap compared to hiring lobbyists, and just serve to make sure that its the MPAA lobbyist who sees a politician instead of the cement industry's or whoever.
And as long politicians have to vote on a hundred issues a year that could each reward a lifetime of careful study this'll keep happening. We all know SOPA is terrible but most people in the US have no clue. How many laws are made that we're apathetic about, but which we'd be outraged by if we knew more about the issue?
I feel like we really need to either find ways of making sure our politicians have better sources of expertise on hands than the ones provided by industry, or to stop trying to make such complex laws that demand more understanding of the workings of things than our politicians have themselves.
US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations
Unfortunately, with the Citizens United ruling it feels like we went the extreme other direction here. It makes me wonder if things will ever improve here (as far as our politicians go).
I saw this recently, and I really do applaud Sanders for still fighting the good fight, but a constitutional amendment has got to be one of the hardest things for our government to do. I just don't see everyone getting behind an independent liberal over an issue that most people seem to not care about anymore. <sigh> We'll see though, trying to remain hopeful.
This is because all those who voted "for change" in 2008 all collectively forgot to ask the proper question: "just what is it specifically you want to change?"
Thats a great list of Internet pioneers. A few days ago, someone on HN suggested these companies put their concerns front and center on the web sites they control. If you want the masses to hear about this, no better way than to replace Yahoo and Google for a day with a clear message telling users what's happening in their country. If these letter co-signees are not willing to take the heat of their own shareholders by making such a move, then writing letters is mostly a waste of time.
I didn't expect different from Zuckerberg. Facebook never appeared to me as a pillar of fee speech except for those cases when they don't have to fear any negative consequences (i.e. 3rd world revolutions).
I wonder if they will invite 5:1 pro-SOPA vs anti-SOPA witnesses at the hearing again, or maybe they'll make it 10:1 this time, seeing how last time that strategy "failed".
That being said, I really hope they invite someone that isn't from a corporation at the hearing, like people from EFF. At the end of the day the corporations will follow their own profit incentives. If that aligns with the regular people's interest or not it's besides the point.
I agree with the spirit of your comment, but it's important to keep in mind that similarly to corporations, non-profits will follow their own non-profit incentives: often irrational, impractical, borderline fanatical beliefs which may or may not align with regular people's interests.
This is exactly why it's so important to invite many different groups under one roof and get all possible perspectives out in the open. Everyone will follow their own interests which may or may not align with the interests of regular people, but somewhere in the middle of that, a pragmatic approach to the problem can be found.
I agree with having multiple sides at the table. I'm just saying I don't want one side to overwhelm the other, and I don't want them to invite only from the Corporations, too. It just shows that the politicians only care about what the Corporations that pay them say.
The problem is that many governments, also in Europe, still see the USA as a shining example which to follow. Or are somehow bribed/manipulated into adopting similar laws (see also ACTA).
So if the USA falls to this low, I have little hope for the rest of the western world.
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes; the ACTA is a secretly discussed copyright treaty about to be signed in many countries, including those in the EU. We are not even allowed to know what is in it, it could be exactly in line with SOPA.
Or as a shining example for EU politicians of what they can get away with. The the past decade we've lost much in terms of privacy in my part of the EU.
- We now have to carry ID papers whenever we leave the house. Fingerprints are recorded on our passport.
- Massive wiretaps are used by the police for "preventive measures" (on a larger scale than in the US).
- Trojans/exploits are used by law enforcement to gain access to computers.
- Encrypted hard drives are seen as suspicious (even though it's just a common sense precaution).
Agreed. It all went so fast that it is easy to forget where we came from, and the freedoms we lost in the name of
"protecting freedom". What was considered paranoid tinfoil-hat-talk only five years ago is becoming harsh reality today.
> The problem is that many governments, also in Europe, still see the USA as a shining example which to follow.
I've read this same argument all over the place here on HackerNews. I don't see it. And yet a lot of HNers seem to be pretty confident about this idea. What substantiates this?
Edit: to be sure, my question is concerned with policy making, not with nationalism or anti-nationalism toward any particular nation.
What become law in the USA soon becomes policy that the state department tries to get other countries to adopt through stick or carrot.
For example, Canada would of probably legalized Marijuanna by now, but the USA implied heavy stick-like consequences whenever the government brings it up, and as a result Canada backs down on the idea.
Another example are copyright and patent laws. The US makes a new law and surprise surprise, a few months later other governments in other countries start to see new laws proposed that look similar the US's laws.
Prime Minster Stephen Harper "told the President last August that Canada would pass copyright legislation," the 2008 message notes. In fact, Harper wrote a personal letter to US Ambassador David Wilkins containing the pledge. "With respect to intellectual property rights, I can assure you that the Government of Canada takes the concerns you have raised in your letter very seriously," he promised the US in April of 2007.
This is the leader of Canada that did this. There are several nations that are much poorer that have politicians who would accept minimal bribes in order to start pushing for US-style laws.
I'm not sure that you mean by "substantiate", but especially right-wing and Christian parties here in the Netherlands tend to look to the US as an example and are uncompromisingly loyal to them. For example, privatizing utilities, support in their wars, sharing financial and passenger data for "anti-terrorism", forbidding liquids in airplanes (and installing body scanners), cracking down on downloading, keeping the ACTA secret, insisting on buying USA warplanes, and so on. It's the same for a few other EU countries.
It might go to far to assume they will emulate SOPA and NDAA immediately, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried.
Depends. EU will never adopt any of the mad laws they have in the USA, e.g. abolishing nationalised health care, bringing in 'at will' employment, weakening anti-discrimination law.
In the area of copyright, EU isn't fully copying USA.
No, the EU members just have different mad laws that we in the USA will never have, like hate speech bans (which I have argued lead to the Jyllands-Posten riots because they give an appearance of unequal protection), bans criticizing religions, disagreeing with the scope of the holocaust, etc, and banning the advertising that water helps reduce the chance of dehydration.
Similarly Ireland has recently reinstituted blasphemy laws (given the demographics of Ireland, almost certainly to protect the Catholic church from certain forms of criticism).
The fact of the matter is, stupid laws exist everwhere. Nobody is immune. EU countries have generally done a somewhat better job in some areas but worse in others (allowing copyright of mere lists of facts for example).
"Similarly Ireland has recently reinstituted blasphemy laws"
That is not true.
Blasphemy has always been a crime since the formation of our country. It's in our constitution, which is embarrassingly old-fashioned and the new government has committed to reforming it. As such, removing the blasphemy law requires a referendum, which we have been promised along with about 3 others in 2012. It was a legal necessity to update the law in regard to blasphemy as it was in legal limbo since it was found to be unenforceable years ago. It has to be in law because it's in our constitution. It is still practically unenforceable due to its wording, something the Minsiter for Justice admitted to.
"given the demographics of Ireland, almost certainly to protect the Catholic church from certain forms of criticis"
Also not true. There are no mainstream groups supporting retaining the blasphemy law. Even church leaders, for what it's worth, have spoken out against it. The government at present also has the weakest relationship with the church, probably the weakest in the history of our state. Our Prime Minister has attacked the church and notably the Vatican mercilessly since taking office and the Minister for Education is attempting to take lots of schools out of church ownership.
It has to be in law because it's in our constitution
Yeah I've heard that too, and could well be true. But we're almost 20 years after the X Case, and it's not put into law when a woman can access an abortion. :P
That's not really a correct comparison. The criteria for legal abortions were not introduced to the constitution after the X case. You're thinking of the eighth amendment, a decade earlier. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments which resulted from the X case were in relation to allowing women are free to travel abroad and get information while still in Ireland as a result.
Nah Ireland's blashpemy law is just a silly nonsense law that's never going to be enforced. The Irish government has floated ideas of literally confiscating lands/schools of the catholic church. They aren't protecting them all the way.
I also hope it will be less mad. USA govt has the tendency to be really extreme in some things (war on this, war on that), to the point of being neurotic, whereas European governments are generally more subtle and slower to jump on the bandwagon. But it is clearly going the wrong way.
Also I'd be careful with saying 'never'. Here in the Netherlands, for example, nationalized health care was weakened a long time ago by privatizing health insurance, more 'at will' employment is pushed as panacea for the employment problem by right-wing parties, and weakening anti-discrimination law (especially anti-Islam) is also on the agenda of a popular party.
Google makes more revenue in a quarter than the entire recording industry makes in a year.
Why then, does the RIAA have so much sway in Washington? Because they know money buys influence, and they are willing to put up the cash.
It may be a damning indictment of our democratic process that this is true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true. SOPA's going to be as hurtful to Google as anyone else, but talking about it on wonky tech blogs won't solve shit. Put up the cash, Google. Play the game.
The recording industry has been doing this for much longer, so their lobbyists' Rolodexes are much thicker than Rolodexes of Google's lobbyists. And the RIAA's have been sending Christmas cards to all the various Senators and Congresspeople for decades, while Google's only started last year.
They would need to do both! I appreciate that Brin et. al. are not hiding behind some shill movements and lobbyists but are speaking out personally. But without money it becomes just a farce that allows them to save face by saying afterwards "we warned you guys".
Maybe but that's attributing a very complex plot to something that is probably much simpler the movie and music industry spending tons of money on political donations. The whole thing is taking on the guise of a last stand by the copyright lobby.
The copyright lobby is certainly behind it, but I am sure that it runs much deeper. Copyright, in a way, is just an excuse, so that proponents can use reasoning that copyright creates jobs, incentives innovation, fights "immoral" stealing of property etc. The layman could hardly disagree... Try arguing for censorship in the same way.
Once in place, the laws can and will be used to repress criticism directed at government and corporations, and will be used to plug "inconvenient" leaks, put away whistle-blowers, and curb press freedom (just like in other oppressive nations). Even though that is obvious to outsiders, they cannot openly put that on their agenda.
Sad but true. Those who became "deer in the headlights" watching the ambiguous words "hope" and "change" float before their eyes in 2008 will likely be just as easily duped in 2012.
Is this meant to imply that the U.S. is not an oppressive nation?
I'm sorry, but the U.S. Government has absolutely no problem emulating oppressive nations, and in fact has been a global leader in sponsoring oppression for decades.
The internet has changed the way information is shared to such a severe degree that traditional definitions of intellectual property are now antiquated. This doesn't mean that the legal framework of IP protection should be thrown out entirely, but it has to adapt to the culture of sharing that the internet has fostered. Otherwise the internet will become a draconian environment that stifles new ideas and strangles the kinds of exchange that gave rise to it in the first place.
Seriously, internet freedom and all is important. But please stay serious. Are you generally allowed to be openly gay in the US? Are you generally allowed to protest for your beliefs? Are you generally allowed to air your grievings with your government?
Then you are miles away from being in the same league as the nations you mentioned. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Internet freedom is an important societal interest _once you've taken care of more basic freedoms_.
I think part of the reason for the letter though is Chris Dodd's statement that the US should figure out how to filter foreign content, and specifically pointing to China as an example. If the MPAA wants to say we should be more like China, I think it is fair to state strongly that we shouldn't.
And yet Malaysians laugh at the censorship regimes in place in places like Indonesia.
(Malaysia is an very interesting place to travel to. I highly recommend it at least once. Their ideas of immigration and customs are nothing short of inspiring....)
It looks like Malaysia has ordered 10 filesharing sites to be blocked by ISP's. If that's all, they are quite a bit less oppressive than the US already is with the ICE/DOJ domain name seizures.
I have only been to Malaysia once and entered through KLIA, but the experience regarding immigration and customs provoked a lot of thought into contrarian strategies.
A bit out of scope of the topic... I entered Malaysia from Singapore once, got to pay bribe of 100USD to pass the immigrations just because they didn't like my passport(Though my country is in no-visa list for Malaysia). That was a terrible experience because after living in Singapore for 3 years, I forgot about corruptions and such stuff. I openly declared the amout of each currency on me and they insisted that I give all my USD and CHY. I could have easily go back to Singapore, but I had another important flight to catch from KL to Beijing, so I would have lost more by returning to Sg than by bribing the officer. On the return I entered Malaysia from KLIA and it was smooth. I have many friends from Malaysia and I find their people nice and friendly, but after that incident, I just no longer feel like visiting Malaysia.
When I entered through KLIA, I wasn't asked about currency. The only customs/immigration questions were agriculture and health quarantine related. There were no further customs checkpoints either. They did take my fingerprints though. No questions about how much liquor you are bringing in or anything.
Exiting was more interesting. There they ask you to declare money you are taking out of the country and they don't let you take very much out. Moreover they will only let you buy up to 2 L of liquor duty free because of Malaysian customs. And yes, they take your fingerprints again.
I find it hilarious that people naturally assume the U.S. is not an oppressive government. Why don't you ask the black population of your country whether they feel oppressed?
