Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Jun 2013 14:57 UTC
Legal And yes, the PRISM scandal is far, far from over. More and more information keeps leaking out, and the more gets out, the worse it gets. The companies involved have sent out official statements - often by mouth of their CEOs - and what's interesting is that not only are these official statements eerily similar to each other, using the same terms clearly designed by lawyers, they also directly contradict new reports from The New York Times. So, who is lying?
Thread beginning with comment 564243
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Re:
by woegjiub on Sun 9th Jun 2013 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Re:"
Member since:

Which was why I called them some of the more socialised countries; the free-state to socialist state balance lies more to the left in those nations than most ohers.

I live in Australia, so I am frustrated by our Labor party selling off government assets, and creating privately owned monopolies.
True socialism would only work in a global (single world-state) technocracy/democracy hybrid, due to how stupid the general population is, and how easily they are made to vote against their own interests.

Liberterianism works nowhere, though. Companies are not accountable, and once they have enough clout, they become un-boycottable. They are able to do anything they like, and use their power to their own interests, at the expense of everyone else, including customers.
It is naïve to trust companies, who do not have to release all of their internal workings, more than one trusts governments, who theoretically do.
Private lobbying is the reason the governments are so corrupted and despotic in the first place.

Edited 2013-06-09 22:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: Re:
by orfanum on Mon 10th Jun 2013 12:23 in reply to "RE[6]: Re:"
orfanum Member since:

Sorry, I just do not comprehend your answer: are you for or against socialism? Your chief angst about socialists in your own country is that they are *privatising* assets, which then turn into monopolies.

So, if you are against socialism, then at least you must be in favour of this particular cadre for decoupling state and commercial interests?

If you are for socialism, which some of your reply seems to indicate, since regulating markets that turn into monopolies can be said to be state interference, why are you seemingly down on socialism generally?

I can't make up my mind whether you can't make up your mind, or that you just don't really know what you are addressing apart from some hurt sensibilities at change in your country that for whatever reason you just don't like or are not gaining any advantage from.

I don't mean this maliciously - I genuinely can't fathom where you are coming from.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Re:
by woegjiub on Mon 10th Jun 2013 16:50 in reply to "RE[7]: Re:"
woegjiub Member since:

I am in support of the public ownership of all infrastructure, be it transport, police, fibre optics, or what have you.

The reason I am against complete socialism is that competition drives innovation, so unless the government is pushing development extremely hard, it is unlikely to be able to beat commercial interests in matters such as farming or technology.

My angst with the labor party is that they are not socialist enough, and are moving increasingly to the right.

Ideally, I support technocracy combined with democracy and a georgist taxation system within a strongly left-leaning single global government.
That sort of thing is unlikely to actually come about, so keeping everything left of centre and hoping we can reach post-scarcity is more realistic.
With AI and robotics only getting better, it is only a matter of time until the majority are unemployed; what is there to do, but manage business, do research, entertain and make art, in that time?
You can't rely on charity, so you need welfare, or to simply abolish currency for the most part - moving into communist territory "to each according to his needs", as opposed to the socialist "to each according to his deeds".

My point was that companies are to be trusted less than governments, because even if the government protects its people in a way similar to the AI Asimov wrote of, its entire purpose is still to protect its people.
It can be made less intrusory by altering laws.
The only purpose of a company is to make more money.
They owe customers nothing, except to provide that for which they have paid.

Reply Parent Score: 3