I see all this political posting.
Considering all this Romney hate, how the fuck can you possibly be a fan of Obama?
Continuing Bush ideas?
Uncompromising anarchism and the party system
If you’re openly an anarchist like me, then perhaps you have run into this situation as many times as I have: People know that you are all for no government, and therefore assume that you are equally in favor of a switch from the current governmental structure to a minimal government structure; which is to say, you are okay with libertarianism or minarchism.
For the uncompromising anarchist, such as myself, nothing is more naive and deluded. Presumably, an uncompromising anarchist has come to such a political position because they see the inherent flaw in any kind of government. No matter how small the government is, it is inherently involuntarily hierarchical, ergo equally inherently prone to oppression.
So seriously, folks: Minimal government is still not the same as no government at all.
And let’s just be completely honest with ourselves; a governmental structure will never ever willingly devolve itself into a state of not existing. If a truly no-government-at-all system were ever to arise (and even as an anarchist, I have my severe doubts), it wouldn’t be because a big-scale government turned into small-scale and then dissolved — it would be because of some sort of social or socioeconomic catastrophe that would uproot the system and turn it on its head.
Libertarianism and minarchism are not avenues we can take in order to eventually reach a destination of an anarchist society; that’s just not how “the system” works.
The Cybersecurity Act (S. 2105), sponsored by Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Collins, compromises core American civil liberties in the name of detecting and thwarting network attacks. While Internet security is of the utmost importance, safeguarding our networks need not come at the expense of our online freedoms. That’s why civil liberties groups, security experts, and Internet users oppose this bill.
The Cybersecurity Act is fundamentally flawed and dangerous for online rights:
- The bill uses dangerously vague language to define “cybersecurity threat indicators” (information that companies can share with the government), leaving the door open to abuse (intentional or accidental) in which companies share protected user information with the government without a judge ever getting involved.
- Data collected under the Cybersecurity Act can be shared with law enforcement for non-cybersecurity purposes if it “appears to relate to a crime” either past, present, or near future. This is overbroad and contrary to the spirit of our Constitution. Senator Wyden, talking about a similar provision in CISPA, noted “They would allow law enforcement to look for evidence of future crimes, opening the door to a dystopian world where law enforcement evaluates your Internet activity for the potential that you might commit a crime.” The CSA suffers the same “future crime” flaw.
- If companies overstep their authority, violating the privacy of Internet users for non-cybersecurity purposes or oversharing sensitive data with the government, it will be very difficult for individuals to hold these companies accountable by taking them to court. The bill puts incredibly high burdens on the plaintiff in such a case to prove that a company was not monitoring for the purpose of detecting cybersecurity threats and did not have a “good faith” belief that they were allowed to do it (whether they are right or wrong); or that they “knowingly” and “willfully” violated the restrictions of the law. Furthermore, the bill allows companies to bypass much of preexisting law designed to limit company disclosure of private communications – bedrock privacy law like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
- The Cybersecurity Act would allow sensitive private communications to flow to the NSA, a U.S. military agency — contrary to a long held value that military agencies should not be engaged in collecting data on American citizens.
- This bill has been criticized by open government groups who rightly point out that the bill creates new exemptions to FOIA—making it that much harder for people to understand how much and what kind of data is being shared with the government and ensure that the government and companies do not abuse this authority.
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (more commonly known as the drug czar’s office) released its 2012 National Drug Control Strategy today. The strategy is nearly identical to previous national drug strategies. While the rhetoric is new — reflecting the fact that three-quarters of Americans consider the drug war a failure — the substance of the actual policies is the same.
In my opinion, government is at best, tolerated because there is no other recognizable option available at the time. At worst, it is an evil and tyrannical overlord of the individual, never ceasing in its desire for power, money, total control, brutality, war, and imperialism. This opinion obviously does not serve as a recommendation for any governing system, with the one exception of peaceful anarchy, or a society without the State.
Government is always an instrument of force, as government has nothing, creates nothing, and produces nothing; it only steals from those who do. Therefore, politically based government should be avoided at all cost. Unfortunately, this has rarely happened in history.
Although government is controlling and brutal in its efforts to remain in power, it can only retain that power over the rest of society given that the majority consents to be ruled. In many instances, this consent is simply implied.