Such a good series. You’ve given me a lot to think about! I still feel ambivalent about surveillance, and that if it were done more effectively it would mostly be a good thing (in the hands of good government). Ismail’s case is unfortunate, but I think the problem there wasn’t the surveillance, but that customs were judging his character on the basis of the behavior of someone he is connected to on social media. That has nothing to do with him!
As for tax evasion and the banks, make all that data public! (And for that matter all of our salaries too!) I think that would go a long way toward a better working system!
You're right that mass surveillance in the hands of a good government would probably be a good thing.
But :
- Almost anything in the hands of a good government is a good thing, because what characterizes a "good" government? Mainly 1) that it will use its powers sparingly and 2) for the good of its people.
- However, it's far from being that simple, because 1) power corrupts, even when power has been accumulated for good reasons in the first place ("Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him"), as countless examples in history show, and 2) the definition of "good" government and of "for the good" of the people varies according to time and place, and when you study history you often see that this definition was mostly used to justify keeping in power the institutions in place, especially at the end of a period, during which principles that used to be better followed often became corrupted.
For example, do you think you'd agree with what the Catholic Church and the royal powers of Europe considered to be "good" government, and for the "good" of the people in 1500?
- You're an American, and the United States is a young country that hasn't yet had to endure a dictatorship. However, in Europe (where I come from) we have many, many examples of dictatorships that have succeeded democracies, whether because the dictator first got elected before making his coup (Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler), or because he took power after a civil war (Franco) or a coup d'état (Salazar). So a bad government can succeed a "good" one, and misuse all the tools that the previous government had put in place.
For example, when the Nazi party came to power in 1930: they could easily oppress the Jews, and start organizing the Holocaust, by seizing all the administrative documents of the German republic that catalogued Jews as such , information on religion that had been requested "just in case", with the assurance "don't worry, only the state will have access to it".
That's why you need institutions based on uncorrupted principles that separate powers: you can't rely in the long term on whether a government is good or not.
Hmmmmmmm you bring up some very good points. But then is it "good governments shouldn't use technologies for good, because they could eventually become bad governments who use them for evil"?
"Institutions based on uncorrupted principles that separate powers" seems like a great idea. But then how do we create those institutions? (that could still ultimately become bad?) Are there any institutions who you think are built like that now?
Hey Elle, that's a very good question. If it were easy, it would have been done a long time ago. A Constitution, i.e. a document detailing the fundamental rights against which laws are not allowed to go, is an excellent 1st step, and must :
- Be difficult to amend. This is the case in the U.S., since a change has to be requested by "a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress" or two-thirds of the States, and it has to be ratified by "three-fourths of the State legislatures".
- Be made up of clear and limpid articles, using precise and pedagogical language, ideally with clear examples and perhaps a passage that clarifies the spirit of each article.
Here, the U.S. Constitution fails completely, with many articles written in a very imprecise manner, leaving the way open to overly broad interpretations.
The 2nd Amendment, for example, has different punctuation in different versions (!), which can change the meaning of the article, and is written, it has to be said, badly. This kind of example should be avoided.
Other innovations can be tried. For example, Prospera's free city offers a real social contract that cannot be changed without your agreement.
Next, the institutions that are set up must have a clear separation of powers, and must balance each other out. Easier said than done, but we have more experience today than we did when the American Constitution was written and American institutions set up.
Such a good series. You’ve given me a lot to think about! I still feel ambivalent about surveillance, and that if it were done more effectively it would mostly be a good thing (in the hands of good government). Ismail’s case is unfortunate, but I think the problem there wasn’t the surveillance, but that customs were judging his character on the basis of the behavior of someone he is connected to on social media. That has nothing to do with him!
As for tax evasion and the banks, make all that data public! (And for that matter all of our salaries too!) I think that would go a long way toward a better working system!
Hey Elle, thanks ;)
You're right that mass surveillance in the hands of a good government would probably be a good thing.
But :
- Almost anything in the hands of a good government is a good thing, because what characterizes a "good" government? Mainly 1) that it will use its powers sparingly and 2) for the good of its people.
- However, it's far from being that simple, because 1) power corrupts, even when power has been accumulated for good reasons in the first place ("Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him"), as countless examples in history show, and 2) the definition of "good" government and of "for the good" of the people varies according to time and place, and when you study history you often see that this definition was mostly used to justify keeping in power the institutions in place, especially at the end of a period, during which principles that used to be better followed often became corrupted.
For example, do you think you'd agree with what the Catholic Church and the royal powers of Europe considered to be "good" government, and for the "good" of the people in 1500?
- You're an American, and the United States is a young country that hasn't yet had to endure a dictatorship. However, in Europe (where I come from) we have many, many examples of dictatorships that have succeeded democracies, whether because the dictator first got elected before making his coup (Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler), or because he took power after a civil war (Franco) or a coup d'état (Salazar). So a bad government can succeed a "good" one, and misuse all the tools that the previous government had put in place.
For example, when the Nazi party came to power in 1930: they could easily oppress the Jews, and start organizing the Holocaust, by seizing all the administrative documents of the German republic that catalogued Jews as such , information on religion that had been requested "just in case", with the assurance "don't worry, only the state will have access to it".
That's why you need institutions based on uncorrupted principles that separate powers: you can't rely in the long term on whether a government is good or not.
Hmmmmmmm you bring up some very good points. But then is it "good governments shouldn't use technologies for good, because they could eventually become bad governments who use them for evil"?
"Institutions based on uncorrupted principles that separate powers" seems like a great idea. But then how do we create those institutions? (that could still ultimately become bad?) Are there any institutions who you think are built like that now?
Hey Elle, that's a very good question. If it were easy, it would have been done a long time ago. A Constitution, i.e. a document detailing the fundamental rights against which laws are not allowed to go, is an excellent 1st step, and must :
- Be difficult to amend. This is the case in the U.S., since a change has to be requested by "a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress" or two-thirds of the States, and it has to be ratified by "three-fourths of the State legislatures".
- Be made up of clear and limpid articles, using precise and pedagogical language, ideally with clear examples and perhaps a passage that clarifies the spirit of each article.
Here, the U.S. Constitution fails completely, with many articles written in a very imprecise manner, leaving the way open to overly broad interpretations.
The 2nd Amendment, for example, has different punctuation in different versions (!), which can change the meaning of the article, and is written, it has to be said, badly. This kind of example should be avoided.
Other innovations can be tried. For example, Prospera's free city offers a real social contract that cannot be changed without your agreement.
Next, the institutions that are set up must have a clear separation of powers, and must balance each other out. Easier said than done, but we have more experience today than we did when the American Constitution was written and American institutions set up.