7 ms·

Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the g

Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel. You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.

hutzlibu 3y ago
You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? If nothing, what kind of political system do you propose? And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  > You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? Strange. > If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? Yes. > And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not. I can't understand what you mean.
SanderNL 3y ago
The "government" is a behemoth multi-armed monster of gigantic propertions. It is utterly incapable of even observing itself in full. The best we can do is look at parts. You are throwing the separate branches of government on the same pile, which I think is unfair to say the least. The judicial branch tells the executive branch to stop or adjust whatever it is doing. The executive branch is not happy about this, but if it wants to survive it needs to listen or at the very least project the illusion that it is listening in some way shape or form. We haven't touched the legislative branch here which is also a force to be reckoned with. All these branches are filled to the brim with people of various background and motivations. They might not be happy about eachother, but they are stuck with it. I don't know about American politics, but these branches are pretty well separated in the Netherlands. Maybe not as much as we'd like, but I'm hard-pressed to call it anything but a clear improvement over the past.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  I don't see how your comment address what I wrote. Systems of government are set up to gain and keep power over their citizens, and western governments have this down to a science, which is to give people the illusion they have freedom and self-determination. I promise you your government does not give the slightest shit if it forces itself to force its citizens to pay more taxes on food and energy. Funny that they have people believing that is a "win" -- socialize the cost of climate change to the commoners. Have you not noticed that it has become fashionable for governments to apologize and promise atonement for such things? Have you ever wondered why that is? It's not because they are looking to take down the banks or the petroleum cartels or the billionaires or whatever. It's because government ~= people. They are accepting blame on your behalf to shield their friends and owners from the blame they deserve. Wake me up when they dismantle the carbon profiteers and seize their profits and the profits of their profits from the past century or so. Then the war profiteers, and so on.
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    You have conflated major separate branches of not only government, but also society in general. You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed. I get it, I really do and I am biased as well so your underlying points may just as well be 1000% correct. It’s just not something I can productively engage with.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      > You have conflated major separate branches of not only government, but also society in general. Where? > You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed. How exactly did I do that? Pretty weak response to my post tbh. I get it though, it hurts to realize the benevolent and omnipotent protector and provider you are subservient to is anything but. Lashing out is not an unusual response.
the_af 3y ago
What would real winning look like to you? And whatever you pick: do you think it was easier to win in this sense in republican Rome for the average person, as compared to now?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  Would be a government which is bound to work in the in the interests and to the will of the people, and one where bureaucrats, politicians, judges, police, and other officials receive hash punishments if they are found to have lied or profited from office or been negligent or corrupt in carrying out their duty. I notice a lot of dirty corrupt western politicians have started a lot of unpopular wars and "interventions" that have killed countless thousands of people and stolen trillions of dollars from their citizens since WWII, and all have escaped justice for it. Worse yet, they have the gall to blame victims of their crimes and force them to bear the consequences, "we meddled and caused wars and destabilization, and therefore we (read: you) need to shoulder burden of the consequences and 'help' more". That's not winning. Avenues of hanged war criminals would be winning.

hutzlibu 3y ago

You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? If nothing, what kind of political system do you propose? And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
> You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? Strange. > If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? Yes. > And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not. I can't understand what you mean.

SanderNL 3y ago

The "government" is a behemoth multi-armed monster of gigantic propertions. It is utterly incapable of even observing itself in full. The best we can do is look at parts. You are throwing the separate branches of government on the same pile, which I think is unfair to say the least. The judicial branch tells the executive branch to stop or adjust whatever it is doing. The executive branch is not happy about this, but if it wants to survive it needs to listen or at the very least project the illusion that it is listening in some way shape or form. We haven't touched the legislative branch here which is also a force to be reckoned with. All these branches are filled to the brim with people of various background and motivations. They might not be happy about eachother, but they are stuck with it. I don't know about American politics, but these branches are pretty well separated in the Netherlands. Maybe not as much as we'd like, but I'm hard-pressed to call it anything but a clear improvement over the past.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
I don't see how your comment address what I wrote. Systems of government are set up to gain and keep power over their citizens, and western governments have this down to a science, which is to give people the illusion they have freedom and self-determination. I promise you your government does not give the slightest shit if it forces itself to force its citizens to pay more taxes on food and energy. Funny that they have people believing that is a "win" -- socialize the cost of climate change to the commoners. Have you not noticed that it has become fashionable for governments to apologize and promise atonement for such things? Have you ever wondered why that is? It's not because they are looking to take down the banks or the petroleum cartels or the billionaires or whatever. It's because government ~= people. They are accepting blame on your behalf to shield their friends and owners from the blame they deserve. Wake me up when they dismantle the carbon profiteers and seize their profits and the profits of their profits from the past century or so. Then the war profiteers, and so on.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  You have conflated major separate branches of not only government, but also society in general. You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed. I get it, I really do and I am biased as well so your underlying points may just as well be 1000% correct. It’s just not something I can productively engage with.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    > You have conflated major separate branches of not only government, but also society in general. Where? > You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed. How exactly did I do that? Pretty weak response to my post tbh. I get it though, it hurts to realize the benevolent and omnipotent protector and provider you are subservient to is anything but. Lashing out is not an unusual response.

the_af 3y ago

What would real winning look like to you? And whatever you pick: do you think it was easier to win in this sense in republican Rome for the average person, as compared to now?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwawaylinux 3y ago
Would be a government which is bound to work in the in the interests and to the will of the people, and one where bureaucrats, politicians, judges, police, and other officials receive hash punishments if they are found to have lied or profited from office or been negligent or corrupt in carrying out their duty. I notice a lot of dirty corrupt western politicians have started a lot of unpopular wars and "interventions" that have killed countless thousands of people and stolen trillions of dollars from their citizens since WWII, and all have escaped justice for it. Worse yet, they have the gall to blame victims of their crimes and force them to bear the consequences, "we meddled and caused wars and destabilization, and therefore we (read: you) need to shoulder burden of the consequences and 'help' more". That's not winning. Avenues of hanged war criminals would be winning.