8 ms·

I find it overreaching to conclude that every individual who is employed by the government in a law enforcement capacity chose their job out of a need to contro

I find it overreaching to conclude that every individual who is employed by the government in a law enforcement capacity chose their job out of a need to control other people. The world is not black and white and there are shades of gray. The police officers you despise hunt down the murderers, rapists, and child molesters that harm society, the soldiers fight against genocidal sociopaths like Adolf Hitler & Sadaam Hussein, and the congressmen you despise fight for things like universal healthcare. With regards to startups the primary motivation for most entrepreneurs, but not all, is to make money, not some noble goal of making the world a better place. Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare and the like do little or nothing to solve the world's most serious problems, they're just toys for upper middle class people with money and time to burn. Finally no reputable news source has reported on this story because everything is based on hearsay on what a "DOJ representative" allegedly said which fails to pass the credibility test for reputable news outfits such as the NY Times, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, with reporting standards. Before you act on the word, consider the source.

Wintamute 14y ago
But he didn't conclude that "every individual who is employed by the government ... chose their job out of a need to control other people", you put those words in his mouth. Neither did he say he "despised" anybody, you put that word in his mouth too. He didn't claim that startups weren't in it for the money, and neither were any of his statements predicated on any new information in the "unreputable" linked article. I'm not sure why you've chosen to attack his comment on these spurious grounds. It'd be more interesting to discuss why it engendered an emotional response from you, or perhaps if you disagree with it then make a coherent criticism of his main point: that there exists a formidable power structure in our society and many of us chose to remain unaware of it.
- antoko 14y ago
  He said this: The world is full of greedy people who seek power over others. Whether it's an ambitious Carmen Ortiz or an up-and-coming young congressman or a mild mannered traffic cop. Each seeks to control others as a very significant portion of his/her motivation and life's goal. That does imply that everyone who ends up in a position of government power does so in order to control other people. That's the problem when someone uses such strident language and paints with such a broad brush - its very easy to just call them out on their lack of nuance and over-generalization
  - king_jester 14y ago
    It doesn't imply that every person in those jobs or roles does so for power, but rather that those that do seek out that kind of power end up in those jobs and roles.
  - tammer 14y ago
    "The world is full of..." is not a totalizing phrase. "Each," refers back to this clause. The semantics leave space for people in power to work against that power. It does not imply what you believe it does. You seem to take issue with questioning power at all.
    - antoko 14y ago
      I read the "Each" to refer to the prior sentence. Which is <example list of objectionable and non-objectionable government roles> which I interpret to mean, all government roles. While you may read it differently - I don't believe my reading is inaccurate or unfair.
      - Wintamute 14y ago
        Your interpretation of the sentence is arguably valid, but its derailing the discussion.
  - binxbolling 14y ago
    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know if English is your first language, but I assure you that paragraph implies no such thing.
Tyrant505 14y ago
"I find it overreaching to conclude that every individual who is employed by the government in a law enforcement capacity chose their job out of a need to control other people." Honestly, I look at all my childhood friends who became cops and such and I do see a correlation to their social statuses.
anoncow 14y ago
Individual goals will vary. GP's points still hold. Some people want to start a business so that they can positively change the world. Many people who work for corporations and the govt may have similar aims in life. After all, this may be the only chance at life that you get.
jerf 14y ago
"The police officers you despise hunt down the murderers, rapists, and child molesters that harm society, the soldiers fight against genocidal sociopaths like Adolf Hitler & Sadaam Hussein, and the congressmen you despise fight for things like universal healthcare." And which of those things was Carmen Ortiz doing? One of government's very effective dodges is to point at the truly good things it is doing and playing the hell out of them like they are the bulk of the work. But go look at a budget; how much of the budget of the federal government is actually spent on those things? Even just the discretionary budget? And when you see umpty billion dollars going to the "Justice Department", don't forget that nowhere near all of those umpty billion dollars are actually going to things like that. Only a fraction. Yes, I acknowledge that I want a police force that adequately protects me. But after decades and decades of bloated growth, that is now no more than a mere sideline of government, not its core task.
rquantz 14y ago
The congressmen I despise aren't the ones fighting for universal healthcare.
downandout 14y ago
> Finally no reputable news source has reported on this story because everything is based on hearsay One could easily argue that none of the "reputable" news sources you mentioned would report on this because it would be damaging to the administration that they feverishly backed and helped get elected. Regardless of your political views, if mainstream media reported a factual account of what happened to Aaron Swartz, the "warm and fuzzy" image of the Obama administration would go right out the window. This case is truly disturbing, and it shows prima facie evidence of an extremely dark and hypocritical underbelly to the current administration that I don't think most people believe could possibly exist. Some of the what has gone on in this particular case can only be described as evil, and I'm not sure that even the best PR spinners would be able to spin this in any other way.
- graycat 14y ago
  With your "the 'warm and fuzzy' image of the Obama administration" you may have some answers I don't have to some questions I do have. In simple terms, I didn't and don't 'get it', why Obama was elected in 2008 and even more why he was elected in 2012. And I don't 'get it' why so much of the MSM seemed to be part of the Obama campaign. And in the 2012 election, looking at the map and the states and the counties and the voting in those places, Obama won big on the two coasts and the upper Midwest, that is, heavily in the more wealthy parts of the country. Just why the wealthier people liked him more is beyond me. If you have some good explanations, maybe start with the MSM and their bias, e.g., pictures of Obama wearing a halo. Then continue with the TARP program: Remember there was TARP I that Paulson did and then TARP II which was very different. For TARP I, that apparently was designed to make a statement to the world that the banks were too strong for a 'run'. So, Paulson stopped massive runs on the banks. And TARP I was paid back in full, or nearly so, ASAP. Wells Fargo didn't want or need the money, but the high interest rate cost their stockholders $2.5 billion. TARP II was very different, a big give away to many small parts of our economy. Yet the MSM never made an issue of the give away and kept talking about TARP I as a Wall Street 'bailout' -- Wells Fargo and others might say that they were ripped off, not 'bailed out'. Besides, everyone who paid back the money can object to 'bail out'. Then there was the $92 billion or so for 'clean, green, pure, pristine' energy, that was almost entirely wasted. $92 billion here and there, and after awhile it adds up to real money. Then there was the real cause of The Great Recession, that is, the housing bubble. The real cause was Congress trying to please the CBC with the CRA and Fannie, Freddie, and FHA backing junk paper and ignoring the bubble and trying to 'spread the home ownership around', and Obama was one of the main leaders in that effort. Then there's the Obama AG .... And there's more. So, the NYT, Time, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, SAI, and more were totally in the tank for Obama. Why? I'm not trolling or joking or playing politics. Instead, I know I don't understand what happened, e.g., why the MSM and the two coasts and the upper Midwest went for Obama, and want to know why. If I had bet, then I would have lost. I read it wrong, all wrong. You have an explanation?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sampsonjs 14y ago
"the soldiers fight against .... Sadaam Hussein". Before arming the next group of sociopaths nominally running the country, and leaving in disgrace from the smoking ruins of said country. Kristen, baby, I didn't ask "the soldiers" to invade Iraq, so they will get no thanks from me for that war. By the way, when's your next vacation to Baghdad?
grandalf 14y ago
Think about it this way. Suppose an activist decides that he/she wants to run for office to make a difference on some issue that matters to him/her and gets elected. The activist does not strive to get 100% of the vote, only the requisite majority to pass a law, thus forcing the minority to abide by a law it does not support. Consider pre-Brown-v-Board black students who had to follow the law and attend segregated schools. They were in the minority subjected to the will of the majority. The same goes for poor students today who are unable to obtain a school voucher b/c they are in the political minority and so must attend vastly inferior schools. So my statement is trivially true for all efforts to create legislation that is not unanimously supported, regardless if history decides the majority view is enlightened or backward.

Wintamute 14y ago

But he didn't conclude that "every individual who is employed by the government ... chose their job out of a need to control other people", you put those words in his mouth. Neither did he say he "despised" anybody, you put that word in his mouth too. He didn't claim that startups weren't in it for the money, and neither were any of his statements predicated on any new information in the "unreputable" linked article. I'm not sure why you've chosen to attack his comment on these spurious grounds. It'd be more interesting to discuss why it engendered an emotional response from you, or perhaps if you disagree with it then make a coherent criticism of his main point: that there exists a formidable power structure in our society and many of us chose to remain unaware of it.

antoko 14y ago
He said this: The world is full of greedy people who seek power over others. Whether it's an ambitious Carmen Ortiz or an up-and-coming young congressman or a mild mannered traffic cop. Each seeks to control others as a very significant portion of his/her motivation and life's goal. That does imply that everyone who ends up in a position of government power does so in order to control other people. That's the problem when someone uses such strident language and paints with such a broad brush - its very easy to just call them out on their lack of nuance and over-generalization
- king_jester 14y ago
  It doesn't imply that every person in those jobs or roles does so for power, but rather that those that do seek out that kind of power end up in those jobs and roles.
- tammer 14y ago
  "The world is full of..." is not a totalizing phrase. "Each," refers back to this clause. The semantics leave space for people in power to work against that power. It does not imply what you believe it does. You seem to take issue with questioning power at all.
  - antoko 14y ago
    I read the "Each" to refer to the prior sentence. Which is <example list of objectionable and non-objectionable government roles> which I interpret to mean, all government roles. While you may read it differently - I don't believe my reading is inaccurate or unfair.
    - Wintamute 14y ago
      Your interpretation of the sentence is arguably valid, but its derailing the discussion.
- binxbolling 14y ago
  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know if English is your first language, but I assure you that paragraph implies no such thing.

Tyrant505 14y ago

"I find it overreaching to conclude that every individual who is employed by the government in a law enforcement capacity chose their job out of a need to control other people." Honestly, I look at all my childhood friends who became cops and such and I do see a correlation to their social statuses.

anoncow 14y ago

Individual goals will vary. GP's points still hold. Some people want to start a business so that they can positively change the world. Many people who work for corporations and the govt may have similar aims in life. After all, this may be the only chance at life that you get.

jerf 14y ago

"The police officers you despise hunt down the murderers, rapists, and child molesters that harm society, the soldiers fight against genocidal sociopaths like Adolf Hitler & Sadaam Hussein, and the congressmen you despise fight for things like universal healthcare." And which of those things was Carmen Ortiz doing? One of government's very effective dodges is to point at the truly good things it is doing and playing the hell out of them like they are the bulk of the work. But go look at a budget; how much of the budget of the federal government is actually spent on those things? Even just the discretionary budget? And when you see umpty billion dollars going to the "Justice Department", don't forget that nowhere near all of those umpty billion dollars are actually going to things like that. Only a fraction. Yes, I acknowledge that I want a police force that adequately protects me. But after decades and decades of bloated growth, that is now no more than a mere sideline of government, not its core task.

rquantz 14y ago

The congressmen I despise aren't the ones fighting for universal healthcare.

downandout 14y ago

> Finally no reputable news source has reported on this story because everything is based on hearsay One could easily argue that none of the "reputable" news sources you mentioned would report on this because it would be damaging to the administration that they feverishly backed and helped get elected. Regardless of your political views, if mainstream media reported a factual account of what happened to Aaron Swartz, the "warm and fuzzy" image of the Obama administration would go right out the window. This case is truly disturbing, and it shows prima facie evidence of an extremely dark and hypocritical underbelly to the current administration that I don't think most people believe could possibly exist. Some of the what has gone on in this particular case can only be described as evil, and I'm not sure that even the best PR spinners would be able to spin this in any other way.

graycat 14y ago
With your "the 'warm and fuzzy' image of the Obama administration" you may have some answers I don't have to some questions I do have. In simple terms, I didn't and don't 'get it', why Obama was elected in 2008 and even more why he was elected in 2012. And I don't 'get it' why so much of the MSM seemed to be part of the Obama campaign. And in the 2012 election, looking at the map and the states and the counties and the voting in those places, Obama won big on the two coasts and the upper Midwest, that is, heavily in the more wealthy parts of the country. Just why the wealthier people liked him more is beyond me. If you have some good explanations, maybe start with the MSM and their bias, e.g., pictures of Obama wearing a halo. Then continue with the TARP program: Remember there was TARP I that Paulson did and then TARP II which was very different. For TARP I, that apparently was designed to make a statement to the world that the banks were too strong for a 'run'. So, Paulson stopped massive runs on the banks. And TARP I was paid back in full, or nearly so, ASAP. Wells Fargo didn't want or need the money, but the high interest rate cost their stockholders $2.5 billion. TARP II was very different, a big give away to many small parts of our economy. Yet the MSM never made an issue of the give away and kept talking about TARP I as a Wall Street 'bailout' -- Wells Fargo and others might say that they were ripped off, not 'bailed out'. Besides, everyone who paid back the money can object to 'bail out'. Then there was the $92 billion or so for 'clean, green, pure, pristine' energy, that was almost entirely wasted. $92 billion here and there, and after awhile it adds up to real money. Then there was the real cause of The Great Recession, that is, the housing bubble. The real cause was Congress trying to please the CBC with the CRA and Fannie, Freddie, and FHA backing junk paper and ignoring the bubble and trying to 'spread the home ownership around', and Obama was one of the main leaders in that effort. Then there's the Obama AG .... And there's more. So, the NYT, Time, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, SAI, and more were totally in the tank for Obama. Why? I'm not trolling or joking or playing politics. Instead, I know I don't understand what happened, e.g., why the MSM and the two coasts and the upper Midwest went for Obama, and want to know why. If I had bet, then I would have lost. I read it wrong, all wrong. You have an explanation?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

sampsonjs 14y ago

"the soldiers fight against .... Sadaam Hussein". Before arming the next group of sociopaths nominally running the country, and leaving in disgrace from the smoking ruins of said country. Kristen, baby, I didn't ask "the soldiers" to invade Iraq, so they will get no thanks from me for that war. By the way, when's your next vacation to Baghdad?

grandalf 14y ago

Think about it this way. Suppose an activist decides that he/she wants to run for office to make a difference on some issue that matters to him/her and gets elected. The activist does not strive to get 100% of the vote, only the requisite majority to pass a law, thus forcing the minority to abide by a law it does not support. Consider pre-Brown-v-Board black students who had to follow the law and attend segregated schools. They were in the minority subjected to the will of the majority. The same goes for poor students today who are unable to obtain a school voucher b/c they are in the political minority and so must attend vastly inferior schools. So my statement is trivially true for all efforts to create legislation that is not unanimously supported, regardless if history decides the majority view is enlightened or backward.