Log in

No account? Create an account

Dewi Morgan



Previous Entry Share Next Entry
I was pondering to myself, why is it that governments on both sides tend to chip away at the same core set of freedoms?

I like Obama. But should we trust the government just because Obama is signing some bits of it for a few years? He merely currently sucks the least out of a small range of poor options, that's all. He's still voting strongly pro-surveillance, anti-privacy, and anti-anonymity. The recent cyber security bill is a great example.

His behavior's understandable - rulers need a safe, stable country for their long-term plans to bear fruit, for their children and the children of their rich buddies to grow up in. For the wealthy, a stable country remains a source of wealth. Instability increases risk.

Stability requires good information gathering, and strong government authority against dissenters. So just like Bush before him, Obama's quite willing to trade our liberty for long-term stability.

Understanding that, it's a citizen's duty to push back against this natural governmental urge to enforce stability over freedom.

Unfortunately, freedoms are like rainforest trees. Each one insignificant; but they aren't an infinite resource, and must be conserved, for they are generally not restored once cut down. You can't picket and petition for every single tree or freedom. There are people - loggers, legislators - who's job it is to remove them. They *will* do that job. All we can do is to ensure that as much as possible, they are directed by our pressures on Government to work sustainably, rather than leave us with nothing. In the meantime, we plant more trees and carve ourselves new freedoms on the technological frontier.
Powered by LiveJournal.com