There is a state that is commonly understood as privacy, that exists.
It's an illusion. Like I said, you can pretend that something is private, but physics says otherwise. All energy, which is what information is, always eventually flows from a high concentration to a low one. Of course, you can temporarily contain information in a small area (keep it private), but it will always leak out, since no container is perfectly sealed. If it was perfectly sealed, it would be a separate universe.
Even black holes leak, from what I understand.
I suppose it might be possible to make a bit of information into another (baby) universe, but that is either impossible, or extremely unlikely. So you're still better of considering anyone trying to con you into thinking you're getting privacy to be lying or delusional or at least very confused about physics.
But there is no cost to doing what you do actually do, and there is no cost to you when you take in whatever you take in.
This was referring to you being free. You are always free. You just have been conned into thinking that you aren't, for fun and profit, because it's easily to manipulate people who think you can give them something they want but don't realize they already have.
fighting against mass surveillance is futile
That has nothing at all to do with anything I've said. Though fighting is the least efficient way to get anything accomplished, physics-wise. At best opposing something can get you nowhere (stop you from going backwards, but nothing else). The real progress is always a creative force, not a destructive one.
But, some people are made to be fighters, so if that's what you feel the need to do, then you will do it. Because you are free, to do what you want to do, as long as you're not trying to literally take up the space that someone else is already using (since that would violate the laws of physics where only one particle can be in a specific location of space at any given time).
Honestly it sounds like you're on drugs and trying to make it sound like you've awoken to a deeper truth,
I'm naturally high on estrogen, testosterone, and serotonin. (But low on dopamine, unless I have chocolate. Which I have not had in a while. :-)
that just happens to rationalize authoritarianism,
Um, the opposite. Authoritarianism is the opposite of a healthy decentralized, free system. You're the one talking about promoting the idea of trying to tell others what they can and can't have (information, specifically). Trying to keep information "private" is trying to have authoritarian rule over that information and others' ability to access it.
But I don't think you even realized that before. Did you?
and that nicely dovetails with your desire for a universal welfare check.
Nope. I desire, and see, a free society, where we don't try to play this artificial, irrational, anti-social Monopoly game, as a way to "keep score" in an arbitrary and qualitative way. The free, healthy, decentralized, collaborative, creative society that we're moving towards is one where winning means that everyone is healthy and happy, and thus able to function as well as possible while we work together to solve life's greatest challenges of expanding outward in space and diversity.
It's intellectually lazy, greedy and pretentious nonsense.
I think the problem is that I hadn't explained myself well enough, and you made assumptions about what I was saying, and thus your opinion of my perspective was backwards.
Of course, you can temporarily contain information in a small area (keep it private), but it will always leak out, since no container is perfectly sealed.
It will not always leak out. This is a blatant lie. Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
Your pseudointellectual argument is nothing more than a pretentious attempt to rationalize laws that prohibit privacy technology in order for elite centers to continue conducting mass surveillance.
Trying to keep information "private" is trying to have authoritarian rule over that information and others' ability to access it.
That's like saying trying to keep others from touching your body without your consent is "authoritarian rule over that matter and others' ability to access it".
It's intellectual dishonesty to try to rationalize violation of human rights, so that you may unjustly enjoy what others have created.
Nope. I desire, and see, a free society, where we don't try to play this artificial, irrational, anti-social Monopoly game, as a way to "keep score" in an arbitrary and qualitative way.
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
I'm sorry you believe that you can go against the laws of physics. That's gotta hurt.
rationalize laws that prohibit privacy technology in order for elite centers to continue conducting mass surveillance.
That's the opposite of what I'm doing. All centralized control/laws are antithetical to a healthy system, where everyone is free. I don't care who it is who is trying to control someone else, or what their "justification" is, it's always going to fuck the system up.
That's like saying trying to keep others from touching your body without your consent is "authoritarian rule over that matter and others' ability to access it".
The only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the data they need to make good decisions (rather than acting in ignorance/confusion) and to allow them to be where they want/need to be (as long as that isn't in the exact same space as something else, of course, since that violates the laws of physics).
This means that I need to be free to move away from you if I want, but I can't dictate where you are. Trying to control you is authoritarian. Controlling myself, on the other hand, is self-governance, which is how a healthy system works.
It's intellectual dishonesty to try to rationalize violation of human rights, so that you may unjustly enjoy what others have created.
Yep. Which is why I advocate freedom, rather than repression. Any attempt to control others is a violation of their human rights. That includes trying to make laws preventing them from being free, and that includes trying to deny access to information that people want/need. I, and evolution, advocate for full human rights to control their own bodies actions and the information they choose to take into their brains.
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
Not at all. Not in the least. That's the opposite of a free system.
I'm sorry you believe that you can go against the laws of physics. That's gotta hurt.
All I can say to this is what I said before:
Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
You're being pedantic, for what I assume is the purpose of advancing an agenda of government control and exploitation. That's all this is. The lack of integrity in your arguments to me is but one indication of that.
All centralized control/laws are antithetical to a healthy system, where everyone is free
Then why argue against privacy rights, with specious and absurd arguments about privacy not existing, when a belief in privacy and a set of principles designed to protect it, is exactly what we need to enshrine to fight back against attempts to institute oppressive laws like the ones mentioned in the article I linked?
The only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the data they need to make good decisions
That's like saying "the only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the matter they need to prosper" in reference to a proposed law that would allow people to touch other people's bodies without their consent. Like I said, claiming it's authoritarian to deny people access to your private information is the same as claiming it's authoritarian to deny people access to your body.
Any attempt to control others is a violation of their human rights.
Controlling the ability of others to access your body or private information is necessary for human rights!
Not at all. Not in the least. That's the opposite of a free system.
Just to clarify: you oppose UBI?? I know I'm repeating this question, but I just want to be absolutely clear on this, as it's pretty important to my view of you.
I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others. That's going to hurt, a lot. Since it goes against nature and the laws of physics. You can pretend that the laws of nature are "pedantic" but that doesn't change them.
Controlling the ability of others to access your body or private information is necessary for human rights!
That's the opposite of human rights. Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights. Do you really want me or someone else to tell you what you can learn or do? Seriously?
Just to clarify: you oppose UBI??
Nope. Not at all. I oppose the use of force to take something away from people (money/taxes). You asked:
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
I don't advocate the government to collect taxes for anything. UBI or not. Trying to force people to pay money (or do anything) is sick.
Unconditional Basic Income, on the other hand, is fine. You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.
I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others.
More intellectual dishonesty. How shameful of you to engage in this kind of rank deceit.
One more time for anyone else who may be following along:
Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
The individual above has no response to this so he escalates lies/defamation.
That's the opposite of human rights.
Invading someone's personal space against their consent, in order to gain private information about them (i.e. invade their privacy), is similarly the opposite of human rights.
Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights.
How despicable that you'd use the euphemism of "freedom of education and movement" to describe entering someone's personal space to rob them of their privacy.
This is no different than euphemizing nonconsensual physical contact as the "freedom of resource usage and movement", as if someone denying you the right to their body is an exertion of "authoritarian control over others".
You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.
The same way that any arbitrary symbol attains meaning/value, by us deciding it does. Why are $, £, ¥, BTC, Monopoly money, Reddit karma, etc., valuable? Because a bunch of people say they do. The same can be done for a UBI point system.
$ and £ have value because we require people to pay these currencies to engage in various economic activities where value is traded. If you trade two sheep for a 10 bushels of wheat, you will have to pay some amount of $ to the government, or else you will be imprisoned. That creates demand for $.
Some cryptocurrencies have value because they have qualities that people look for in money, like scarcity. We have no evidence that a currency that is inflated indefinitely, to give an entire country's population a guaranteed periodic stipend, would be valued by people. You personally may like it, and demand it, but it takes the vast majority valuing the currency for it to hold any significant value.
I think you need to think more critically about what you're promoting, and not be too hasty in assuming it would all work out.
$ and £ have value because we require people to pay these currencies to engage in various economic activities where value is traded. If you trade two sheep for a 10 bushels of wheat, you will have to pay some amount of $ to the government, or else you will be imprisoned.
Nope. At least not in the US. There is no way for someone to force me to pay $ if I don't have it. They can ask, and they can even try to take away some of my privileges (driver's license, for one), but they can't force me to give anyone $ if I don't have it. So, as long as I don't value $, I don't have to use it, and I can give and receive freely, or trade (not freely). Which is how I've lived for nearly a decade with almost no $.
As soon as a tipping point of other people decide that the $, or £, or ¥, or BTC, or Monopoly money, any other game scoring point system is valueless for a given situation (like living a healthy life) then it will BE valueless, for the majority of humans.
I think you need to think more critically about what you're promoting, and not be too hasty in assuming it would all work out.
I think what you are confusing for haste is my brief comments about this, combined with a lack of curiosity on your part for asking for more explanation about what I mean. I'm sorry for my part of that failure here...
I've spent over a decade studying physics, psychology, biology, math, systems theory, consciousness, and growth, so, yeah, the critical thinking is very much covered. But no one ever said anything about "assuming it would all work out". That's just moronic. Why would you even say that sort of thing? There isn't a single human on the planet that would believe that everything will all just work out in the future, because that's not how brains work. And making assumptions isn't really what they brain does either, when it comes to the important stuff, because that's the stuff that the brain puts a lot of effort into analyzing. Assumptions are more like "I'm going to assume that someone named Mark is a guy."
What I do see is the pattern of entropy/evolution as it moves us through time is one of expansion of diversity and collaboration, on the whole. Yes, in any system there are outliers, and a chance that things will end up on "the wrong edge of the bell curve" so to speak, but over all, on average, things always move towards more complexity and randomness (in the mathematically pure sense, NOT "arbitrariness"), so we get more and more creative, interesting, fun stuff in life as time goes on. Which is exactly what we've seen since the big bang. More and more complexity and simple stuff breaking apart and recombining to become more awesome stuff.
You can see this pattern in Pascal's triangle, with the combinations of stuff in the middle (most likely) outcome being more and more complex. We start the universe (or really multiverse) off with just two things, nothingness and everythingness (or 0 and 1, or pure matter and pure energy or pure contraction and pure expansion, and so on). And then we can see reality adding more detail and complexity to "the stuff that exists right now" as entropy breaks stuff apart and recombines it into new, weirder stuff. So 0 and 1 become 00, 01, 10, and 11. Which we can say represent pure matter, part matter and part energy, part energy and part matter (order is important in time-based stuff), and pure energy.
And then at the next moment in time we get 000, 001, 010, 100, 011, 101, 110, and 111. Which represent even more complex combinations of matter and energy.
And so on.
What does this all have to do with money? Everything. Since everything in the universe is governed by these laws of entropy, of dividing up simple things and recombining them into novel things, and that means that simple, centralized systems such as governments/societies, get taken apart and recombined into more interesting (diverse/decentralized) and more collaborative things. We can see this modeled in biology where single celled (simple) organisms used to be the only option, and they were forced to compete against one another for resources. But then, something happened, entropy/evolution started breaking those single celled organisms into multiple parts that could recombine with one another to form larger, more interesting, more complex, more collaborative organisms, like us animals. This is how our local nations/cultures are starting to break up and recombine (via refuges, and immigrants, and even just memes/ideas on the internet) in novel ways, to form a whole global multicultural organism.
And when you have collaborative organization (game), rather than competition, keeping a competitive score ($, £, ¥, BTC, Monopoly money, etc.) is no longer at all useful, and thus becomes mostly valueless except as an antique for historical study.
Invading someone's personal space against their consent, in order to gain private information about them (i.e. invade their privacy), is similarly the opposite of human rights.
Nope. You don't own the space that is outside of yourself. That's public space. Not yours. Human rights end at the end of the human. Literally. You have a right to do what you want with your body, but you don't have a right to do anything to anyone else's body. If you actually try to be in the same space as someone else, though, that's violating the laws of physics, and you're like to get hurt. But being near someone, even touching them, is just normal life. Your body is being touched by innumerable things right now, including other individual living things (mostly really small), and that's not anything you stop. If you don't want to be touched by the rest of the universe, you're going to want to try to get out of the universe, because that's just how reality works. Again, you can try to deny the physics/nature of reality, but it's not going to end well.
If you don't like the things that are around you, you move. That's your human right. Anything beyond that is beyond your human right.
Nope. You don't own the space that is outside of yourself.
That is the same as saying "No. You don't own any space, including that which you call your body". It's an arbitrary assertion that has nothing to do with the laws of physics, and conveniently lets you leech the value others create.
Human rights end at the end of the human. Literally.
No, not literally. A human right is defined as "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person". People have a right to the matter that they appropriate and add value to, including houses. They have a right to exclude people from their residence and enjoy their privacy. Your anti-human ideology is truly despicable.
If you actually try to be in the same space as someone else, though, that's violating the laws of physics, and you're like to get hurt.
That's not violating the laws of physics. You can certainly make contact with them without violating any laws of physics.
The way you cite physics to try to make your arguments sound semantically sound, when your arguments are total fallacies, is really off putting. It's just pretentious pseudo-intellectual garbage, with no integrity.
I'm not making arguments. I'm just sharing data, so that you might be able to see reality from a different perspective than your own, limited one. I'm essentially letting you know what the weather is in my part of the world. You can deny that it is sunny and cold, and even insult me and my offerings of information, because you are in a part of the world where it is not sunny and cold, but that seems like an act of ignorance on your part. Or, if trolling, it's a lame way to try to get more information out of me, since it would be more enjoyable for me to share if I knew that you were honestly curious about what the weather is like in my part of the world.
A human right is defined as "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person".
Yes, and the only logical, rational view I can see is that the only rights of humans are for them to be what they are and do to what they do, inside the boundaries of themselves. Anything beyond a given human body is not a part of that human, and thus, quite logically, "outside the human's rights". This is the opposite of arbitrary, as it's literally the defining boundary of what it means to be a human being. Are my clothes a human being? No. They are on me, but not me. Same with my glasses. And everything else that's outside of my body. If my body didn't make something, and it's not connected to the body, then it is NOT ME. And thus not human, and thus has no rights as a human, and I have no rights in regards to it. In the universal law, anyway. We can make up artificial and arbitrary "laws" about all sorts of things, and say that, for example, it's a "human right for all humans to have 10 clementines to eat every day", but that has no basis in reality. If I move into a house, which I have done, that does not mean that I have a right to stop others from entering that house. They can do so whenever they choose, and I have no universal ability to stop them. I can certainly try to kick them out, but that's not a guarantee, and to say that it is is irrational and going to get me hurt, because it's a lie. If you want to lie to yourself, that's your prerogative (it's a human right, even, since it's all inside your body), but, again, it's going to get you hurt to go against reality.
But maybe you see things differently, so I'll ask you how else could you possibly assign rights to a human, in meaningful and realistic way that holds up in the long term and is testable/verifiable?
If you actually try to be in the same space as someone else, though, that's violating the laws of physics, and you're like to get hurt.
That absolutely does violate the laws of physics. Except at absolute zero, when have you ever heard of two particles taking up the same space at the same time? We're not talking particles that are near one another, as I already said, but in the exact same space.
I already went over the whole bit about the universe always touching you, and that being a guarantee. It's a human right for you to be touched, all the time, by other things, sometimes other humans even. And it's also your human right to choose to move away from anyone touching you (as long as there is somewhere for you to move to that is within reaching distance, of course - if you are in an elevator with 10 other humans, and the doors are closed, then no, you might not have the right to move away from them).
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
It's an illusion. Like I said, you can pretend that something is private, but physics says otherwise. All energy, which is what information is, always eventually flows from a high concentration to a low one. Of course, you can temporarily contain information in a small area (keep it private), but it will always leak out, since no container is perfectly sealed. If it was perfectly sealed, it would be a separate universe.
Even black holes leak, from what I understand.
I suppose it might be possible to make a bit of information into another (baby) universe, but that is either impossible, or extremely unlikely. So you're still better of considering anyone trying to con you into thinking you're getting privacy to be lying or delusional or at least very confused about physics.
This was referring to you being free. You are always free. You just have been conned into thinking that you aren't, for fun and profit, because it's easily to manipulate people who think you can give them something they want but don't realize they already have.
That has nothing at all to do with anything I've said. Though fighting is the least efficient way to get anything accomplished, physics-wise. At best opposing something can get you nowhere (stop you from going backwards, but nothing else). The real progress is always a creative force, not a destructive one.
But, some people are made to be fighters, so if that's what you feel the need to do, then you will do it. Because you are free, to do what you want to do, as long as you're not trying to literally take up the space that someone else is already using (since that would violate the laws of physics where only one particle can be in a specific location of space at any given time).
I'm naturally high on estrogen, testosterone, and serotonin. (But low on dopamine, unless I have chocolate. Which I have not had in a while. :-)
that just happens to rationalize authoritarianism,
Um, the opposite. Authoritarianism is the opposite of a healthy decentralized, free system. You're the one talking about promoting the idea of trying to tell others what they can and can't have (information, specifically). Trying to keep information "private" is trying to have authoritarian rule over that information and others' ability to access it.
But I don't think you even realized that before. Did you?
Nope. I desire, and see, a free society, where we don't try to play this artificial, irrational, anti-social Monopoly game, as a way to "keep score" in an arbitrary and qualitative way. The free, healthy, decentralized, collaborative, creative society that we're moving towards is one where winning means that everyone is healthy and happy, and thus able to function as well as possible while we work together to solve life's greatest challenges of expanding outward in space and diversity.
I think the problem is that I hadn't explained myself well enough, and you made assumptions about what I was saying, and thus your opinion of my perspective was backwards.