Posted on 12/21/2007 6:03:26 PM PST by BGHater
Edited on 12/21/2007 6:31:46 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
>You’ve got my number all right, Alex. You overlooked paranoid.
[...]
I thought of telling him that the bottle was empty and that I wanted it for a souvenir—so I wasn’t lacking in imagination—but I was so surprised and freaked out that I did loose my audacity—and, frankly, I prefer honesty, for my own personal purposes, if it is at all possible.
I’m not sure what civil courage is. What is it?
But don’t worry about having me on your side when the bullets start flying. I have plenty of courage when my back’s to the wall. It’s when there’s wiggleroom that I tend to be circumspect, and that’s most of the time. When there’s no wiggleroom or room for circumspection—all the paranoia and anxiety vanish, and I fight like a Spartan. Don’t worry. I won’t let you down.<<
Hi, Savage Beast!
Sorry if my reply came off as flippant, snide, or combative. You seem like you’re “all right.” (I find that I occasionally adapt the overly prosecutorial writing style of some FREE REPUBLIC posters, whereas a friendlier, conciliatory tone might be more appropriate.)
Actually, it all boils down to civil courage (the courage to stand up and defend your rights when they are being trodden upon). As the Germans say: “Wehret den Anfängen!” (”Combat the beginnings!”) Or as Shakespeare said: “To fear the worst oft cures the worse.” I believe that the most-often used metaphor here at this site is the one concerning the frog in the pot of water being slooowly brought to a boil.
Don’t wait until the rats have overrun your house to defend yourself. The time to start taking action is when you first discover a few mice droppings in the garage. At the end of your encounter with that Maître d’, HE is the one who should have been muttering to himself that he was freaked out. HE is the one who should have regretted bothering you. HE is the one who should have gone home wondering whether he was going to hear from your lawyer the next day. He was the one who should have felt slightly humiliated, vaguely threatened, and unsure of himself. Did you ask for HIS name? Did you write it down - while he was watching? Did you ask for the name of the manager? The name of the company which installed the surveillance cameras? The name of the restaurant’s attorneys?
Don’t get me wrong! You should have been smiling (haughtily) at him the whole time, rubbing your hands together gleefully while you asked your wife whether her brother - you know, the Beverly Hills lawyer - could handle another million-dollar civil-action suit. You should have posed the aforementioned questions in a matter-of-fact tone, as though you routinely ask them and were, frankly, getting bored dealing with such incompetents.
You should have asked ten good friends to telephone that restaurant over the next couple of weeks, inquire about their rates for weddings, banquet rooms, retirement parties, etc., and then - as an after-thought - have them ask innnocently whether it was true that they have surveillance cameras, and then have them regretfully cancel their dining plans.
Close. There will be no "please". Big Brother will tap directly into your bank account for his fines.
I generally don't go to the mat with someone unless (1) winning is a certainty, and/or (2) my cause is worth it, and/or (3) my back's to the wall and there's no real choice.
When I have gone to the mat, I have always emerged victorious.
In this situation, I was taken by surprise, caught off balance, and flustered, and it didn't seem that any of these applied. You have made a good case for #2.
However, I have brought this event before the Free Republic as an example of the way surveillance can alter our lives in a bad way.
I wondered how many times I have been caught on camera and not even known about it.
Many years ago--when I was younger and more naive--I remember making the statement: "I'm not doing anything wrong. If government agents want to come into my home anytime and look for illegal drugs, it's alright with me."
I have learned a lot since then. At that time, the potential for abuse BY government was unknown to me.
It had not occurred to me that government itself was the greatest threat to me, my family, our freedom, and our inalienable rights.
It had not occurred to me that tyrants, sociopaths, any anyone else who would desire to threaten me, my family, our freedom, and our inalienable rights--and that such people are countless and ubiquitous--would find government to be their most effective and easily available vehicle for doing exactly that.
Such people love draconian laws--and large numbers of laws that can be enforced selectively.
Today I am older and wiser.
Those who are inclined to increase the size, reach, appetite, and power of government are naive, ignorant, stupid, or malevolent.
Government is a necessary evil--necessary of course, but also evil. It enforces its authority by violence and threat of violence, and its size, reach, appetite, and power--and consequence its evil--are self-accelerating.
Though it is necessary, the only way to minimize the evil of government, its violence, and its threat of violence is to minimize its size.
Ubiquitous surveillance is a handy tool for those who intend to increase the size, reach, appetite, and power of government--and its tyrrany and evil.
The event I described came as a shock to me. When it happened, all these considerations came crashing down in the sudden revelation of some very unpleasant truths.
I didn't act--and you have argued rather well that I should have.
However, I did emerge with a new understanding of the potential threat of government and surveillance--and a renewed concern about them--and I have placed this before the Free Republic forum, which is one of the best groups of intelligent, enlightenened, and benevolent people in existence here in the Information Age and in today's dangerous world.
There’s always a remedy. Remember, the people who use these systems aren’t rocket scientists. There are always tech nerds out there looking for ways to hose high-tech stuff.
There will be no difference between hackers and other monkeywrenchers. We do not live in a culture that would shoot out the cameras, we once did but do not any longer.
Merry Christmas to you and yours! Is Santa going to bring you a new gun? ;o)
From the DS9 episode, "A Simple Investigation."
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.