We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

The goal has been the same for over a decade: Total Information Awareness. The government seeks to have all the data it can possibly get, and keep tabs on every documented detail in your life. They will share this data with law enforcement agencies that have nothing to do with terrorism, which is itself a minuscule threat compared to what America faced during the Cold War.

The only way to stop this is a nationwide movement to restore the Fourth Amendment completely. No more warrantless searches—for any reason: drugs, guns, taxes, money laundering or terrorism. This system cannot be reformed, because the system, from top to bottom, is all aimed at abolishing every last bit of personal privacy.

We have been told it’s a balance between liberty and security, but look where that game has gotten us. The government wants total control. Only if we reject their entire agenda can we have any footing in restoring our liberties.

In George Orwell’s 1984, everything was monitored, except the protagonist Winston Smith did have a small corner he could hide in, where the cameras couldn’t see him. Where we’re heading, we won’t even have that corner.

- Anthony Gregory

6 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Laird

    Absolutely correct. There is no “balance” between liberty and security; that’s a false dichotomy. Liberty is paramount, and attempts at security (which will always be mere attempts; no amount of government intrusion can provide absolute security) must be respectful of, and wrapped around, our constitutional freedoms. If there is a legitimate threat, get a warrant (in an open court, not a secret court issuing secret orders). An individualized warrant, naming specific persons and things as the Constitution requires. Otherwise, if you can’t provide sufficient evidence to persuade a court to issue the warrant, hands off. Period. And no “self-executing” warrants, either (such as those issued by the FBI to itself, under color of the Patriot Act). Those aren’t “warrants” at all in a constitutional sense.

    The solution is simple. We need a constitutional amendment to delete just one word from the 4th Amendment: “unreasonable”.

    I’d far rather take my chances with the occasional terrorist (an extremely rare event) than suffer the day-to-day depredations of a police state.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    My suggestion, which was whimsical until I thought about it a little more, is a constitutional amendment reading approximately “‘Malfeasance of office’ will always be an absolute defense in any case of harm done to a government employee.”

    They should fear us. But, deliciously, if they’ve done nothing wrong, they’ll have nothing to fear.

  • llamas

    “I’d far rather take my chances with the occasional terrorist (an extremely rare event) than suffer the day-to-day depredations of a police state.”

    Nominate for SQOTD. Only to add that a clause about the War on Drugs would be a welcome addition.

    Here’s today’s reason why:

    http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3209305.shtml#.UnkcX3CsiSp

    llater,

    llamas

  • CaptDMO

    Soooo….a letter, “written” on paper, in the growingly incomprehensible long hand, sent in an envelope, by the “post”, is the NEW “secure in ones person and papers”?

  • Julie near Chicago

    “Longhand”? I surely hope I’m misunderstanding you, Captain. You can’t possibly mean cursive?

  • Julie near Chicago

    I mean, having to learn it is child abuse, no?

    –Come to think of it, maybe having to teach it is teacher abuse. :>)!