On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> You can make the same argument for guns, now can't you? The fact is,
> lambasting any technology because of what it can be used for is attacking
> the problem from the wrong end.
That's how I was hoping someone would reply! :-) Please note that I
was playing a bit of devil's advocate when I wrote that. It's not the
computers, guns, cars, knives or rocks that are dangerous, but the
people who use them for harmful purposes. If we didn't have
computers, they'd surely find a way to do something equally bad, would
then not?
> The real concern should be ensuring that all technology is used in a
> responsible manner, whether it be a gun or a camera. The people we elect
Indeed; well said.
> to be in charge of making these decisions are the ones who are
> accountable, meaning that we are accountable. The trouble is, in a
> democracy (which technical, we are not...we are a constitutional
> republic, or at least we're supposed to be) even the morons who would
Yes, supposedly.
> trade their inalienable rights for a false sense of security get to vote.
> So anything short of violent revolution will be inadequate to remedies the
> ills we suffer at the hands of our collective government.
Yes, alas; it does appear that way. If only enough people would wake
up to what's going on and send clear messages to their politicians,
through effigies, letters, telephone calls, protests, shouting at them
when they enter and leave their offices, and voting... the only
problem is that at the polls, our choice is often limited to the
lesser of two evils. There are, at least thus far, many legal, and
non-violent, ways to annoy, anger, intimidate and frighten our elected
officials who are harming us---not for the purpose of harming them,
but just to wake them up to reality and let then know that they need
to clean up their acts.
To quote Benjamin Franklin on this subject: "Those people who would
surrender some of their freedoms to obtain safety deserve neither
freedom nor safety." (1776)
I remember when a certain politician showed up at a local polling
place a little over a decade ago. When he selected me as the first
citizen to speak to upon getting out of his limousine, he made a
little mistake. Right away, I put him on the spot about why I
wouldn't vote for him, such as his being for high taxes, etc. Hey,
why be respectful of the office of someone who doesn't earn my
respect? The funny thing was, his guards sort of turned their backs as
said what I had to say to him, not shooing me away. Anyway, he got so
mad that he got right back into his limo, didn't attempt any more
campaigning there, and gave me the "finger," as his car left the
parking lot. :-) If more people would do such things, just think of
the changes that we could make.
> Remember, at the same time, we can use computers to counter the threats to
> civil liberties.
Yes; excellent point Sellam!
> Computers don't track people. People track people.
True. If, alas, we didn't have so many apathetic people, it would be
much easier to stop those people who use technology for "big
brotherish," Orwellian, purposes.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd_at_rddavis.net 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.net beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
Received on Wed Jul 04 2001 - 23:09:49 BST