Dude, in that other thread, I was just minding my own business discussing things and you came in, and insulted me. Now here in this thread, I am again discussing things but you insulted me again.

So why don't you tell who the child is here?





Your entire post boils down to, don't give the feds a reason to spy on you, and then you won't have to worry about their spying ways (some of which are illegal, most are immoral).

Also, if you think the feds are motivated by trying to catch criminals and keeping the populace safe, you are naive.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Dec 9 2022 01:58pm

Exactly. Don't give them a reason to spy on you by breaking the law. Nope sorry, it's total legal under the Patriot Act, which was another one of George W. Bush's failures. You can argue that it's immoral all that you like (I might even join in on that discussion), but it's perfectly legal.



I don't want to pretend that laws prevent crimes. Laws are designed to punish people for breaking them. Whether or not laws are effective at keeping people safe is an open discussion and many people on both sides of the political discussion can easily point to failures in law enforcement. (A good one to point out would be the Philadelphia police blowing up an entire neighborhood in 1985.) It's not a problem that is limited to any specific branch of law enforcement or to any one specific branch of government.



Generally speaking I would just point out the "numbers game" and the concept of "focus" involving law enforcement:

I personally know some people who used to drive around every single day openly smoking a bong in their car, they never got caught, the police never bothered them, and they were never arrested even after decades of doing it. One specific person I know of used to inject heroin until they were so high they couldn't see straight and then would go drive around in their car for "entertainment." Again, they were never caught doing this. I actually know people who have broken minor laws likely every single day of their adult life. There are not enough police to deal with things like that and the police aren't focused on these people because they're doing anything to harm others. Granted I do know of one person who took so much LSD that they crashed their car into a fence and the police had to help them tow their car. They weren't charged with a crime after they flat out told the police that they ingested an unknown drug then got in their car.

Edit: I just think think that you are giving law enforcement way too much credit. They are largely understaffed and are usually borderline incompetent, especially the police. It's always better to work out your problems with out calling the police if possible. You should always think "okay so I am about to call the dudes with guns and the dudes that are coming probably huffed paint in high school. Does dudes with guns actually help me in this situation? Yes or No?"

This post was edited by mki on Dec 9 2022 02:24pm

If a law is actually immoral, then it should become our duty to change it. Also, you are assuming that they only watch you if you are a criminal. This is not true. They watch all kinds of persons of interest, many of whom are law-abiding citizens who have not broken any laws.

Further, I feel that for you to say that what they do is legal, you are setting a really low bar. We are talking about the foremost law enforcement agencies here, they should be held to really high standards. They should be beyond any type of doubt on their integrity and moral uprightness. Not only must they not break laws, they cannot engage in immoral acts or morally questionable tactics, either. Why do your tolerate and defend their poor behaviors?

Anyway, you said my last paragraph is a rambling mess, so I took that to heart and made some changes. I will post the new version below for you, to see if you think it's an improvement:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I believe it's time that we start thinking about our relationship with the intelligence community. These agencies, we literally pay their livelihood. They are supposed to be working for us. But instead, they rule over us. They spy on us. They treat some of us as if they were criminals. And most importantly, a lot of what they do is shrouded in secrecy and not subject to public scrutiny. We really should be asking both ourselves and the feds what they are really up to, but we all know the evasive answer we will get. Why is reality like this? Shouldn't we the people, who pay these feds their salaries, have any say over what they do? Or if that's asking too much, can we at least be reasonably assured that the they won't spy on us? We are literally paying these feds money so they can watch us. If you don't believe me, if you still think feds will only watch you if you are a criminal, send me a private message and I will give you a list of lawful things to talk about online which will get the feds to converge on your ass in less than one day. Why is our tax money being used against us like this? Why do we allow this? Another thing. Why do so many of us assume that the feds are motivated by catching criminals and keeping the populace safe? And the ones who are the most sure of this are often the ones who are the most clueless about what these agencies engage in. Seriously, I bet these people can't even name one single federal agent that they personally know yet they are cocksure feds work tirelessly to keep the average people safe. And they will shout down or make fun of people who express doubts about the feds. I am sure you have met people like that.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Dec 9 2022 02:47pm

You're parading around as a racist middle aged Asian woman online nearly 16 hours a day I dont think the government is overly intervening on life.

Lol, your tears are still not dry yet.

No I'm just pointing out simple fact. Indifference breads apathy in people and the fact is there's not that much government intervention in our daily life outside some basic laws that I think the majority of people would vote or be in favour of maintaining. Since we are indifferent there's little noise. We overall don't even care that much about who's leading us. Typically, voter participation rates in places like Canada is about 60% and if we continue to use Canada as an example here I have to imagine you're not liberal so not only do 40% not participate at all but the majority of that 60% that do participate you don't even agree with. You would refer to them as lefties.

Frankly, it's going to take something pretty drastic to have change from the status quo.

This post was edited by SBD on Dec 9 2022 03:17pm

As much as I want to agree with that statement, I would just point out that it's not really true. The law is frequently immoral when applied to specific individuals in many situations.



Yeah. It's a pretty low bar. I tolerate it because it doesn't affect me. I don't break laws that are serious. If the police want to come take my bag of plants away from me or write me a speeding ticket then so be it.



I would generally say that you perspective seems to be backwards. Law enforcement doesn't rule over us because we contribute to a process that makes the laws. You may not agree with the way the process works, but it does generally work to punish the worst offenders if they get caught.

My biggest point would be to point out that the alternative isn't better. So let's say we eliminate law enforcement and we will continue forward with this conversation in a theoretical version of the US with no law enforcement. Well if nobody enforces the any laws, then what's the point of having laws at all? You as a private citizen could just go execute a murderer, but then what stops a member of the murder's family from murdering your entire family? I realize that this is an extreme example, but with out the rule of law, in a capitalistic society, every immoral act will just have a value associated with it. Some people will just be in a position where they can safely accept money to murder somebody and others won't. So wouldn't that be even worse then the system we have now?

So now back to the way the US currently operates: I will try to avoid "cornering you." I am not trying to suggest that more law enforcement is the only solution to solve the problems you are bringing up, but I am going to point out that it could be one. So as a society we could choose to have more people involved in law enforcement, who's purpose is to ensure that law enforcement is proceeding legally and not doing immoral things. We could also choose to focus enforcement on the crimes that hurt people, which is certainly the direction we seem to be headed.

I also understand that people don't like being spied on, but you have to understand that it is a cost effective way for law enforcement to get information that they could not get otherwise.

So the question I have would be: What is the problem you have specifically? Is it lack of transparency? Do you think that law enforcement should communicate more with criminals? Are you legitimately concerned about the morality of law enforcement in general? Or do you just feel that there's too much regulation of private lives in general? Would you prefer a society that is more tolerant to the laws being broken?

This post was edited by mki on Dec 9 2022 03:15pm

Naw, dude. Laws are either inherently immoral or they are not. It shouldn't matter who is on the receiving end. Unless you can give me some specific examples.



Well if you are only concerned about yourself, I guess that's one way to live life. Personally, I make a lot of things my personal business. When I see injustice, corruption, or wrongdoings by government agencies, I make it my problem. And in this regard, I really think my way is the superior way. We are all in this together, when one of us gets attacked, that means all of us are attacked.



If by law enforcement you mean the police, then I agree that they are held accountable to the public. However, when it comes to the hardcore ones like the CIA and the FBI, they can and do rule over you, simply because they are not held accountable to the public (their directors occasionally being put on the spot doesn't count), they keep everything they do in secret, and they have considerable manpower and resources. If they decide to "investigate" you, then guess what? Your life is effectively ruined and you have very little recourse. In fact a lot of people whose lives are ruined by the feds have been double-victimized because everybody thinks they are crazy and then they get put into a mental asylum and have to take anti-psychotic medications.

I also think it's naive of you to think that just because we are involved in voting politicians that means the politicians and lawmakers don't rule over us. There have been so many bad laws, laws that restrict personal liberty or infringe on the average person's privacy, and there is nothing we can do. And these laws most certainly do rule over us, along with the lawmakers that made them. We can in theory vote these bad lawmakers out but we will just be getting a fresh batch of lawmakers who will continue to have the power to make laws that rule over us.



Dude, I literally didn't suggest we eliminate law enforcement.



Dude, that's not right. Spying on law-biding citizens is wrong, and as such the law enforcement absolutely must not engage in it. You shouldn't condone immorality just because it might come with a benefit.



I mostly have a problem with the morally questionable "investigative" tactics and the lack of transparency associated with the intelligence community, whom I have dealt with personally, for many years. I know what they do is highly immoral and this enrages me. I want to expose them for the evil entities that they are for the public to see. I don't know how to fix the problem but I feel making people aware is the first step.

Do you think traffic laws are immoral? In some cases traffic laws could impede your ability to live your life as a free citizen.

This might sound like a silly argument, but I've considered it before. I used to agree with libertarians on this subject, whom many believe that the US government should not even issue licenses to drivers. They believe that it's an unnecessary step and that we as free citizens can manage the traffic on our own. I have a tendency to think that there needs to be a line somewhere because then we would just have people driving around while they are drunk to the point that they can't even stand up and that would be clearly dangerous.



It's not that I am only concerned with myself, it's that I am primarily concerned with myself. There's a lot of things going on in the world today that I think are certainly concerning, but I can't really do anything to stop any of it. I'm not going to lie and say that the government or law enforcement has never done anything wrong, I would just point out that the US is a country with 330+ million people and when you compare it to other large countries, not only do they have the same problems, but in many cases it's worse. There's also countries out there that do much better when it comes to certain things, but that's usually at the expense of personal freedom.

That realization is why I am trying to lead this conversation down the road of identifying your specific problems and discussing potential solutions to them, because no matter what direction we go in the future, there will be pros and cons to that decision.



In the effort to correct something you've said a few times: The CIA doesn't have any authority over American citizens in America. Even if, purely in theory, you were planning a terrorist attack, it wouldn't be the CIA, it would be the FBI.

I will agree though that the FBI is not an organization that you want to have investigating you over serious crimes. At the same time, you are suggesting that "your life could be ruined" and I would point out that in most cases people are only being punished because they did something wrong or were involved with people who were breaking the law. It's true that some people will "fall through the cracks," but usually the system works.



You are getting into the deep thought conversations about society as a whole. I personally just try to identify the goals of our society and then try not to do anything that would "disrupt" the natural progression of society and I believe in the concept that there is "natural good in people." Even when people are doing bad things, they are usually doing it because of opportunity or out of necessity. At an individual level, it is easy to see that certain laws unjustly hurt people while completely missing the reality that when viewed on a large scale, they are good for society overall. Even when "bad politicians" are working towards a goal, they are generally working towards a policy that benefits somebody.

With all of that said, I don't feel that the government "rules over me" but rather I have a relationship with government that aligns with the values of society, which I am a member of.



I didn't say that you did. I brought it up hypothetically.



Well, if you feel that way, I would encourage you to discuss that with the people around you and make an effort to discuss that with politicians who make the laws.

I think the issue you are going to have is that conservative politicians will view this "spying" as a needed function of the government to keep the country safe. Which doesn't necessarily mean you as an individual, which I think that is the problem you are trying to argue.

That you are okay with law enforcement as long as it does not impede on your personal liberty?

It's a little bit of a stretch, but I think your main point is that government interests should not supersede individual liberty.

Thanks for the very thoughtful responses and the great conversation you have given me. I don't have any more to add as I think we are getting a bit too far from the original topic of this thread. However from now on I will make sure to read all your posts. Very thought-provoking stuff.