“The way we’re encouraged to cope with this is to make it about privacy: to turn inwards, take stock of our personal inner domain, and decide just how much of our lives can be offered up to the state. Large scale, bureaucratic intrusion into our personal lives is a given, but we can fill out a customer response card if we have any comments about the degree of the intrusion. If this is about privacy, the onus is on us to define its limits, to guide our servant institutions to the right policies that will protect our newly cordoned-off personal space. And so they invent a clever distraction about what the limits of privacy should be.”
Related posts:
Washington's Reaction To Bitcoin Is Acknowledgement Of The Dollar's Vulnerability
Stop Fooling Ourselves: Americans Can't Afford the Future
Paul Rosenberg: The Internet Is Being Slaughtered in the Back Room
Gold and Bitcoin: Currencies of the Future
Easy Test to Separate Winners from Wasters
Losing Velocity: QE and the Massive Speculative Carry Trade
Why Oil Could Move Higher--Much Higher
The Trick is to Suspend the Constitution Without Admitting It
Jeffrey Tucker: The Freedom of Rose Wilder Lane
Exploding Sunni-Shia Conflict: Impact on Oil, Stocks, and More
How to Spot a Market Top
Bubble Symmetry and Housing
David Galland: How to Tell if You Live in a Police State
Andrew Bacevich: How We Got Here
How to Lose Friends, Citizens and Influence
