“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:
Real ID Exposed: It Is Worse Than You Think
Bitcoin is a Startup
Doug Casey's Primer on Internationalization -- International Man
How Empires End
Is the Gold Market Manipulated?
U.S. Prisons Thriving on Jim Crow Marijuana Arrests
The Case for Fed Tapering Sooner Rather Than Later
Creator of Netscape, Marc Andreessen: 'Why Bitcoin Matters'
Aye, Me Hearties—Why There’s Still Old-Fashioned Treasure Out There
Profiles in Pork
Detlev Schlichter: Some personal thoughts on surviving the monetary meltdown
Roger Ver: Why Bitcoin is Important for the World
Should States Be Held Liable for Executing an Innocent Individual?
Liberty: A Muslim-American Perspective
Charles A. Burris: War Crimes, the Holocaust, and Today’s National Security State
