On 07/01/2020 02:19 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:05:50 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 06/30/2020 06:34 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +0000
certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government criminals for instance.
Sure, but "criminal" is such an ambivalent term. As they say, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
I can rephrase and avoid moral terms :
if governmetn agents spy, steal, torture, kill and the like they can't then object when they are treated in the same way.
Exactly :)
take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be.
I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)
well strictly speaking they should be given the chance to surrender and pay for the damage they caused. And if they don't...
Sure, if "pay" includes death ;)
As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over others. So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally inevitable without public oversight.
Agreed. No privacy for government agents seems fair to me. If they don't like it, they can get a honest job.
Right :) But "government" is also ambiguous. I mean, I live on an old farm with several hundred others, with sociocratic governance.