>From: "Technotranscendence" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Huh? Despite my typo -- "close" should be "closer" -- how could Zero come
>to that conclusion? My point was, as others pointed out, that the more
>totalitarian a government is the more it moves toward ubiquitous
>surveillance! This is true of the examples I gave -- modern dictatorships
>and parts of Puritan New England. The problem is that these forms of
>government are extremely brittle without constant vigilance over their
>subjects. (That is, without intensive surveillance they would soon fall to
>plots, mass emigrations, or just mass disobedience, since their power
>depends on a) people being ignorant of their options and b) raw violence.)
>So, let me state again clearly, the closer a society gets to ubiquitous
>surveillance, the more totalitarian it becomes. This is true whether it is
>a one person dictatorship, an oligarchy, or an absolutist democracy (i.e.,
>dictatorship of the majority). At least, this is my humble belief.
Uh, yeah. But there's a slight (read *HUGE*) difference. Totalitarian
style surveillance is a far cry from two-way power proportional
transparency. The difference (once again) is that in the former Big Brother
sees you clearly and you see him obliquely. In the latter Big Brother sees
you clearly, and you see him even *more* clearly.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:46 MDT