General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Good Germans in Government [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I thought that when you made that statement regarding ethics above, calling for recognition of the actual, rather than imaginary, consequences of action, that you were speaking about the disingenuous support for illegal / unconstitutional / or unethical surveillance -- being for our "protection" and so forth.
Are you instead suggesting that these secret surveillance activities ARE wrong, and harmful, and in need of change, but there is simply too much political leverage / money involved for us to do anything about it?
That we need to prioritize other things -- things like partisan political victory -- ahead of it?
Asking how many babies you would skin and eat if it would stop 9/11 -- that sort of thing? That's nonsense.
NOTE: I'm not sure that's what you actually said, but if it is, it runs counter to the ethical premise you set out earlier.
You don't start from the premise everything is a zero-sum exercise in the soulless exercise of power, and that you just trade bad here for less bad there. Take what the existing forces will give you. Not as a citizen you don't, anyway. That's a game for mercenaries.
You start with principle, and the rational contemplation of what helps, and what harms, and you push in all directions at once. You build consensus. Raise awareness. CREATE leverage out of consciousness and the awareness of true consequences. Once there was no leverage for women to vote, or to curb pollution, or to end segregation. We didn't trade our souls to anyone to make those changes.
Your premise -- again, if I'm reading you correctly -- is simply false. You're asking us to presume consequences and tradeoffs not in evidence.
If you think you know more about what they are than the rest of us, lay them out.