Why Are People So Distrustful of Big Government?

[BridgeTheGap]

NSA surveillance poses a particularly thorny challenge to conservative War on Terror hawks, who are being forced to confront the tension in two things that they believe: 1) The Obama Administration shouldn't ever be trusted. 2) We're at war, and the Obama Administration must be trusted with extraordinary powers to stop the enemy, despite the theoretical potential for abuse.

It is tough to advance both arguments at once.

If the Obama Administration can be trusted to put the names of American citizens on a secret targeted killing list and amass a secret database that holds years of our private digital communications, why object to a non-secret panel that reviews the efficacy of medical procedures?

If they're using the IRS to target their enemies, why not the NSA?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/why-are-people-so-distrustful-of-big-government/276963/

[JoePhilly]

1. The far right and the far left want the same thing ... sort of ...

Both seem to want a total collapse of the "American system" as it exists today.

Each of those groups believes that once the collapse occurs, their preferred version of utopia will emerge from the ashes.

On the far right wing side, after the collapse, the US will "return" to being the Christian Nation they've always thought it was ... where biblical law trumps all other.

On the far left wing side, after the collapse, the US will move to a more communal, socialist style society in which corporations no longer exist, personal wealth is limited, and everyone shares everything peacefully.

Although their preferred final outcomes differ greatly, both seem to believe that the collapse is necessary to get the ball rolling in their direction.

[treestar]

2. Nailed it

[JoePhilly]

4. Way back when ...

I would debate crazy right wingers on the USA Today comments section of various articles.

And ironically, I find that now I hear almost the exact same arguments that the Tea Party nuts would make on that site, being made right here on DU.

The other day in an OP that had a real anti-government rant, I suggested that maybe we should cut taxes and starve the government beast until it was small enough that we could drown it in a bath tub.

That got some hilarious responses.

[treestar]

8. Yep, sometimes they sound the same

The funny thing for the left is, the government will get tons of information about you if on welfare or medicaid. Yet they can be trusted with it then. Single payer would have that feature for almost everyone but the very very rich. Yet the government can't be trusted to look for terrorists without assuming they are really looking for political opposition or to harass us in some way.

[JoePhilly]

10. Same for background checks for purchasing fire arms.

The government can and MUST have that information.

[magellan]

20. Last I checked

...you weren't required to turn over your phone records, browser history and email contents to the government when voluntarily undergoing background checks and signing up for social services.

[JoePhilly]

21. Purchasing a weapon is signing up for a social service?

btw ... those phone records ... they don't belong to you. I know you think they do, but they don't.

They belong to the phone company. They use that data to run their business. In fact, for a long time, you had to pay them extra to get them to give you a list of who you called. You had to pay them because its their data. if you wanted a free record of who you called, you could write it down. And the paper you wrote it on, would belong to you, and the government would need a warrant to see that piece of paper.

Same for email meta data, it belongs to the cable company (or whoever maintains that email account). But the content belongs to you. The government is not getting the content of your emails. They are able to get the meta data about the email. The content remains yours, and a warrant is required to look into that content. Same for your browser history file. However, the cable company maintains its own records of the sites you go to because they actually make the connection for you. So again, that's their data. The browser history file is yours, the cable company data is theirs.

[magellan]

23. Ooo, distraction tactics...Scary.

And stating the obvious...ouch.

Maybe you'd like to apply your skill to explaining why any of the information we voluntarily reveal in exchange for a service from a specific private business should become the property of the government.

[jberryhill]

26. You do know who runs the internet root servers, yes?

[magellan]

29. The US government, i.e. We Do

So you'd think we'd have some say about it helping itself to our internet activity. This has bothered me since Bush**. It's no different than if the government said because it owns the USPS, it has the right to open and make a copy of every piece of mail. Would THAT tick people off?

Perhaps the only reason it hasn't done that is because the USPS doesn't fall under the precious DoD.

Whatever happened to turning control over to ICANN, btw?

[jberryhill]

32. ICANN doesn't actually "control" much of anything

ICANN sets policy, but has to submit root zone decisions to the National Telecommunications & Information Administration.

You do know that the most recent ICANN president came from NSA, and that the current president is the guy who switched off the internet for Hosni Mubarak, yes?

The G and H root servers are operated by:

ns.nic.ddn.mil Defense Information Systems Agency

aos.arl.army.mil U.S. Army Research Lab

What surprises me, among all of the hullabaloo, is that people don't know that queries to non-cached DNS data go right through to the root, and directly to two DoD servers. The traffic analysis data, even given the effect of upstream DNS caching, can provide enormous insight, since the entire DNS query, and the IP address of the originator, is available at the root level.

Yes, Virginia, the US Army tells millions of people per day how to get to whatever.whatever. Even if we are just talking about the zone server for .com, its operator Verisign has always had a close and special relationship with SAIC. I guess that's why I am surprised at the level of shock and surprise about some of the metadata stuff. The spooks have been pretty much in charge of basic DNS operations for decades now.

But any question which includes the phrase "whatever happened to" and "ICANN" is always a joy.

[magellan]

34. I'm sure I recall that at one time we were moving towards

...turning the root servers over to ICANN control. But I didn't know about the NSA connection. Figures. Our government just won't be happy until it has control over everyone.

"The spooks have been pretty much in charge of basic DNS operations for decades now."

A quibble. Being in charge of the servers and taking advantage of that by helping itself to everything that goes through them aren't synonymous. And if you think it is, I'd stay mum about it if you want to assure people that there are proper checks and balances in place so the government -- even if it's via private contractors -- can't just look at whatever it likes. As it is, you've convinced me all the more that unwarranted access can and does happen.

I don't think you're seeing shock and surprise about the metadata stuff, other than to learn that the unnecessary hoovering of every last piece of data on every last American is still going on, and security and oversight are still minimal. At least, that's where I'm at.

[jberryhill]

36. It's more about traffic analysis than it is obtaining "data on every last American"

...What sort of information is trending where and when.

People used to sit around and watch ships and train cars come and go from different places to get a sense of "what's moving where". Or watching market movements in commodities, assessing freight conditions, and figuring out what combinations of raw materials are going where and inferring from things like that what sorts of stuff might be manufactured where.

Moving from that to an information economy, things like "is there a sudden uptick in people in place X looking for information on subjects A, B, and C" might be interesting.

Whether "Jim Bob is looking at porn again" is not all that interesting to anyone.

[jberryhill]

37. But... about ICANN....

The policy apparatus at ICANN is subject to very ham fisted assertions of priority by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), which is something like a mini-UN, and which is utterly in thrall to nebulous dictates ascribed to "law enforcement".

For example, here's what's coming down the pike in domain name registrations:

Circa 2000, you'd go to whatever registrar, register mystupidname.com, and be on your happy way.

Then along came the "data escrow" requirement, and all of the registrars have to roll up an incremental archive of all registrant data and pass it off to Iron Mountain (which is contracted to provide domain registration data escrow to ICANN).

Then along came the "annual reminder" that your domain registration can be revoked if your data is not accurate.

Then along came regular "audits" of whois data accuracy by ICANN compliance.

At the present moment, ICANN has been negotiating the new and improved registrar accreditation agreement under which registrars will be required to maintain records of all IP addresses, payment data, and any other contact data beyond the WHOIS data for a period of, I think they are up to three years now. This data has to be maintained and made available to "law enforcement" on request.

Secondly, they were pushing for mandatory provision of an official ID number (passport, driver's license, etc.) which would be maintained by the registrar with the other data. They didn't get that, but...

Third, the other thing that "law enforcement" wanted was, before any domain name could go live the domain registrant would have to confirm their telephone number by an automated call or text to that number, and then entry of a code at the registrar's website. This got a major pushback from the registrars who said it was a customer support nightmare. So now, you can register a domain name and it will go live, but you will have to be confirmation of the phone number and email address within something like two weeks of it going live.

Now, why would "law enforcement" want to make sure they could nail down all of those telephone numbers...

That's what's news at ICANN.

[11 Bravo]

33. Damn, and I thought only teabaggers got distracted by pesky things like facts.

[Recursion]

11. I remember that post

I was surprised so few people got the joke.

[JoePhilly]

13. That's what cracked me up too.

It seemed like such an obvious "solution" to the problem of big government.

And yet, almost no one got it.

[sibelian]

3. No, that's not true.

There is no necessity for any kind of "collapse" for ordinary people to be able to live together at a reasonable level of civility.

The reason I reject over-reaching governance isn't because I think it prevents utopian progress but because it encourages dystopian regress.

[JoePhilly]

6. Should gun's be registered? Should there be a national DB of gun owners?

Should you be required to get a background check (be investigated by the government) or a license to purchase a gun?

Is that the kind of government overreach you speak of?

I ask these questions from my laptop, connected to the free wifi, at a local dystopian bagel shop.

[sibelian]

22. Why do you ask?

Will a focus on a specific case prove a general point?

[Skidmore]

5. I so believe this.

What disturbs me the most is that both sides are willing to allow suffering of many to achieve their utopian goals and never seem to entertain the notion that success could bring about the opposite of what they dream.

[JoePhilly]

7. Agree ...

I take comfort in the fact that while they both hope for that collapse, they fight each other in so many other ways that they sort of cancel each other out much of the time.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Spoken from the center

of two ass cheeks.

[JoePhilly]

12. Ah yes, the new DU ... now with more personal attacks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yup you are right...you got the radicals

Perhas you should look at how those who have lived through the dystopia you seem to wish, for our own good of course, are saying.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/europe-must-stand-up-to-american-cyber-snooping-a-906250.html

Oh and it is not a blog.

[LeftishBrit]

25. Interesting point

I noticed this when the economic collapse started. Some people even suggested that a Great Depression might be a good thing, because it might force political, economic and social change.

Apart from the cost in human life and suffering - to a Europaean, it is very obvious that political change after a collapse can be for the worse rather than the better. One may end up with an FDR. One may just as likely end up with a Hitler. I think this may be the reason why Europaeans on the left, however cynical about government and politics, are less likely than Americans on the left to welcome sudden cataclysm as an agent for change.

As a pretty far-leftie myself, my preferred outcomes for both my country and yours would certainly be in a more progressive, economically redistributivist, Scandinavian direction (not that I think that corporations will ever cease to exist; I'd be satisfied to drastically reduce their influence on government.) I am just not sure that political and economic cataclysm will achieve that goal, and think it more likely to at best entrench the position of the existing PTB, and at worst lead to something worse.

[JoePhilly]

27. I tend to agree with that ...

My hope honestly is that we can continue to shrink the power of the crazy far right. Particularly the theocratic folks. Their influence is shrinking into gerrymandered districts which has turned the House of Representatives into a home for Christo-facists. But their ability to win at the state or federal level is shrinking.

The change those nuts fear is happening. The healthcare law moves us in the right direction. Ending DADT and the soon to end DOMA. We're getting closer to immigration reform. And the economy is improving despite the right wing's assurances that the election of the black guy would destroy world markets.

Each of these moves to the left are pushing the crazies off the stage. Of course on their way off stage, the nuts are making as big a mess as possible. New abortion laws in some states, crazy voter laws, but none of that appears to be sustainable for the longer term. Its sort of like at the end of Gulf War 1 when Saddam set the oil fields on fire. He knew he was going to lose, so he made as big a mess as he could. I think that's what the right wing is doing today. If we can't run it all, we'll screw it up. But its not working.

And so, I think that as they lose influence, the pockets of crazy will remain, but diminish. And in the end, we do move towards the kind of environment you describe. But its not going to happen in the short term.

And it will be messy.

[LeftInTX]

28. Unfortunately, the right wing have the Koch brothers et el

They've got the money.

Even Sarah “It just seems so Orwellian around here" Palin's got her mouthpiece(oops... paycheck) again.

[reflection]

40. This should be an OP. Outstanding. n/t

[oldhippie]

14. George Orwell

1984.

[FSogol]

15. LOL at the RW talking points of Obama using the IRS to target his enemies.

The real IRS scandal was RW political groups gaining tax free status.

[siligut]

35. Yes, and no one has corrected the misstatement.

The teabagger's requests for tax exempt status were flagged because they were unusual. The IRS flags anything unusual.

The IRS was not targeting them at all, they were investigating unusual behavior.

[1-Old-Man]

16. The stronger our Government becomes the less we should trust it, and our Government grows daily

[reformist2]

17. Partisan hacks hate the other side more than they love their own rights, liberties.

[allin99]

19. exactly correct.

[Downwinder]

18. I can only answer from my experience which

i feel is representative of others. In my dealings with Government representatives I have been bullied, demeaned, bruised and assaulted. In some cases I have given back better than I received, but in every case it has been a fight and I carry the scars of some of those fights.

Perhaps I developed a bad attitude at nine when the IRS sent two mashers out to threaten and intimidate my mother. My relations with the Government (Local, State and Federal) have not improved since that time. The more pervasive Government becomes the more difficult it becomes to avoid contact.

[sarisataka]

30. Once again I go to Ben

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

The old saying is true, power corrupts... Government will always be bigger than the individual, when it gets to be larger than the People that is the day We will have lost the republic.

[bemildred]

31. People are distrustful of totalitarian practices.

Big government is fine as long as its OUR government, it belongs to us and does what we say.

[BridgeTheGap]

38. Does size matter? Only to the extent that it is capable of getting the job done

which, we, the people, have decided needs doing. If it goes outside the scope of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, then follow the procedure for amending it.

[bemildred]

39. Correct.

Nobody whines about the government being too big in a war; or the Pentagon being too big, even though the Pentagon is definitely much too big.

[DiamondDog]

41. Centuries of experience.

Centuries of persecution of African Americans, Native Americans, the poor, those who exercise their First Amendment rights. Experiencing the government up close and personal when they club you or kill you just for peacefully speaking out. Look at what happened with Occupy, those who protest wars, those who fought for Civil Rights. Nixonian enemies list, the CIA starting the crack epidemic under Reagan, Bush and warrantless wiretapping.

There are great reasons to distrust government, big or small.

[BridgeTheGap]

42. To me, government is a just a tool. Certainly a powerful tool, but it is the actors,

the decision makers have have their hands on the tool of government, that must be held to account. Towards what ends are they truly motivated?