On 07/01/2020 02:19 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:05:50 -0700 > Mirimir <miri...@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.
