What's wrong with a surveillance state?

Because state police deals with the consquences of crime, not the cause of crime. As long as the underlying conditions of capitalism are still present, all the laws on the books can only ever increase, but never do away with, crime. Read Emma Goldman.

S P O O K E D

Also, that's John Locke.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

don't you dare touch my spooks

the panopticon is not a magic bullet
deterrence doesn't work on the people you need to worry about

In Discipline and Punish (1975), Michel Foucault builds on Bentham's conceptualization of the panopticon as he elaborates upon the function of disciplinary mechanisms in such a prison and illustrates the function of discipline as an apparatus of power.

Surveillance is a tool of the bourgeoise to maintain power. It is the post theological ages answer to social order from an omnipresent being to another with the capital and social capital to hold dominance over the proletariat.

Highly recommend his Second Treatise of Government, it does not attempt to hide the fact that liberal constitutional government is designed for the enforcement of private property, and that parliament is an institution to settle disputes between property owners, not "the people" (IE the more property you own, the more votes you get). His work was a conscious influence on the American constitutional framers. Also his attempt to argue that Jesus would have approved of his vision of absolute private property using quotes from the bible is amusing as hell.

I can't, they don't exist!

Attached: 356bd0557f149a7297bfd616af397fca2cfca10ea865deb26d162ceee5bcc2d5.jpg (240x295, 12K)

You are right that Locke claimed men institute governments to protect property, but you are wrong about what he meant by this, because his definition of property is quite different from the modern liberal definition of property.

from chapter 5: Property

Attached: dirty harry.jpg (1134x900, 216.4K)

*own

I really need to proofread better

unironically read 1984

Cheka ftw!

Attached: 2000px-Emblem_Stasi.svg.png (2000x2996, 573.13K)

Hobbes > Rousseau > Locke

I haven't read Rousseau but I really liked Hobbes

I found what 1984 really describing is a classical white collar corporate situation, where there is no sense of solidarity, no consciousness of proletariat class, the hero and his girl are classical Petit bourgeoisie, cares only about their petit life as "true freedom", no wonder the hero committed political suicide after the girl betrayed him.

Do you unironically believe mass surveillance isn't already instituted?

Literally nothing, the people against it are either liberals or anarchists a.k.a. liberals.

Thanks for your valuable input CIA

Before I answer I’d like to introduce a concept, A lot of people like to imagine themselves as powerful people, when they are in fact weak and easily victimized. In fact, most people are victims, and few people encounter criminality as the perpetrators.

As such, people often wrongly imagine themselves as being the target of surveillance. Real surveillance is not traffic cameras, it’s total protection from victim hood. It’s 0% theft, every stolen item recovered and returned. It’s not mugging, no assault, no random violence. It’s safe streets at night. It’s always knowing the facts of what happened, it’s irrefutable evidence against bearing false witness, against lies and corruption. It’s the dispassionate record of truth.

tankies were a mistake

believe it or not fucker some of us don't like being watched

You’re not being watched. You’re being recorded.

I respect your concern but honestly if you have a faceberg account you're not in any position to moralize over the stasi, in any case you're subjected to far more sophisticated mass surveillance daily than any ML state could have hoped to achieve.

Attached: 1433809959962.jpg (189x180, 21.4K)

After those quotes he waves any potential socialist interpretations away by arguing that the "invention of money" then makes rampant inequality and class society OK, because money exchange makes it by "tacit and voluntary consent".

He also takes up several passages to explain wage labor, that through this "voluntary consent" his servants accept that the fruits of their labor belong to him. My takeaway is that he was arguing precisely for the modern liberal definition of property.

My putting "the people" in quotes was a mistake, because he does fetishize the word just like later liberals, but his conception of who "the people" are remains the domain of wealthy property owners. Representation in government is to be based on the level of tax revenue, and all taxes in those days were property taxes. I remember there being better quotes on this but I found one where Locke is bemoaning poor cities retaining representation in parliament:

...

… Now that you mention it. I do have a Voyeurism fetish but now I'm fantasizing on developing a Exhibitionist fetish.
I don't like surveillance myself

No, it just floods you with useless data. Placing all moral concerns aside, filtering through thousands of furry porn posts to find the school shooter is a massive waste of time
yeah nah fuck off. if we're going to fantasise, just make an infallible computer that knows you'll do a crime before you've done it but after you know you're going to do it and have that jail people instead of going down the wasteful route of spying.

...

...

Fuck off turbotankie