Technology

59589 readers

3376 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

462

Biden signs bill criticized as “major expansion of warrantless surveillance” (arstechnica.com)

submitted 7 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Rand Paul votes no on anything that allows the government to do anything. I doubt he even reads the bills.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I doubt he even reads the bills.

To be fair it's probably the same for Biden.

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

A principled stance is a principled stance.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

All the people who wanted to maintain segregation (i.e. Rand's father) had principled stances. Should we admire them?

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What principle would lead someone to support segregation?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In Rand's father's case? Libertarian nonsense about not being forced by the big bad government to stop with the 'whites only' bullshit.

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ah. Free association is what it'd be called by libertarians. I see what you mean now.

Was he against government-forced segregation?

I'm kind of bad in these situations (from a libertarian perspective) because I tend to refuse to worry about things I like the outcome of.

If you and I had incredibly similar views on how people should behave, and we both put time and money into achieving those outcomes, but I didn't support using violence (libertarian reductionist view of government), does that mean I support things I'm ostensibly fighting personally?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

He would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element." See? Principled stand.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/91287-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-1964-civil-rights-act/

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm talking pure theory/ethics now. What I'd support politically will vary.

I agree with free association and, to some degree, property rights. I don't think my "yeah, fuck racists" stance is principled.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Okay, but we aren't talking about you.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Or a fanatical one.

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

Is consistency fanatical?

I'd call it radical for sure.