These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Cloward Piven
The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!
Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama
President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America
Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism
The Battle For The World Economy–Videos
Walter Block–Videos
Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos
G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos
Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos
Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos
Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos
George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos
Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party
The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!
Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor
George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos
George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter
The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!
President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!
Progressives
Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!
Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism
Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos
The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos
The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!
Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos
Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking
The Battle For The World Economy–Videos
Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!
Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!
Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic
Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos
The Bloody History of Communism–Videos
Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!
American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?
Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party
President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!
The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down
It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!
President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs
Economists
The Battle For The World Economy–Videos
Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos
Walter Block–Videos
Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos
Yaron Brook–Videos
Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos
Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos
David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video
David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos
Friedrich Hayek–Videos
Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos
The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos
Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos
Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos
Milton Friedman–Videos
Milton Friedman on Education–Videos
Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos
Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos
Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes
Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos
Ludwig von Mises–Videos
Robert P. Murphy–Videos
The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand
George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos
Murray Rothbard–Videos
Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video
Rothbard On Keynes–Videos
Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos
Peter Schiff–Videos
Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!
Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos
L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos
Amity Shlaes–Videos
Julian Simon–Videos
Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos
Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos
Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos
Peter Thiel–Videos
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos
Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos
Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos
Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership
Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos
Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution
Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos
Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record
Societies perhaps arise out of endeavour of creating meaning in/bringing about predictability wrt/ achieving a degree of control over life, requiring mass acceptance of some goals as more desirable than others and subordination of individual liberties towards achievement of those desirable goals, thus precipitating various pathologies (like the need to control the “other” individual arising out of frustrated “individual expression”.
Perhaps experimenting with individual liberty as be all and end all of life would create a healthier, happier and compassionate individual ( and hence the society) whose need for power would be satisfied through “complete individual expression”.
December 2008 in Athens a youth is shot dead by Greek police, this brutal act was the catalyst for the release of a wave of pent up anger and frustration of the Greek people, a wave that washed over Greece and many European cities for well over a month. April 2009 an innocent man walking home from his work in London is brutally assaulted and dies, again it is the hand of the police that is blood stained. Anybody who has been to demonstrations on a regular basis knows that the police are not there to keep the peace nor to enforce the law, their action is always provocative and intimidating. They are agents of the system and are there to stifle protest. The history of protest is written in the blood of ordinary people, blood shed by the various agents of the system. Each death causes shock among the ordinary people but our history is littered with such events. Who remembers Blair Peach? April 1979, he was clubbed on the head at a demonstration in London and died the next day, no charges were ever brought against the police officer responsible. Death by misadventure was the verdict.
It is time that the ordinary people woke up to the fact that the state kills workers who fight for a better life. Here in Glasgow we can go back as far as you want and the story is the same. 1787 Calton weavers strike, the strikers marched towards the Cathedral to make their point in a demand for a living wage, the military opened fire and killed 6 wounding many more. Jump forward to 1919 when workers were asking for a 40 hour week to try to soak up unemployment. They were baton charged in George Square and running battles ensued throughout the city the military with fixed bayonets were posted on the city streets, machine guns on the roofs at George Square and tanks stationed off the Saltmarket. Remember the brutal treatment hand out to the miners in the eighties? Our history is littered with such cases, struggle to improve your life and risk the wrath of the state, it’s there to protect the wealth of that army of parasites that feed off our backs. Until we build a mass grassroots movement to replace the system of profit and exploitation, and to protect us from the ravishes of such a system we will continue to suffer at their hands.
To today’s activists in the communities it must be perfectly clear by now that you can’t make a dent in the institutions of the modern state in the hope of changing them. The modern state is so entwined with the corporate world that they function as one and the same and the corruption of the political world is matched only by the corruption of the corporate world. To become involved in any of these institutions in the hope of change must eventually corrupt the ideals of those working for that change. You will be sucked in and become part and parcel of the system that you are trying to change.
In the hope of changing society for the better it becomes necessary to work outside those institutions, working in the community seeking alternative ways to shape those communities, circumventing and short circuiting the institutions of state and the corporate world. Eventually hoping to replace them.
Howard Zin explains it more fully in the following extract;
” If you work through the existing structures you are going to be corrupted. By working through political system that poisons the atmosphere, even the progressive organizations, you can see it even now in the US, where people on the “Left” are all caught in the electoral campaign and get into fierce arguments about should we support this third party candidate or that third party candidate. This is a sort of little piece of evidence that suggests that when you get into working through electoral politics you begin to corrupt your ideals. So I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but thinking in terms of organizing social movements, organizing in the work place, organizing in the neighbourhood, organizing collectives that can become strong enough to eventually take over – first to become strong enough to resist what has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough to actually take over the institutions. –”
I would say “replace with new structures” rather than “take over the institutions.” We don’t need institutions based on privilege and power funded by greed. Tell ann arky your ideas on trying to change society for the benefit of all.
It is hard to determine which clause of the US Constitution is the most abused. The masters of the federal behemoth seem to take the most obscure parts of this great document and twist them so much it is almost impossible to understand what the original purpose of them was. However, if one is looking for the most misinterpreted and abused clause of the constitution surely the interstate commerce clause would be in the top ten.
As we are no longer taught that the United States of America is a compact between free and independent nations which created an agent to represent them as a whole to the rest of the world, and an impartial ‘referee’ to settle disputes among them, we no longer view the constitution from the correct perspective. Because of this it has been easy for the activist (progressive/socialist/Marxist) judges to manipulate the meaning of the interstate commerce clause into a license for the federal government to do things within the states that it has no real authority to do.
The interstate commerce clause is Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the constitution and reads as follows:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
It is the clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to make laws, lay tariffs and import quotas for the imports from other nations. The last two segments of it, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes, exist so congress can keep the trade between the states fair and unbiased and to regulate what people within the states are allowed to trade with the Indian tribes.
We scarcely think about it today but before the constitution each state had laws that laid tariffs on goods manufactured in a different state that were ‘imported’ into it. They also levied taxes and established quotas on goods coming into them from the other states to give locally manufactured goods an advantage over the ‘imported’ goods with the buying public. Add in other regulations not germane to our discussion and it made it very difficult for goods made in Massachusetts to be sold in Connecticut.
The ratification of the US Constitution changed all of this. Under it selling the goods made in one state in all the others became a simple process that allowed the economy of all the states to thrive and the entire union prospered resulting in the economic superiority these United States enjoyed until the 1980s.
It should be noted here that all governments seek to control all levels of the lives of the people that live under them. It is the natural tendency for this to happen not for evil intent, but for the good of all. The argument is simply ‘we’ll be able to protect you from ‘X’ if you give up a little of your freedom so the government can do ‘Y’’. The state and federal governments of these United States are no exception to this rule. A good example is the provision in the Patriot Act that allows the NSA to monitor all private international phone calls. ‘Just give up a little of your right to privacy and we’ll be able to catch the terrorists before they can hurt you’.
The problems with this are:
1) When you give up some of your rights to solve a problem, once the problem is solved the government does not give back what you gave up
2) Once agents of the government have this power they will abuse it to protect you from yourself
3) If you keep giving up a little of your rights when ever there is a problem to solve eventually you have no rights left
So whenever the politicians in the state or federal government say ‘give up this little piece of your rights and we’ll be able to save you from ‘X’’ remember what Ben Franklin said:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”1
But I digress.
Today, thanks to activist judges and a congress that only respects the parts of the constitution which they can misuse to enhance their own power, the interstate commerce clause has been ‘mutated’ into a virus that affects the day-to-day activities of all of us. Sadly, we have become so used to this we don’t even question the constitutionality of the decisions made by these judges or the ‘laws’ passed by the congress. The absurdity of this boggles the mind.
For example, in 1941 Mr. Roscoe C. Filburn, a farmer in Ohio, exceeded his ‘quota’ the federal government set on him for his winter wheat crop. Mr. Filburn used the wheat to feed is farm animals, to make bread and other consumables used by his family and to sell locally. The Department of Agriculture levied a fine on Mr. Filburn of $117.00 because he had exceeded his quota of wheat. Mr. Filburn refused to pay the fine so the Department of Agriculture put a lien on his farm. In reaction to the governments’ actions Mr. Filburn filed a lawsuit against U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Claude R. Wickard in federal district court. Mr. Filburn won his case in the district court, so the federal government appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
In its’ ruling the Supreme Court stated:
“The maintenance by government regulation of a price for wheat undoubtedly can be accomplished as effectively by sustaining or increasing the demand as by limiting the supply . . . That [Filburn's] own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial [very small] by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial . . . Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce . . . Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown if wholly outside the scheme of regulation would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing [the act's] purpose to stimulate trade . . . at increased prices.”2
The court further stated:
“Whether the subject of the regulation in question was ‘production,’ ‘consumption,’ or ‘marketing’ is . . . not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power . . . But even if [Filburn's] activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”3
The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling and ruled in favor of the government. In essence, the court ruled that the federal government can dictate how much of anything a person can grow on their own property for their personal use and, if carried to the logical conclusion, keep a person from growing anything for personal use on their own land.
The most recent ruling on this matter is as distressing as Wickard v. Filburn. Though it concerns the growing of marijuana for personal use the logic of how the court got to its’ decision is important to the discussion.
When California passed its’ medical marijuana law in 1996 Diane Monson began growing marijuana to alleviate a medical condition she had. She was following her doctors recommendation and as far as can be determined abiding by the laws of the state of California. The DEA raided Ms. Monsons’ property and seized her marijuana. In October of 2002 she filed suit against then Attorney General John Ashcroft and former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson in federal district court. Though the plaintiffs lost in the district court they appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which decided in their favor, 2-1 on December 16th, 2003. The federal government appealed to the US Supreme Court which ruled on June 6th, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution the Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its’ use for medicinal purposes. What makes this particularly disturbing is the following ‘analysis’ by the court:
“Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity”4
If you follow this line of reasoning to it’s logical conclusion the congress can pass a law, which the executive branch will enforce, that prevents you from knitting sweaters for your family because you might give one to a neighbor which interferes with interstate commerce. Or, the congress can make it illegal for you to do your own tune-ups on your car because you might help a neighbor tune-up his car which would have a negative impact on interstate commerce.
If this sounds to absurd to you remember it was under the interstate commerce clause that congress passed the ban on possession of a firearm within a ‘school zone’ denying those that live near a school their second amendment rights. The argument used for this law was that a child being intimidated by someone possessing a firearm, or injured, or killed by that someone, has a negative impact on interstate commerce which makes it legitimate for congress to pass, and the executive branch to enforce, such a law.
One may legitimately ask ‘do these Supreme Court decisions adhere to the principles espoused by the founders’? In Federalist number 45 James Madison said:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.”5
It appears that the Supreme Court, by way of its’ arguments, is in opposition to the father of the constitution. This is a situation that can only come from a progressive view of the constitution.
Alexander Hamilton also addressed the idea of federal encroachment on the internal authority of the states in Federalist number 17:
“The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things in short which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the Foederal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendour of the national government.”6
It is clear from Hamiltons’ above statement that the idea the federal government would extend its’ reach to this level of control of the people is completely foreign to the intent of those that wrote the constitution. Hamilton also wrote of a self correcting condition built into the federal system. In the same essay Hamilton wrote:
“But let it be admitted for argument sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition, still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or in other words of the people of the several States would controul the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite. It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities, than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities. The proof of this proposition turns upon the greater degree of influence, which the State governments, if they administer their affairs with uprightness and prudence, will generally possess over the people; a circumstance which at the same time teaches us, that there is an inherent and intrinsic weakness in all Foederal Constitutions; and that too much pains cannot be taken in their organization, to give them all the force which is compatible with the principles of liberty.”7
From this it is clear that the founders intent was that if the federal government should usurp this much power that the sates, supported by the people, would redress the imbalance and restore the power stolen by the federal government to where it belongs, in the hands of the states and the people.
Thomas Jefferson said in a statement on this topic:
“To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external.”
So it is clear that the federal government, in particular the congress, was never to be able to attain this level of control. The US Supreme Court has granted to the Congress power they have no authority to give. This means they have stolen that power from the states and the people.
It is almost impossible to say how much better off you would be if this had not happened. The myriad horde of federal regulation that imposes themselves on our lives would certainly be less if we the people stood up to the federal beast and empowered our state governments to stand with us so we could rein in this abuse.
What do we want? We want the US Supreme Court to correct these misinterpretations of the power entrusted to it and to the congress, and we want the congress to cease legislating in areas it has no authority to legislate in. It is long past time for the federal government to behave itself.
1Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 175, US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 – 1790)
2 & 3Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
4Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
PRESIDENT OBAMA has bowed to pressure from deficit hawks in Congress and on Wall Street by agreeing to their longtime pet project, a commission charged with reining in the federal budget.
The concept behind the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was invented on Wall Street. For more than two decades, private-equity billionaire Peter G. Peterson and an array of Peterson-affiliated groups such as the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget have been warning that deficits and “unfunded liabilities’’ would crash the economy. Funny thing, though, when the actual crash came it had nothing to do with projected public deficits and everything to do with excesses in private financial markets.
According to Peterson’s billion-dollar foundation, “Washington is broken,’’ and it will take an extra-legislative commission to provide the fiscal discipline that Congress has failed to achieve. In fact, however, the Clinton administration put the budget into surplus. It wasn’t “Washington’’ that pushed it back into deficit, but the Bush tax cuts and two off-budget wars.
Obama’s large deficits are mostly the result of the legacy of the Bush tax cuts and the depleted revenues resulting from recession, not the stimulus program. Before Obama took office, the projected deficit for 2009 was already in excess of 8 percent of GDP.
Since Republicans have made clear that they will oppose tax increases, the general assumption is that the 18-member commission, with six presidential appointees and the remaining 12 to be appointed by Congress, will recommend mainly cuts in Social Security and Medicare. This is quite a message to the American people:
Abuses in private financial markets whacked the value of your home, your retirement savings, and your job. Now, in order to pay for the costs of bailing out the banks, we will also have to cut back the two public benefits you can count on that were not tainted by private-sector excesses: your Social Security and your Medicare.
The commission’s members are mostly part of the club that supports deep cuts in social insurance. Five out of the six members appointed by Obama are basically deficit hawks. Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, is a longtime supporter of the commission and helped sell it to Obama.
The Republican co-chair appointed by Obama, former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, was a longtime crusader for Social Security privatization. Only one of Obama’s six appointees, Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union, is a strong Social Security defender. Just one of the Senate appointees, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, is opposed to cuts in entitlements.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to name her three appointees, but at least one is likely to be a deficit hawk. So the deck is pretty well stacked before the commission even begins.
But, wait, aren’t deficits a real problem? Well, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will plateau at about 3 percent of GDP late in this decade. That’s about a point too high — if the deficit were 2 percent of GDP, the debt ratio would subside. A temporary spike in deficits is no reason to cap or privatize Medicare and Social Security, which is the real agenda of many of the deficit hawks. With unemployment projected to stay above 7 percent until 2014, it’s premature to obsess about deficits. If anything, we need bigger deficits and more public investment in the short run to bring about a stronger recovery. With more people employed and paying taxes and a higher growth rate, revenues would increase and we would not need such heroic measures to cut the deficit.
And if we restore progressive taxation, we can have both a responsible fiscal policy and the increased social investments that America needs without taking it out of Social Security or Medicare. That conclusion, alas, will be the minority report of Obama’s fiscal commission. It should be the majority report.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His forthcoming book is “A Presidency in Peril.’’
The argument about the generation growing up with social media and handheld audio/visual recording devices (otherwise known as mobile phones) is a pretty good one. I wouldn’t disparage the generation out of hand, though. It’s entirely possible they grow into a heightened sense of online privacy and a clear understanding of just what’s important and not in the public/private legal debate.
From the link:
If the public wants online privacy it had better fight now for laws to protect it because businesses won’t and individuals don’t have the clout, security expert Bruce Schneier told RSA Conference attendees.
The longer information-privacy policies go unset, the more likely it is that they never will be set, says Schneier, an author of books about security and CTO of security consultant BT Counterpane. As young people grow up with broad swaths of information about them in the public domain, they will lose any sense of privacy that older generations have.
And they will have no appreciation that lack of privacy shifts power over their lives from themselves to businesses or governments that do control their information. Laws protecting digital data that is routinely gathered about people are needed, he says. “The only lever that works is the legal lever,” he says. “How can we expect the younger generation to do this when they don’t even know the problem?”
ann arky’s home.
Boston Globe