[PBVBROOK]

Quatz’s thread on the environment and the future gave me the idea to just throw this out there.

In 1976 I did something that none of you (or I for that matter) will ever be able to do in the future. I got lost in the world. And therein lies the cautionary tale.

In Sep 1976 I found myself with 54 days on my hands and nothing to do. I also had a little nest egg. So I decided to get lost. Pocketing my US Passport and a couple of thousand dollars I headed for the Los Angeles International Airport. When I arrived I looked for a bargain. In those days they had last-minute fares. So when I saw a flight leaving in a couple of hours for Copenhagen I plunked down my money and bought a ticket. As there were no computers in those days my name appeared on my ticket and the manifest for the airplane. About 8 hours later I was in Copenhagen. Danish customs was hard. A guy glanced at my US passport, wrote nothing down and I was in.

A couple days in Copenhagen (enough) and I bought a rail pass. I used my real name but the pass was simply presented to the conductors who wrote nothing down. On the ferry over to Germany, no German customs and I was in. Several days in Germany; Munich, Rotenberg, Nuremberg and off to France. In France they looked at my passport and stamped it but did not record my entry. Then I was in Bordeaux chasing around to some wineries for a few more days and staying at a B & B. I don’t recall they ever asked my name. And so it went. I was seriously lost in the world.

Could anyone have found me? If anyone were looking it would have been a monumental effort. I suppose they could have tracked me as far as Denmark but from then on it would have taken Interpol and a ton of money to run me to ground. Why us this important. It speaks to privacy and my sense of independence and control over my own life.

Today this would be impossible. Before I could even buy the ticket I would have been checked against various lists. The Danish authorities would have been notified I was coming. My passport would have been checked electronically. My image would have been recorded dozens of times by the time I left the Airport in Denmark. Again with the rail pass and entry into the various countries. My time in London would have been photographed so much that you could make a movie from it. In some of the larger train stations and airports image recognition software would confirm that no one was looking for me.

And it is almost impossible to get lost these days without enormous effort usually requiring that one go to ground and not move much. And I think we are worse off for it. Every time I dial my cell phone someone knows were I am. The technology exists to find me through voice recognition software. Every post on pofo, every web site visited, every Google search creates a record virtually forever. Even my car passing through some areas leads to a photo of me and my license plate.

I think this is not good. I think it leaves us vulnerable. I am sad that most of you will never experience the utter freedom of being lost in the world. The joy of being someone else or at least the faceless person in the Munich Hauptbahnof; from nowhere and going nowhere special. Complete and utter freedom for a time. I’m tired of people following my movements cyber and corporeal. I want to escape being the guy from the something Times. I want to get lost again. Facelessness. Alone. Independent. Mysterous. Just for awhile. To visit the world as an observer. I want some American girl in Rome to remember me as Jim. And for all I know her name wasn’t really Cathy either.

[Dr House]

Moving story, but why is it in the liberalism sub-forum?

[PBVBROOK]

Because I think it is about privacy issues. It is fine to move it. Where would you suggest?

[Huntster]

Your point is most valid with me, PBVBROOK. The times.............they have a'changed, indeed.

I'm not much for global trotting. I rather dislike being abroad.

But I sure like getting lost in the wilderness.

Similar to the changes in international travel, freedom in the North American wilderness has changed. Prior to "Earth Day", one could go out onto federal public lands and do as one would, especially true wilderness lands like in Alaska.

No more. You literally can't legally camp in the same remote spot for over two weeks without moving your camp at least two miles. That is even in Alaska state law now (called "Generally Accepted Uses"). This has been done to eliminate the legality of a nomadic lifestyle.

But guess what?:

It's damned fun to do so anyway just to see how long it takes their meager "land cops" to notice you and deal with you, and even more fun when you simply move your camp two miles (forcing their return...................).

[ninurta]

PBV, I completely hear you. While I am too young,(20) to know such a time, when I go for a walk in the back woods I just long to vanish into them and start a new life just for the fun of it. But the way things are set up, the privacy required just isn't there. If I decide to get gas, and decide to get a drink to have at the hotel, they have my ID. I don't want to carry too much cash, then they have my card number. I want to leave the country, they can track me. I want to make a call, they can track it.

I have to ask, why aren't you a libertarian? For someone who wants that much independance from a system it seems unlikely that you wouldn't be one.

[PBVBROOK]

I am a libertarian but not one you would recognize. I am a social libertarian and fiscal conservative. In other words, an old time liberal.

The problem with modern libertarianism is that it has been hijacked by the lunitic fringe: Those who advocate privatizing everything from the police to birth certificates. Strange people that maintain the government has no right to tax. Age and I hope maturity gives me the view that for any political view to have any traction at all it must be grounded in what is doable. We are never going to do away with the Army and hire it out to Blackwater. We will never see the Acme Nuclear Missile Company. ("No MIRV to large no target to small.")

I am concerned with liberty and personal freedom. I believe in the legalization of Marijuana and Gay Marriage. (Not necessarily in that order.) I believe that government has a role in regulating trade and business but not in tracking our very move under the guise of national security. I believe that traffic cameras are simply a tax and have nothing to do with safety. I believe that it was the government's duty to protect us from the unscrupulous bankers who just tanked the economy while maintaining their personal wealth at the taxpayer's expense. I believe it was criminal for Mary Landreau of Louisiana to get 300 million dollars for her district in exchange for her vote on the health care reform law. I believe it proves that democrats join the republicans as having proved beyond a doubt that the are inherently dishonest. I believe that Obama in his heart wants to change things but he can't because congress simply won't give up their ill gotten gains.

Last I believe two things that send modern libertarians off foaming at their mouths. I believe that the people, through their representatives, have the right to define their country anyway that they like. If the majority want welfare then welfare it is. If the majority want people to own guns then guns are us. I believe that the people are soverign. I do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms extends to machine guns and grenades. I believe it is just fine to ask people not to own such things. Simply put I believe that the Constitution is a living document. It has been ammended before and it will be again. I believe that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job as interpreting it for us over the years. And I believe that the gulf between the rich and the poor is disgustingly wide. I believe that it is criminal for an employer to be worth millions and his workers rely on the government for support. I believe we need to restore our middle class which means that some of the disgustingly rich people in the country will have to part with a few of their billions. I believe that government should protect citizens first and everyone else second.

Finally I am saddened when I see innocent people suffering whether they are suffering from their own ignorance or from the greed and averice of others. I completely sign up for the notion that the British head of public health articulated "We, as a nation, have decided to care for one another when we are ill." I utterly reject the 'let-'em-eat-cake' attitude that defines modern libertarianism.

There is a long answer to a short question.

Show me a libertarian movement that defines liberty as what one may do without interference rather than what one does not have to do for others and I am your man.

[ninurta]

I am a libertarian but not one you would recognize. I am a social libertarian and fiscal conservative. In other words, an old time liberal.

What is fiscally conservative mean to you? As for a social libertarian, what does that mean to you? From what I have drawn from your posts is that you were a Liberal with some conservative tendacies.

Also, what kind of libertarian are you?

The problem with modern libertarianism: Those who advocate privatizing everything

Well not everything per se.

from the police

why not?

to birth certificates.

To be honest, I don't really know too much of why birth certificates are to be privatized. I am not so certain I would privatize them, seeing that its not something you can make money off of is it? Also, it's more of a legal document, so I would really have it be handled by local courts or local governments.

people that maintain the government has no right to tax.

Not so much that it had no right to tax (in the current situation it does), but that it shouldn't have the right.

Age and I hope maturity gives me the view that for any political view to have any traction at all it must be grounded in what is doable.

While I agree we must stick to what is doable, I think experience and education give you that, not age and not necessarily maturity.

We are never going to do away with the Army and hire it out to Blackwater. We will never see the Acme Nuclear Missile Company. ("No MIRV to large no target to small.")

I am the kind of libertarian that believes the existence of the government is to defend the country, privatization isn't really a part of all of our views. Though some of us do support having private militaries and militias, such as myself, but it would exist alongside the national one.

I am concerned with liberty and personal freedom. I believe in the legalization of Marijuana

I am even against the banning of the harder drugs, as its not the place of the government to save people from themselves. The best they can do is educate.

and Gay Marriage. (Not necessarily in that order.)

Here is where you misunderstand many of your fellow libertarians, we aren't against gays marrying, we are against the government handling the marriage buisness. If they want to get married, let them do so, as long as they can find a church or temple to do so in.

I believe that government has a role in regulating trade and business

Here is where I disagree, the capitalist system does a good job regulating itself.

but not in tracking our very move under the guise of national security. I believe that traffic cameras are simply a tax and have nothing to do with safety.

We definitely agree here.

I believe that it was the government's duty to protect us from the unscrupulous bankers who just tanked the economy while maintaining their personal wealth at the taxpayer's expense.

I disagree. I believe that people either need to pay more attention and stop buying into what these guys say if they cheat them, or dont use a bank. Reading the fine print isn't impossible, if it is, then get glasses or something to be able to see it.

As for when they tank, the capitalist system will replace them. As for people losing their money because of them that they saved, there is a court system that can handle cases to make sure they get their money back.

I believe it was criminal for Mary Landreau of Louisiana to get 300 million dollars for her district in exchange for her vote on the health care reform law. I believe it proves that democrats join the republicans as having proved beyond a doubt that the are inherently dishonest. I believe that Obama in his heart wants to change things but he can't because congress simply won't give up their ill gotten gains.

We can actually agree on health care issues?

I agree he wants to, but I think Obama doesn't really know how either.

And apparently, neither do either the rest of the democrats nor the republicans. They should just give incentives to making more health care companies. It will create more supply for the demand. Also, allow people to cross state lines to get health care, don't see why that's an issue in the first place, you can drive out of state to buy food.

Last I believe two things that send modern libertarians off foaming at their mouths. I believe that the people, through their representatives, have the right to define their country anyway that they like. If the majority want welfare then welfare it is.

Because we don't like the tyrrany of the majority any better than the tyrrany of the dictator. We are against welfare because its not a good idea, there are better solutions than forcing people to pay for the charity.

If the majority want people to own guns then guns are us. I believe that the people are soverign. I do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms extends to machine guns and grenades. I believe it is just fine to ask people not to own such things.

I personally think that it shouldn't be up to the government what you do or don't own.

Simply put I believe that the Constitution is a living document. It has been ammended before and it will be again.

While I agree for the most part, as I don't agree with everything in the constitution, but some things just should be left as they are.

I believe that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job as interpreting it for us over the years. And I believe that the gulf between the rich and the poor is disgustingly wide. I believe that it is criminal for an employer to be worth millions and his workers rely on the government for support. I believe we need to restore our middle class which means that some of the disgustingly rich people in the country will have to part with a few of their billions. I believe that government should protect citizens first and everyone else second.

Though the government is only protecting citizens for the most part.
As for the economic gap between rich and poor, I do agree the gap needs to be bridged, we just disagree on how to bridge that gap.
Also, I want to make it so poverty will not kill you. Since its probably not going to happen anytime soon, we should first work on making it so you can be independant of the economic system by getting rid of taxes and doing other things on more of a personal level if you want, for example grow food.

Finally I am saddened when I see innocent people suffering whether they are suffering from their own ignorance or from the greed and averice of others

To be honest, I am saddened too, but only when its not their fault. Though I think we need to help improve peoples living situation little by little without the government. Take a poor friend out to dinner, or invite him and his family over for dinner. There are lots you can do, but everything just isn't going to happen right away, no matter who you have do it (government or not.).

I completely sign up for the notion that the British head of public health articulated "We, as a nation, have decided to care for one another when we are ill." I utterly reject the 'let-'em-eat-cake' attitude that defines modern libertarianism.

well we want people to take care of themselves, if they are incapable, family can step in, if not, then thats unfortunate.

Show me a libertarian movement that defines liberty as what one may do without interference rather than what one does not have to do for others and I am your man.

My brand. You want the governments help, I am not for it, but if the government can find a way by taxing you instead of me, I'm all for it. My point of view is that the government shouldn't be involved in everything. I just dont want the governments help nor making me pay taxes.

While I am strongly against government stepping in, I am in no place to stop other people if its not going to affect anybody but them.

[Kylie]

Mod note: I'll leave this in here, though it may not belong in liberalism, simply because there's good discussion about types of liberalism, etc., etc., and there is, overall, good discussion, and I have no problem moderating it.


Carry on, folks.

[RonPaulalways]

Good post. It's a very interesting perspective I'm not familiar with.

I think the interconnectedness of the modern world does reduce privacy, but it also reduces the secrecy of governments and other institutions. The internet allows leaks to go global at the speed of light. The site wikileaks.org for example exists solely to divulge confidential documents that are in the public interest, something which can find nothing remotely comparable in the pre-internet age. So while the potential for harm is greater due to modern information and communication technologies, there are also greater safeguards in place to prevent the organizations that would abuse this power from being corrupted, thanks to the same technology.

Simply put I believe that the Constitution is a living document. It has been ammended before and it will be again.

A living document != a Constitution that can and will be amended. A living document refers to a Constitution that is re-interpreted based on the times and perceived demands of society, rather than having a fixed meaning. A living document is no Constitution at all, as politicians can always read any intent into it that they want, effectively nullifying the power of the Constitution to regulate their actions.

I believe that the people, through their representatives, have the right to define their country anyway that they like. If the majority want welfare then welfare it is.

I agree with that, but don't people also have a right to try to convince the people that their ideas are the ones that are best for the country? If I sincerely believe that the people would be far better off with a more decentralized government, as opposed to enormous social welfare programs run by the federal government, do I not have a legitimate cause to share my views?

I believe that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job as interpreting it for us over the years.

I believe this was true up until the FDR years, when the Supreme Court's independence was effectively squashed.

And I believe that the gulf between the rich and the poor is disgustingly wide. I believe that it is criminal for an employer to be worth millions and his workers rely on the government for support.

I believe that people are not equal, and have never been equal, and that this is a reality that should be accepted. The responsible and diligent increase their skill and wealth over time, while the irresponsible stay at their station. The result in the long run is ever growing rifts in inequality, especially in the modern age where the poor don't just die off.

I do think that the growth of the federal government at the expense of more local autonomy has played a role in magnifying the gap between rich and poor beyond its 'natural' extent. The trillions that are controlled by the Federal Reserve and the increasingly larger federal budgets, allow the elite to more easily control the economy for their own benefit.

[Huntster]

I think the interconnectedness of the modern world does reduce privacy, but it also reduces the secrecy of governments and other institutions. The internet allows leaks to go global at the speed of light.

It also allows disinformation to go global at the speed of light.

Simply put I believe that the Constitution is a living document. It has been ammended before and it will be again.

A living document != a Constitution that can and will be amended. A living document refers to a Constitution that is re-interpreted based on the times and perceived demands of society, rather than having a fixed meaning. A living document is no Constitution at all....

I strongly agree.

I believe that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job as interpreting it for us over the years.

I believe this was true up until the FDR years, when the Supreme Court's independence was effectively squashed.

I disagree. Some of the worse years for SCOTUS were the period of 1850 through Reconstruction. The Scott, Cruikshank, and Plessey decisions come to mind. I do agree, however, that another dark period for the Court started during the FDR years. And yet another since Earth Day.

And I believe that the gulf between the rich and the poor is disgustingly wide. I believe that it is criminal for an employer to be worth millions and his workers rely on the government for support.

I believe that people are not equal, and have never been equal, and that this is a reality that should be accepted. The responsible and diligent increase their skill and wealth over time, while the irresponsible stay at their station. The result in the long run is ever growing rifts in inequality, especially in the modern age where the poor don't just die off.

This bullshit about the government being used to balance the economic or financial situations between individuals is absolutely stupid. It didn't work for the Soviets, it won't work for us, and it leads to disaster.

[Dismal Scientist]

You are in good company, as the thought isn't without an intellectual pedigree. A very well known German sociologist named Max Weber famously made a related point in the 1920's: That technological progress and the tendency towards social and political rationalization would create the means for a tyranny that was both inescapable and unchallengeable. He believed that its advent was an inevitable product of the ongoing rationalization of society, and described it as a 'steel cage' (stählerne Gehäuse der Gehörigkeit) that would imprison and enslave a future humanity.

[grassroots1]

^I haven't read the original source, but from your synopsis is seems to me that that's the kind of cynicism that imprisons us in the steel cage he's talking about.

[Dismal Scientist]

Pessimistic, for sure, but hardly cynical.

[ninurta]

Pessimism may not be the best thing to encounter, but its not a bad thing.

I have to agree with Ron Paul on a point here, ever since we started centralizing our government, we've been on our way to fascism. As he quoted some guy, "when fascism comes to america it'll be draped in a flag carrying a cross" and that's what we are doing the more centralized we get.

I agree with RPA, we are better off with a decentralized government, but that's hardly news.

[Cartertonian]

A living document is no Constitution at all

Doctrine that is fixed and inflexible is, in fact, dogma.

We can see the problems that rigidly applying out-of-date rules for life can cause, by looking at fundamentalist Islam (or, for that matter, any hard-core religious sect that refuses to reinterpret scripture for the modern age).

Your Constitution is not the word of God. It was the words of men writing for the time in which it was written. Its authors could not have conceived of the complexities of 21st Century life, so why would you cling so slavishly to their words?

[DanDaMan]

Moving story, but why is it in the liberalism sub-forum?

What's not Liberalism about big government controlling it's people?
Didn't the Russians do that?
Don't the North Koreans do that?
Doesn't Cuba do the same?


This is why people should vote for true Republicans where the people control the government so it remains small.


Wait a minute!!
Capitalism embraces and must have open borders and freedom of movement to exist!
You are correct... his post does not belong here!

[Suska]

Show me a libertarian movement that defines liberty as what one may do without interference rather than what one does not have to do for others and I am your man

*salutes crisply* Sgt Suska requesting to come aboard, SIR!

What's not Liberalism about big government controlling it's people?

You still don't understand that do you...

[Huntster]

RPA wrote:
A living document is no Constitution at all

Doctrine that is fixed and inflexible is, in fact, dogma.

And some principles are simply dogmatic. The original 10 Bills of Rights, for example, are such simple principles.

It's when zealots try to constitutionalize their own desires that the basic principles become jeopardized with the flotsam.

We can see the problems that rigidly applying out-of-date rules for life can cause, by looking at fundamentalist Islam (or, for that matter, any hard-core religious sect that refuses to reinterpret scripture for the modern age).

What is "out-of-date" with the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights?

Your Constitution is not the word of God.

Nor is it meant to be.

It was the words of men writing for the time in which it was written.

It was the words of men establishing the foundation of a government that was intended to last as long as possible.

It has been the fucking of that constitution by special interests that is bringing about it's demise, not the obsolescence of it's original, basic tenets.

Its authors could not have conceived of the complexities of 21st Century life, so why would you cling so slavishly to their words?

Because we long for it's basic foundation back which has and is being fucked away by the "complicated" lawyer class of the 21st Century.

[Suska]

fucking of that constitution by special interests

how do you know she doesn't like it? / R_G

[PBVBROOK]

I didn't post this to try and decide who will protect privacy better, the republicans or the ACLU. I just wanted to point out to some of the younger here what has happened in (what seems to me) a very short time.

This is particularly difficult for me as an American because I believe it is a very good example of what happens when one's personal liberties are sacrificed in the name of security. I give you the privacy act. A monumental diminution of personal freedom broght to you by those very conservatives who are now trying to claim the title of Champions of Freedom. In this case it is the big bad liberals who are shouting for more personal freedom by opposing this kind of governmental spying into the personal lives of Americans.

I don't give a shit which side of the political spectrum you find yourself on, you are being spied on every moment of every day by the federal, state and local governments. Are you safer? Is that notion of safety worth it? Who is going to protect you from Google, the FBI and the local police?

And then there is the question of what I might call liberation. Most of you will never know the feeling of truely being lost. Of being a complete observer. Just a face in a crowd. You will just have to take my word for it that the feeling is liberating.

Perhaps you can do a little of this. I highly recommend it. We can't change our faces but we can set aside for awhile all of the garbage that we carry around. We can cut our hair or grow it out. We can decide not to discuss all of the associations to career, residence, family and education to just be the other guy in the bar. In those times it is easier to hold oneself at arms length and see if we like what we see. And even more importantly, we get to see how people who were completely disassociated from us, to whom we did not tell our story, like what they see. Make up a persona. Be a traveling dog-food merchant or artist on holiday. Put yourself on the shelf and truely listen to what other people say. And what they say to you will not be colored by some story you are trying to tell. Ask them about themselves. Let them tell the story. Just be the nice enigma at the bar or in the park. You will be amazed at what you hear.

I learned more about being a journalist from that trip than from any other I have ever made. And I have made plenty. I learned to listen. I learned not to colour what they think of me by telling them my story. I spoke to a psychiatrist who told me that he could do more for a person with whom he was sharing a 8 hour train ride than he could for a patient in a year's therapy. When I asked him how, he said he would tell them he was an accountant and then simply let them talk to the kind man sitting next to them on the train.

Try it.