Ladies and gentle, witness the justification of the dystopian future before you.
Here is my problem, or my main problem, with this line of thinking. America is founded upon the idea that individual liberties are basis for all other liberties, and while I can understand the reasoning that the national security apparatus finds the shifting sands of power from nation states to individuals a potential security threat, they have embraced this thought process without bringing it to the people in an upfront manner as should be properly done in a constitutional representative democracy. This model of thinking, at least in the USA, is a complete rewriting of what we consider our government should be, and a rewiting that is happening with no informing the people, and one that will most certainly have more unintended consequences than anyone can yet imagine.
I am certain of one thing, and that is the worst things will befall those who so eagerly trade liberty for security, at the hands of those who promise to protect.
I think stuff isn't being rewritten - people are starting to figure it out by themselves, at least those who understand the technologies we're talking about here.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what "idea" America was founded upon. The whole talk of "trading liberty for security" has become a religious dogma now, when originally it was meant only as an observation about a narrow group of cases. We will have to have more centralized security and more surveillance if we want to survive our technological growth. I'd much prefer to live in such "dystopia"[0] than in a country whose people got sick and died believing in the idea that individual liberties of a random dude with access to an advanced genome sequencing machine are basis for all other liberties.
[0] - personally I'm rooting for something closer to the United Federation of Planets.
"Honestly, it doesn't matter what "idea" America was founded upon."
On the contrary, I think it is of the utmost importance that America was founded by We The People and that if you completely undermine the mandate of government by the people as set in the preamble of the Constitution then you are essentially declaring American government illegitimate.
"We will have to have more centralized security and more surveillance if we want to survive our technological growth." ... "personally I'm rooting for something closer to the United Federation of Planets."
Do you really not see the danger of this? I understand the theoretical justifications globalists/universalists have, because they think the idea of national sovereignty is an old relic of the past, but I think such a viewpoint fails to take into account the primary issue: centralization is a weakness, not a strength. In just about every structure, especially one in which massive power flows, a centralized structure is much easier to subvert, manipulate, and control to more nefarious ends.
"I'd much prefer to live in such "dystopia""
That's your prerogative, and I'm not sure if you are an American or not, but I have personally sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I'm not about to just give up on the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people and their freedoms and liberties for purported security.
This is what makes America exceptional in an increasingly European post-colonial world.
Thats such a rhetorically empty statement. No one claims it was perfect or by perfect people, but they certainly bested the British system! At least I don't have to swear allegiance to a Queen! The Constitution is my king.
I'd much prefer to live in such "dystopia"[0] than in a country whose people got sick and died believing in the idea that individual liberties of a random dude with access to an advanced genome sequencing machine are basis for all other liberties.
And I'd rather die on my feet that live on my knees.
As far as I'm concerned, freedom is it's own end and needs no further justification. I mean, to be free is to have agency, and to be subjugated is to be denied that agency. And from what I can see, it's our agency, our free will (or the illusion thereof), our freedom to make decisions, that fundamentally makes us human. Without that, I see no reason to live at all.
> As far as I'm concerned, freedom is it's own end and needs no further justification.
That's your opinion, you have a right to it. And it would be perfectly good thing if you were the only human in the universe. But I think you haven't simulated the evolution of a system where such thing was the primary value and there is more than one human present - where you can't have everyone having perfect freedom to do anything. Let's try and do it.
First, you start with humans who value their freedom to do anything. It means that I value my freedom of taking food you collected. You value your freedom to fight me back. The system is one of violence defining bounderies of freedoms. It's not a very productive system. Humans are smart, so we notice that if we mutually agreed to suspend our freedom of taking the resources of others (which we will now call "theft" or "robbery"), we can reduce our defense spending and put the work to satisfying other goals. It works well, but it's a fragile arrangement - the first person to defect and draw their sword gets the resources of the rest. So (skipping some stages) we figure out that we may codify the agreement to not steal/rob and outsource the enforcement (including violence) to a group of people that will get some of our resources as a reward. And hence, the rule of law is born, and everyone is happier and more productive.
Going through this process is what defines civilization. And I want to live in a civilization.
And I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what I believe. Nothing I believe contradicts the idea of civilization, as long as the basis of that civilization is voluntary participation, with the use of force reserved for defensive purposes.
And hence, the rule of law is born,
But so very much of what passes for "law" today is nothing of the sort. But my view of what constitutes a valid law is pretty much a reflection of what Bastiat had to say (minus the religious stuff):
Maybe one day we'll live in Scott Alexander's Archipelago[0], where you'd be free to move to whatever civilization had the rules you like the most, and if you don't like any, you will start a new one yourself. But we don't live in Archipelago, we live on planet Earth, and we have a lot of work in front of us to build the Archipelago - work that requires us to coordinate, and coordination requires suspending some of our freedoms.
and coordination requires suspending some of our freedoms.
I'm not sure I would agree with that. From my perspective, all coordination requires is voluntary collaboration and free exchange. After all, people can (and do) choose to do things for "the greater good" even when they don't have to.
Cooperation in its root is voluntary suspension of freedoms. I voluntary agree to not do Bad Thing X if you agree to not do Bad Thing X too, and we both reap the benefits. But in practice, coordination is very fragile, and that's why we invent devices for enforcing it - social norms and local enforcement works on small scale (few dozens of people); on a larger scale we usually end up with a government.
> Nothing I believe contradicts the idea of civilization, as long as the basis of that civilization is voluntary participation, with the use of force reserved for defensive purposes.
I was born here, I don't want to move and I don't want to pay taxes. What will your civilization do with me?
Some people will do so voluntarily. If you don't, yay for you, you get to freeload. And the "necessary" defensive force is just what the members of the population are willing to fund.
Then at some point some other state arise that is more efficient at taxing, and conquers your state.
Obviously it's not your fault, but building unrealistic system 100% conforming to your values vs building realistic system that conforms 90% to them is interesting question.
I think it depends on whether the security apparatus is a central or decentralized one. Perhaps one would need to decentralize the decisions of individuals, but I can't think of a particular implementation of that idea.
Here is my problem, or my main problem, with this line of thinking. America is founded upon the idea that individual liberties are basis for all other liberties, and while I can understand the reasoning that the national security apparatus finds the shifting sands of power from nation states to individuals a potential security threat, they have embraced this thought process without bringing it to the people in an upfront manner as should be properly done in a constitutional representative democracy. This model of thinking, at least in the USA, is a complete rewriting of what we consider our government should be, and a rewiting that is happening with no informing the people, and one that will most certainly have more unintended consequences than anyone can yet imagine.
I am certain of one thing, and that is the worst things will befall those who so eagerly trade liberty for security, at the hands of those who promise to protect.