Denmark’s Welfare State Became a Surveillance Nightmare(wired.com)
wired.com
Denmark’s Welfare State Became a Surveillance Nightmare
https://www.wired.com/story/algorithms-welfare-state-politics/
104 comments
Meh, if I have to pick between 5% fraud rate while the other 95% get the help they need without hassle, or a 0% fraud rate and a system that's highly exclusionary and invasive, you're damn right I'm picking the former.
Will there be some free riders? Sure. But in any system where support is available, accessible, and sufficient, that will always be the case. I'm not falling for the nirvana fallacy and you shouldn't either.
Edit: as an aside, consider that these discussions always center around the fraud rate--that is the number of people receiving benefits who shouldn't--and not the unintended exclusion rate--that is the number of people who genuinely needed help but couldn't get it. That skewed framing is all about undermining the value of the welfare state over promoting it's health for the good of the citizenry.
Will there be some free riders? Sure. But in any system where support is available, accessible, and sufficient, that will always be the case. I'm not falling for the nirvana fallacy and you shouldn't either.
Edit: as an aside, consider that these discussions always center around the fraud rate--that is the number of people receiving benefits who shouldn't--and not the unintended exclusion rate--that is the number of people who genuinely needed help but couldn't get it. That skewed framing is all about undermining the value of the welfare state over promoting it's health for the good of the citizenry.
> 1. I find it extremely hard to believe that France has a 0.39% fraud rate
I share your doubts... I suspect that there is an error in the article as the document (from French gov, in French) it links to mentions numbers that are much higher, 3.5+% and up to 10% for specific things.
I share your doubts... I suspect that there is an error in the article as the document (from French gov, in French) it links to mentions numbers that are much higher, 3.5+% and up to 10% for specific things.
My brother works for a non-profit that distributes HIV drugs to the homeless. The biggest issue he has is that people will stop taking meds and disappear. They try to bribe them to come back with gift cards. He's expressed how valuable it would be if we could track these persons, but that it would be politically untenable.
To me, it seems society should have some ability to do this for the sake of public health, however I also understand not wanting to wanting to grant this kind of power to the state, even if we are trading it for welfare.
To me, it seems society should have some ability to do this for the sake of public health, however I also understand not wanting to wanting to grant this kind of power to the state, even if we are trading it for welfare.
I used to do this kind of work in the banking world, we built massive models to predict fraud in retail banking. The key observation - improvement in model performance was directly related to its invasiveness - i.e. the more you know about the client the more accurate and powerful the model became. In the end you end up tying together every piece of knowledge you have all the client or prospective client, across all databases and business channels and LOBs and building massive decision trees. But even at that level the false positive rate is very high - simply because fraud is a rare event as a proportion of the whole pool.
In the end I came to the conclusion that the blind pursuit of model performance and thereby business metrics in this realm was simply incompatible with the idea of privacy. One must be willing to philosophically accept a level of fraud just as a free society accepts a level of dissent or a parent a level of rebellion in her/his children.
In the end I came to the conclusion that the blind pursuit of model performance and thereby business metrics in this realm was simply incompatible with the idea of privacy. One must be willing to philosophically accept a level of fraud just as a free society accepts a level of dissent or a parent a level of rebellion in her/his children.
It's the main point of the (excellent) book "Lying for Money: How Legendary Frauds Reveal the Workings of Our World" by Dan Davies: That the optimal amount of fraud is above zero.
The optimal amount is the one where you lose less value from fraud than you would have lost with overly-strict checks and false positives.
The optimal amount is the one where you lose less value from fraud than you would have lost with overly-strict checks and false positives.
https://archive.ph/34YV8
My take: we've asked the state to supplant the good part of old support networks (economic and social support through welfare), and hoped it wouldn't do what we didn't like about those support networks (enforce social conformity, now with networked computers). Turns out the state likes power and will take over all available mechanisms if we let it! Why are we perpetually surprised
My take: we've asked the state to supplant the good part of old support networks (economic and social support through welfare), and hoped it wouldn't do what we didn't like about those support networks (enforce social conformity, now with networked computers). Turns out the state likes power and will take over all available mechanisms if we let it! Why are we perpetually surprised
If you read between the lines of the article the root of the issue is not that but rather the destabilising effect of large numbers of immigrants.
Sorry but no. The root of the issue is: "The perception of widespread welfare fraud has empowered Jacobsen to establish one of the most sophisticated and far-reaching fraud detection systems in the world."
Please note the clear wording: "The perception ...". The far-right/populist in the EU is very good at using such perception to increase surveillance and control.
Please note the clear wording: "The perception ...". The far-right/populist in the EU is very good at using such perception to increase surveillance and control.
Where does this perception come from? And why has it become such an issue?
Again it is largely because large numbers of immigrants have a destabilising effect on society, which fuels resentment and at least the perception that the national welfare system is being too generous and abused by immigrants, which in turn leads to politicians calling for more restrictions and controls, etc.
It's the same across Europe and it's not helpful to blame the far right for this. The far right only uses existing concerns to its advantage like all political parties do, especially when other parties sometimes refuse to acknowledge those concerns.
Again it is largely because large numbers of immigrants have a destabilising effect on society, which fuels resentment and at least the perception that the national welfare system is being too generous and abused by immigrants, which in turn leads to politicians calling for more restrictions and controls, etc.
It's the same across Europe and it's not helpful to blame the far right for this. The far right only uses existing concerns to its advantage like all political parties do, especially when other parties sometimes refuse to acknowledge those concerns.
> Where does this perception come from?
From the same folks who benefit from that perception.
> The far right only uses existing concerns
No, they're happy to invent/exaggerate concerns. (As, to be clear, are other parts of the political spectrum.)
From the same folks who benefit from that perception.
> The far right only uses existing concerns
No, they're happy to invent/exaggerate concerns. (As, to be clear, are other parts of the political spectrum.)
Yeah, you can't turn on the news for two seconds in the US without "Can you believe that thing that doesn't happen could be happening in your community? Here today is senior speculative analyst and lead fearcaster at The America is Great Heritage Foundadtion."
So large numbers of immigrants have a destabilizing effect on society because of far right populists amplifying the perception that immigrants are abusing the welfare system? Tying to use existing concerns to their advantage even if the concern is mostly or totally fictitious might be successful, but is not responsible politics. Remember QAnon?
> So large numbers of immigrants have a destabilizing effect on society
They do and that is plain to see across Europe. That's an observation.
Burying your head in the sand only makes things worse and actually plays into the far right's hands, like also calling people names (eg. labeling them racist or xenophobic) because they have concerns, which can be valid.
Certainly, asylum laws and procedures are being abused, that is not perception. For instance here in the UK there are apparently 23,000 pending asylum applications made by... Albanian citizens. So clearly migrants have realised that claiming asylum currently immediately stops them from being treated as 'illegal immigrants' and allows them to stay while their application is pending... And the situation looks similar across Europe.
They do and that is plain to see across Europe. That's an observation.
Burying your head in the sand only makes things worse and actually plays into the far right's hands, like also calling people names (eg. labeling them racist or xenophobic) because they have concerns, which can be valid.
Certainly, asylum laws and procedures are being abused, that is not perception. For instance here in the UK there are apparently 23,000 pending asylum applications made by... Albanian citizens. So clearly migrants have realised that claiming asylum currently immediately stops them from being treated as 'illegal immigrants' and allows them to stay while their application is pending... And the situation looks similar across Europe.
What? Denmark and immigration?
Did you even read how Denmark is treating immigrants?
Basically putting them in prisons [1] because they deemed their origin country safe even if they can't be actually deported.
And even if you learned Danish and already started working and producing income, you are still under threat from getting deported.
They are also stealing their jewelry [2] to "cover immigration costs".
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/denmark-syri...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/danish-parliam...
Did you even read how Denmark is treating immigrants?
Basically putting them in prisons [1] because they deemed their origin country safe even if they can't be actually deported.
And even if you learned Danish and already started working and producing income, you are still under threat from getting deported.
They are also stealing their jewelry [2] to "cover immigration costs".
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/denmark-syri...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/danish-parliam...
That's orthogonal with my comment.
Sounds like a problem related to means tested benefits which could to some extent be avoided by transitioning to a universal basic income which has no such strings for manipulating behavior.
Which is why socialism trends to authoritarianism in practice.
Freedom requires keeping the responsibility, duties, and outcomes clustered together as tightly as possible. If I break it, it affects me.
Freedom requires keeping the responsibility, duties, and outcomes clustered together as tightly as possible. If I break it, it affects me.
Same as conservatism
Uninvolved citizens lead to authoritarianism. Either some "enlightened leader" will take over the conservatives, or some apparatchik system will take over the socialism... or any other forms of soul- and life-crushing abominations just waiting to take over.
The article makes the point that the benefits agency’s drive towards surveillance is largely driven by the need to defend against charges coming from right-wing Danish politicians that there is widespread benefits fraud and waste.
The conservative preference to avoid one undeserving person receiving benefits even if it risks the liberty and security of many deserving people is what pushes towards authoritarian implementations of benefits policies.
You see the same in the US - it’s states like Florida that insist on drug testing for benefits recipients. The issue is not the benefits program - it’s that the benefits program is being administered by a conservative government who fundamentally believe that benefits should only go to those who ‘deserve’ them.
The authoritarianism problem is not ‘socialist programs’ - it’s what happens when conservative perspectives on how socialist programs should be administered gain sway. In Denmark, even a broadly left coalition government contains more conservative members, and has to appease conservative voters to maintain power.
The conservative preference to avoid one undeserving person receiving benefits even if it risks the liberty and security of many deserving people is what pushes towards authoritarian implementations of benefits policies.
You see the same in the US - it’s states like Florida that insist on drug testing for benefits recipients. The issue is not the benefits program - it’s that the benefits program is being administered by a conservative government who fundamentally believe that benefits should only go to those who ‘deserve’ them.
The authoritarianism problem is not ‘socialist programs’ - it’s what happens when conservative perspectives on how socialist programs should be administered gain sway. In Denmark, even a broadly left coalition government contains more conservative members, and has to appease conservative voters to maintain power.
That's literally the same argument that many people painted as "right wing" would make. Creating government programs that are administered by bureaucrats results in them eventually being abused for political reasons. That's why counter arguments are made for more decentralized forms of help like local charities or other independent support structures e.g. churches, clubs, insurance, etc.
Authoritarianism is not inherently socialist or conservative, it can infect either end of the political spectrum.
Authoritarianism is not inherently socialist or conservative, it can infect either end of the political spectrum.
The United States is arguably one of the least "socialist" of the developed countries and by far one of the worst for surveillance and authoritarianism. Indeed it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over. This isn't nearly as simple as "socialism trends toward authoritarianism".
Which let's also clarify what we're calling "socialism" here. In this case we using it to describe having the government provide a social safety net. All too often "socialism" gets applied as a blanket term for "any government provided service" which obfuscates the actual issues rather than clarifying anything. It just makes the whole conversation devolve into a pointless ideological battle.
Which let's also clarify what we're calling "socialism" here. In this case we using it to describe having the government provide a social safety net. All too often "socialism" gets applied as a blanket term for "any government provided service" which obfuscates the actual issues rather than clarifying anything. It just makes the whole conversation devolve into a pointless ideological battle.
> it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over
Not really.
Or, rather, that claim is being used as justification for overreach and power grabs from the same authoritarians who claim to be against fascism.
Not really.
Or, rather, that claim is being used as justification for overreach and power grabs from the same authoritarians who claim to be against fascism.
"No, but yes, because it's a different unnamed party than the one I imagine you intended"?
Is every authoritarian a fascist? If not, that statement makes perfect sense: there's no looming fascist takeover, but authoritarians are claiming there is to influence the population and get more power.
> Is every authoritarian a fascist?
In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.
In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.
Finally, another person who thinks it's weird a moderately sized swath of humanity has no concept or historical understanding of the myriad different types of authoritarians spawned by society over the years. Nobody remembers the party authoritarian government of pre 1990's Mexico? Nobody notices present day Singapore organized under the same??? Nobody remember Pinochet in Chile for an example of military authoritarianism? How about Myanmar??? And why is it always the Marxist leaning types with this blindness? It's like they are jealous of their equivalently terrifying sibling ideology and only have eyes for it or something...
This is the correct answer.
I am kind of confused by your reasoning here. Assuming you’re correct, that there are power grabs from authoritarians claiming to be against fascism, isn’t that you agreeing with the poster that there’s risk of fascist take over then? That sounds exactly like fascistic behavior to me.
Fascism is only one form of authoritarian government. You can have authoritarian socialist, communist, monarchical, and oligarchic governments too.
Fascism: the oligarchy get its power from small to medium business-owners, lawyers and big landowner (petite bourgeoisie) (and the police/army). Franquism is basically the same. It's an evolution of Feudalism, with more Nationalism to replace the 'God's will' part.
For Nazis the oligarchy gets its power from bigger businesses (and still, the army and police, like all authoritarians). This is a very managerial system that promotes internal competition (Chapoutot wrote a book extremely interesting about it, especially when you lived through poorly implemented agile/scrum). It's basically the cousin of Fascim, one of their parents being Bonapartism.
I suppose communism/socialism/stalinism (depending on your definition) the oligarchy gets its power from the bureaucracy once they capture it from the proletariat. Again, a cousin of the two previous system, with the same parent (according to Trotsky, Kronstad's butcher)
For platformism (the most authoritative version of anarchism), it never got to the point of having that much authority, but it could have gone towards Bonapartism too. With a much weaker power base consisting of only the army and basic nationalism, so if you don't have Napoleon or Nestor Makhno, it probably won't work (and Makhno was too anti-nationalist to build his power on that, so I guess it wouldn't work).
'Oligarchic' and 'monarchic' aren't political ideologies btw. They're political systems.
For Nazis the oligarchy gets its power from bigger businesses (and still, the army and police, like all authoritarians). This is a very managerial system that promotes internal competition (Chapoutot wrote a book extremely interesting about it, especially when you lived through poorly implemented agile/scrum). It's basically the cousin of Fascim, one of their parents being Bonapartism.
I suppose communism/socialism/stalinism (depending on your definition) the oligarchy gets its power from the bureaucracy once they capture it from the proletariat. Again, a cousin of the two previous system, with the same parent (according to Trotsky, Kronstad's butcher)
For platformism (the most authoritative version of anarchism), it never got to the point of having that much authority, but it could have gone towards Bonapartism too. With a much weaker power base consisting of only the army and basic nationalism, so if you don't have Napoleon or Nestor Makhno, it probably won't work (and Makhno was too anti-nationalist to build his power on that, so I guess it wouldn't work).
'Oligarchic' and 'monarchic' aren't political ideologies btw. They're political systems.
> I suppose communism/socialism/stalinism (depending on your definition) the oligarchy gets its power from the bureaucracy once they capture it from the proletariat.
In Leninism and derived systems, there is no need for the oligarchy to seize anything from the proletariat, the distinction between then and their notional parent in Marxism is vanguardism, which already incorporates an elite which becomes the oligarchy when seizing power “in the name of” the proletariat.
In Leninism and derived systems, there is no need for the oligarchy to seize anything from the proletariat, the distinction between then and their notional parent in Marxism is vanguardism, which already incorporates an elite which becomes the oligarchy when seizing power “in the name of” the proletariat.
Lets get concrete.
The last Republican president Trump, did so many things that invoked echos of the last major wave of fascism (Hitler and Mussolini) that one of the foremost experts on Nazism (Christopher Browning [1]) wrote a piece in the media directly making the comparison - not something experts on that period generally do lightly. [2]
That was in 2018, and it was followed by two more years of authoritarian power grabs culminating in an attempted coup.
Since then, Trump has continued to largely drive the policy and political approach of the Republican party. And other leading Republicans, like Desantis, have followed his lead. Those attacks have extended to the media (there's currently advancing in Florida that would require bloggers to register with the state if they cover the state) and there were calls to "eradicate trans people" at CPAC to resounding cheers (which is literally how the holocaust started [3])
So while I am not a fan of the Democratic party (there isn't a party in American politics that represents my political views), there is only one party that is clearly a neo-fascist party. And that party is far too close to regaining power for comfort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Browning [2] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-d... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-his...
The last Republican president Trump, did so many things that invoked echos of the last major wave of fascism (Hitler and Mussolini) that one of the foremost experts on Nazism (Christopher Browning [1]) wrote a piece in the media directly making the comparison - not something experts on that period generally do lightly. [2]
That was in 2018, and it was followed by two more years of authoritarian power grabs culminating in an attempted coup.
Since then, Trump has continued to largely drive the policy and political approach of the Republican party. And other leading Republicans, like Desantis, have followed his lead. Those attacks have extended to the media (there's currently advancing in Florida that would require bloggers to register with the state if they cover the state) and there were calls to "eradicate trans people" at CPAC to resounding cheers (which is literally how the holocaust started [3])
So while I am not a fan of the Democratic party (there isn't a party in American politics that represents my political views), there is only one party that is clearly a neo-fascist party. And that party is far too close to regaining power for comfort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Browning [2] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-d... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-his...
> The last Republican president Trump, did so many things that invoked echos of the last major wave of fascism...
You know what a moral panic is, right? "Trump is Literally Hitler!!!!" is another moral panic. No, I don't expect anyone caught in the grips of one to believe they are caught in the grips of one, especially when prominent journalists, celebrities and pundits are also caught in it, so I won't try to convince you. iykyk.
Personally, I think a President lying to get his country into two (2) ruinous wars simultaneously, and the resultant, decades-long occupations is far more destructive than anything Trump could manage.
Overseeing FISA courts, mass surveillance, assassination lists did far more destruction to democracy than Trump even tried to do, but we're not ready for that conversation.
So, no, Trump is not heralding a wave of neo-fascism. Maybe if folks who believe so could put down the torches and pitchforks long enough to actually listen to the people who voted for him, we all could work together to vote in a principled President at least once in my lifetime. No, repeating to each other that Trump's voters were all hick white supremacist neo-fascists is not actually listening. Empathetic listening is listening. But, again, I don't expect to convince anyone of that here and now.
You know what a moral panic is, right? "Trump is Literally Hitler!!!!" is another moral panic. No, I don't expect anyone caught in the grips of one to believe they are caught in the grips of one, especially when prominent journalists, celebrities and pundits are also caught in it, so I won't try to convince you. iykyk.
Personally, I think a President lying to get his country into two (2) ruinous wars simultaneously, and the resultant, decades-long occupations is far more destructive than anything Trump could manage.
Overseeing FISA courts, mass surveillance, assassination lists did far more destruction to democracy than Trump even tried to do, but we're not ready for that conversation.
So, no, Trump is not heralding a wave of neo-fascism. Maybe if folks who believe so could put down the torches and pitchforks long enough to actually listen to the people who voted for him, we all could work together to vote in a principled President at least once in my lifetime. No, repeating to each other that Trump's voters were all hick white supremacist neo-fascists is not actually listening. Empathetic listening is listening. But, again, I don't expect to convince anyone of that here and now.
> Indeed it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over.
From the democrats or republicans? ("Both" would be closest to correct, if we assume your statement is true.)
Edit: oooh did I make the left or the right angry with this comment? Both sides are authoritarian and infringing on your rights wherever they can, while simultaneously convincing their followers that only the opponents do it.
From the democrats or republicans? ("Both" would be closest to correct, if we assume your statement is true.)
Edit: oooh did I make the left or the right angry with this comment? Both sides are authoritarian and infringing on your rights wherever they can, while simultaneously convincing their followers that only the opponents do it.
Nonsense.
Yes, there are always elements of the far-left and far-right who lean authoritarian, and any of the "-isms" (fascism, communism, etc.) are fully correlated or anti-correlated to authoritarianism.
But, in this current situation, to claim it is "both sides" is either naive or willful ignorance, and plays right into the authoritarian line.
The FACT is that a number of countries have fallen from democracy into authoritarianism (Hungary, turky, etc.), and these are Right-Wing movements. In the US, while the Dem party works to protect voting rights, the Republican party has gone full authoritarian, literally stating that democracy is less preferable thatn their rule, actively taking measures to select their voters, control the academy, the press, and industry, all of which are flat-out authoritarian. Their leader literally has just declared that "I am your retribution.”. That is not the statement of anyone even remotely working to lead a democratic society; it is the statement of someone who wants authority to lead a minority in crushing and killing anyone who opposes him.
False equivalency is a cheap cop-out at best, and more accurately actively promoting ignorance and failure to respond to emerging authoritarianism. In the current situation, it is frankly disgusting.
Stop it.
Yes, there are always elements of the far-left and far-right who lean authoritarian, and any of the "-isms" (fascism, communism, etc.) are fully correlated or anti-correlated to authoritarianism.
But, in this current situation, to claim it is "both sides" is either naive or willful ignorance, and plays right into the authoritarian line.
The FACT is that a number of countries have fallen from democracy into authoritarianism (Hungary, turky, etc.), and these are Right-Wing movements. In the US, while the Dem party works to protect voting rights, the Republican party has gone full authoritarian, literally stating that democracy is less preferable thatn their rule, actively taking measures to select their voters, control the academy, the press, and industry, all of which are flat-out authoritarian. Their leader literally has just declared that "I am your retribution.”. That is not the statement of anyone even remotely working to lead a democratic society; it is the statement of someone who wants authority to lead a minority in crushing and killing anyone who opposes him.
False equivalency is a cheap cop-out at best, and more accurately actively promoting ignorance and failure to respond to emerging authoritarianism. In the current situation, it is frankly disgusting.
Stop it.
No, I don’t think I will stop it, until people start to realize the democrats are doing the same thing. Also, what an authoritarian response for someone claiming not to be authoritarian.
The Democrats are actively ignoring Supreme Court rulings (Bruen case and the Hochul administration in NY doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them they could not do, which was to declare the entire state a “sensitive location”).
The Democrats also redraw voting districts as they like, just as they accuse the republicans of.
You have states like CA intentionally leaking the names, addresses and purchase lists of gun owners.
The entirety of “social authoritarianism” belongs to the democrats.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-ri...
The Democrats are actively ignoring Supreme Court rulings (Bruen case and the Hochul administration in NY doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them they could not do, which was to declare the entire state a “sensitive location”).
The Democrats also redraw voting districts as they like, just as they accuse the republicans of.
You have states like CA intentionally leaking the names, addresses and purchase lists of gun owners.
The entirety of “social authoritarianism” belongs to the democrats.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-ri...
Right, acting like attempting some minor painting around the edges of trying to implement sensible gun restrictions to mitigate the onslaught of mass murders is somehow implementing authoritarianism.
Acting as if it is the same as the leader of a party claiming that "I am your retribution!"?
Acting as if it is the same as attempting to pass laws to require registration of anyone who writes about the govt and govt officials?
Acting as if it is the same as implementing laws to restrict other states from providing legal medical services, and using the entire state and commercial surveillance apparatus to criminally prosecute people who get medical treatment they don't like?
Directly writing laws that restrict teaching of actual history and other subjects they don't like?
This isn't small govt, this is authoritarianism.
In a free society, all of the institutions are relatively independent and in a balance of power and freedom, from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt, to the press, the academy, industry, religions, etc. Under authoritarianism, all of these institutions are coerced into service of the executive.
The Rs are actively coercing all of the other institutions into their service. The Ds are doing the exact opposite (I have plenty of issues vs Ds in other time periods, but this is the situation today).
Even on gerrymandering, the Ds are trying to pass national laws to use actual representative districting, the Rs arent. I cannot fault them for doing it defensively, and I guarantee you if offered a deal to stop it in EVERY state, the Ds would sign up that week, and the Rs would filibuster it to death. The Rs only hold the house because of massive gerrymandering.
If you cannot see any of that, you are beyond help. Just don't pretend to be some kind of even-handed, above-the-fray commentator. You are posting straight-up authoritarian apologias.
Acting as if it is the same as the leader of a party claiming that "I am your retribution!"?
Acting as if it is the same as attempting to pass laws to require registration of anyone who writes about the govt and govt officials?
Acting as if it is the same as implementing laws to restrict other states from providing legal medical services, and using the entire state and commercial surveillance apparatus to criminally prosecute people who get medical treatment they don't like?
Directly writing laws that restrict teaching of actual history and other subjects they don't like?
This isn't small govt, this is authoritarianism.
In a free society, all of the institutions are relatively independent and in a balance of power and freedom, from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt, to the press, the academy, industry, religions, etc. Under authoritarianism, all of these institutions are coerced into service of the executive.
The Rs are actively coercing all of the other institutions into their service. The Ds are doing the exact opposite (I have plenty of issues vs Ds in other time periods, but this is the situation today).
Even on gerrymandering, the Ds are trying to pass national laws to use actual representative districting, the Rs arent. I cannot fault them for doing it defensively, and I guarantee you if offered a deal to stop it in EVERY state, the Ds would sign up that week, and the Rs would filibuster it to death. The Rs only hold the house because of massive gerrymandering.
If you cannot see any of that, you are beyond help. Just don't pretend to be some kind of even-handed, above-the-fray commentator. You are posting straight-up authoritarian apologias.
> minor painting around the edges of trying to implement sensible gun restrictions to mitigate the onslaught of mass murders is somehow implementing authoritarianism.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Just because it doesn’t affect you it’s “not that bad.” It is that bad. It is not “minor”. NYS is openly defying a Supreme Court Order, infringing on constitutional rights, saying “I don’t need data to prove (these laws) will change anything”, while citing racist laws from the 1800s as proof that their restrictions have history.
Antonyuk v Bruen: NYS Defense of the “good moral character clause” is “ From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms”. But that’s fine justification for you, because you don’t like guns. NYS literally defended its requirement for character references with a CT law from the 1800s that said “any free negro who wishes to carry a firearm must obtain character references from several white neighbors, attesting to his character and temperament”. If this was any other topic, the dems would be decrying this racist rhetoric, but instead they’re the ones pushing it forward and standing behind it, while pretending to be the arbiters of racial equality.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the republicans poor behavior. But if you think the dems are the saints here and are “upholding democracy, law and order” or something, then I don’t think you can be helped. You’re just as blind as the republicans followers, and doing the same “frothing at the mouth” that they do about how bad the other side is, while ignoring pretending your side is the savior.
Also on the gerrymandering, here, also from a source you’ll probably like: https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-ho.... Don’t pretend the dems would change anything about this.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Just because it doesn’t affect you it’s “not that bad.” It is that bad. It is not “minor”. NYS is openly defying a Supreme Court Order, infringing on constitutional rights, saying “I don’t need data to prove (these laws) will change anything”, while citing racist laws from the 1800s as proof that their restrictions have history.
Antonyuk v Bruen: NYS Defense of the “good moral character clause” is “ From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms”. But that’s fine justification for you, because you don’t like guns. NYS literally defended its requirement for character references with a CT law from the 1800s that said “any free negro who wishes to carry a firearm must obtain character references from several white neighbors, attesting to his character and temperament”. If this was any other topic, the dems would be decrying this racist rhetoric, but instead they’re the ones pushing it forward and standing behind it, while pretending to be the arbiters of racial equality.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the republicans poor behavior. But if you think the dems are the saints here and are “upholding democracy, law and order” or something, then I don’t think you can be helped. You’re just as blind as the republicans followers, and doing the same “frothing at the mouth” that they do about how bad the other side is, while ignoring pretending your side is the savior.
Also on the gerrymandering, here, also from a source you’ll probably like: https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-ho.... Don’t pretend the dems would change anything about this.
On Gerrymandering, even the article you cite has a sub-head specifically describing how the Dems are doing it defensively / responsively. You just count the maps and I think you'll find that the Dems should take any gerrymandering-disarmament deal in a heartbeat, because they are losing. They may claw their way back to parity, but you can't level the same accusation.
On voting, more critically, who is trying to pass laws enabling voting, and who is passing laws restricting voting? Ds are trying to get more voting, and Rs are restricting it, restricting times, polling locations, even banning people handing out water in voting queues (which wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to restrict voting. In democracies, voters elect their leaders, in autocracies, the leaders select their voters, which is what Rs are doing.
For the sake of discussion, even if I grant you 100% that NYs actions on gun control are not legal, those will get sorted UNDER THE LAW, and rolled back, and penalized.
Meanwhile I do see Ds doing zero and Rs doing ALL of these pre-authoritarian steps, identical to those in pre-authoritarian Germany 1930s, Chile 1970s, & Hungary & Turkey 2000s:
— Threatening to use the state to jail enemies (Trump from "Lock her up!" chants to most recently at CPAC)
— Infringing 1A free speech, requiring registration of writers
— Actively and pre-emptively denying valid election results
— Infiltrating police departments and the enlisted ranks of the military
— Taking over school boards and local boards of elections
— Banning books
— Burning books
— Firing principals and teachers who defend multiracial, multicultural democracy while banning books that contain such “dangerous” ideas
— Demonizing queer people and outlawing drag shows (again infringing 1A rights)
— Demonizing Jews and blacks
— Actively and completely rewriting history, in particular January 6th
— Gerrymandering states so regardless of how people vote, Republicans control the levers of power
— Changing election laws so they can both make it harder for city-dwellers to vote and to ignore and then change the outcomes of elections they don’t like
— Building media structures that will support the authoritarian takeover when it happens
— Organizing armed paramilitary militias, with back-channel connections to local police
— Creating legal organizations to sanitize and rationalize ending messy democracy
— Spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories about Democrats and Jews using the dog whistle of “George Soros”
— Firebombing Texas Democratic Party’s Austin headquarters and threatening them that if they don’t stop trying to get Democrats elected worse will come
Sorry, a4a4a4, but the Ds are doing exactly zero of this
False equivalency is a lie. What you are doing is called "whataboutism", simply attempting to deflect the conversation from the crimes of your side to avoid accountability and change. Or, perhaps you really are merely fooled. Rethink, because you've got next to nothing convincing.
On voting, more critically, who is trying to pass laws enabling voting, and who is passing laws restricting voting? Ds are trying to get more voting, and Rs are restricting it, restricting times, polling locations, even banning people handing out water in voting queues (which wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to restrict voting. In democracies, voters elect their leaders, in autocracies, the leaders select their voters, which is what Rs are doing.
For the sake of discussion, even if I grant you 100% that NYs actions on gun control are not legal, those will get sorted UNDER THE LAW, and rolled back, and penalized.
Meanwhile I do see Ds doing zero and Rs doing ALL of these pre-authoritarian steps, identical to those in pre-authoritarian Germany 1930s, Chile 1970s, & Hungary & Turkey 2000s:
— Threatening to use the state to jail enemies (Trump from "Lock her up!" chants to most recently at CPAC)
— Infringing 1A free speech, requiring registration of writers
— Actively and pre-emptively denying valid election results
— Infiltrating police departments and the enlisted ranks of the military
— Taking over school boards and local boards of elections
— Banning books
— Burning books
— Firing principals and teachers who defend multiracial, multicultural democracy while banning books that contain such “dangerous” ideas
— Demonizing queer people and outlawing drag shows (again infringing 1A rights)
— Demonizing Jews and blacks
— Actively and completely rewriting history, in particular January 6th
— Gerrymandering states so regardless of how people vote, Republicans control the levers of power
— Changing election laws so they can both make it harder for city-dwellers to vote and to ignore and then change the outcomes of elections they don’t like
— Building media structures that will support the authoritarian takeover when it happens
— Organizing armed paramilitary militias, with back-channel connections to local police
— Creating legal organizations to sanitize and rationalize ending messy democracy
— Spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories about Democrats and Jews using the dog whistle of “George Soros”
— Firebombing Texas Democratic Party’s Austin headquarters and threatening them that if they don’t stop trying to get Democrats elected worse will come
Sorry, a4a4a4, but the Ds are doing exactly zero of this
False equivalency is a lie. What you are doing is called "whataboutism", simply attempting to deflect the conversation from the crimes of your side to avoid accountability and change. Or, perhaps you really are merely fooled. Rethink, because you've got next to nothing convincing.
Standard democrat playbook:
1) "Look what they're doing and how bad it is" 2) "We would never do something like that" 3) Do something like that. 4) "What do you mean we're doing that? This is 'whataboutism', we were talking about how terrible the other group is!"
I hope you will come around some day. I'm equally worried about the authoritarianism of both parties, and can't decide which dystopia I'd rather live in. Option A: No right to self-defense but having abortion rights, letting violent criminals out on $0 bail. Option B: A right to self-defense but living in a country which wants to legislate based on religion.
1) "Look what they're doing and how bad it is" 2) "We would never do something like that" 3) Do something like that. 4) "What do you mean we're doing that? This is 'whataboutism', we were talking about how terrible the other group is!"
I hope you will come around some day. I'm equally worried about the authoritarianism of both parties, and can't decide which dystopia I'd rather live in. Option A: No right to self-defense but having abortion rights, letting violent criminals out on $0 bail. Option B: A right to self-defense but living in a country which wants to legislate based on religion.
Also, can you tell me where, just where, ANY Democrat or independent is propounding a Big Lie, that an election was illegitimate, when such claims were litigated and DENIED=LOST in over 60 state and federal courts of law - ZERO courts upheld ANY allegation, yet almost every R and an entire RW mediz circus propounds this Big Lie about who won the election. Where is ANY Dem doing such a thing?
Moreover this behavior extends to denying that the violent January 6h insurrection was "merely tourists". Again, nearly every R and an entire RW media circus is propounding such lies. Yet there is zero equivalece anywhere else on the rest of today's political spectrum.
Calling our "whataboutism" is NOT simply complaining that you are complaining that Ds do similar stuff. It is that you attempt to deflect the conversation by calling out DIFFERENT, IRRELEVANT faults. Of course anyone can find faults, it's the easiest thing in the world to do. Clever of you to try to say that claims of "whataboutism" are merely complaining about getting called out for the same thing, but it is not the case. j
I note that you have claimed only that "Ds also do bad stuff", never acknoweledged any of the the wholesale list of outright R moves to authoritarianism, and never actually cited anything remotely similar to R authoritarian actions. Show some actual equivalence or you are merely running interference for actual authoritarianism.
If there is some ACTUAL meaningful (and plausible, not merely some powerless loon saying nonsense) moves by Ds towards real authoritarianism — undermining independence of branches of govt, the press, the academy, religions, industry, or bringing religion into govt — I'm all ears. But I've heard nothing but a small complaint about one state maybe overreaching on gun restrictions.
Seriously, I'm all about authoritarianism vs democracy, but I need real evidence.
Moreover this behavior extends to denying that the violent January 6h insurrection was "merely tourists". Again, nearly every R and an entire RW media circus is propounding such lies. Yet there is zero equivalece anywhere else on the rest of today's political spectrum.
Calling our "whataboutism" is NOT simply complaining that you are complaining that Ds do similar stuff. It is that you attempt to deflect the conversation by calling out DIFFERENT, IRRELEVANT faults. Of course anyone can find faults, it's the easiest thing in the world to do. Clever of you to try to say that claims of "whataboutism" are merely complaining about getting called out for the same thing, but it is not the case. j
I note that you have claimed only that "Ds also do bad stuff", never acknoweledged any of the the wholesale list of outright R moves to authoritarianism, and never actually cited anything remotely similar to R authoritarian actions. Show some actual equivalence or you are merely running interference for actual authoritarianism.
If there is some ACTUAL meaningful (and plausible, not merely some powerless loon saying nonsense) moves by Ds towards real authoritarianism — undermining independence of branches of govt, the press, the academy, religions, industry, or bringing religion into govt — I'm all ears. But I've heard nothing but a small complaint about one state maybe overreaching on gun restrictions.
Seriously, I'm all about authoritarianism vs democracy, but I need real evidence.
Please show me the list of what Dems are doing that even close to resembles the above list of what Rs are doing. Seriously.
I grew up in an R household, cast my first vote for an R POTUS candidate, and wrote the software that ran the 1996 R national convention (invited back, but the company had moved on to a different focus). I got a very intimate inside look and crash course during that '96 project.
These Rs are nothing like the current Rs. Back then, it was literally "Big Tent", and they were very concerned when Buchanon won some primaries, as those were uncompromising 'crazies'.
Today's crop is literally the inmates running the asylum.
Seriously, where are Dems attempting to RESTRICT the vote, or restrict anything else?
Where are they actually infringing on 2A "as part of a well-regulated militia"?
I've seen noting that is more than common-sense requirements so that literal lunatics can't get weapons of war as easily as a hamburger. I live Massachusetts, one of the most restrictive states, and it is nothing more than an inconvenience (3 hour course, regular bkgd check), and no, I can't have an AR-15, which is a weapon for people who can't shoot straight (literally designed for that). Oh, and airguns are entirely unregulated, so I can get a gun firing a 50-grain .45-caliber pellet at 900 fps with around 400 foot-pounds of energy without any question.
My personal view on gun restrictions is that it should be regulated by increasing firepower and firing rate. Kid's .22? Just a safety course and test, and you're good to go. More courses and tests of safety & marksmanship as firepower increases. By the time you get to AR-15++ (and I think ++ should go up to just short of WMD and NBC weapons), you'll have to prove high levels of skill, safety, psychological stability, and have insurance. And, when licensed, you'll be subject to militia call-up. Freedom, and responsibility as part of a well-regulated militia. Claiming that 2A means that any random angry nutjob can buy any weapon anytime is just lunacy, and it kills people by the hour.
No one is talking about no right to self-defense. Again, in the strictest state of MA, I can have a very nice arsenal. What we don't have is random mass shootings.
You are right about the "country which wants to legislate based on religion", but vastly understating it. Just go look at some of the literal Christo-fascist movements. You also overlook that under R authoritarianism, the right to self-defense will only be available to white males.
There is, and I've not seen you cite any even partial equivalence on the Dem side. I also see on the Dem side clear movements against the $0 bail, and the "Defund The Police" movement was effectively shut down, and the POTUS is strongly pro-police.
Yes, there are some pushing for "$0 bail", but two things. First, this is not autocracy, it is idiocy. Second, those rapidly get shut down, as people realize that living crime-free is also kind of a right that needs to be enforced.
As far as I can tell, the Ds are about PERMISSION and building, not locking down everything for the state.
Please show me where the Ds are actually doing anything like the list I presented of live, current R activities and bills that take away people's rights.
EDIT: add 2nd-to-last para.
I grew up in an R household, cast my first vote for an R POTUS candidate, and wrote the software that ran the 1996 R national convention (invited back, but the company had moved on to a different focus). I got a very intimate inside look and crash course during that '96 project.
These Rs are nothing like the current Rs. Back then, it was literally "Big Tent", and they were very concerned when Buchanon won some primaries, as those were uncompromising 'crazies'.
Today's crop is literally the inmates running the asylum.
Seriously, where are Dems attempting to RESTRICT the vote, or restrict anything else?
Where are they actually infringing on 2A "as part of a well-regulated militia"?
I've seen noting that is more than common-sense requirements so that literal lunatics can't get weapons of war as easily as a hamburger. I live Massachusetts, one of the most restrictive states, and it is nothing more than an inconvenience (3 hour course, regular bkgd check), and no, I can't have an AR-15, which is a weapon for people who can't shoot straight (literally designed for that). Oh, and airguns are entirely unregulated, so I can get a gun firing a 50-grain .45-caliber pellet at 900 fps with around 400 foot-pounds of energy without any question.
My personal view on gun restrictions is that it should be regulated by increasing firepower and firing rate. Kid's .22? Just a safety course and test, and you're good to go. More courses and tests of safety & marksmanship as firepower increases. By the time you get to AR-15++ (and I think ++ should go up to just short of WMD and NBC weapons), you'll have to prove high levels of skill, safety, psychological stability, and have insurance. And, when licensed, you'll be subject to militia call-up. Freedom, and responsibility as part of a well-regulated militia. Claiming that 2A means that any random angry nutjob can buy any weapon anytime is just lunacy, and it kills people by the hour.
No one is talking about no right to self-defense. Again, in the strictest state of MA, I can have a very nice arsenal. What we don't have is random mass shootings.
You are right about the "country which wants to legislate based on religion", but vastly understating it. Just go look at some of the literal Christo-fascist movements. You also overlook that under R authoritarianism, the right to self-defense will only be available to white males.
There is, and I've not seen you cite any even partial equivalence on the Dem side. I also see on the Dem side clear movements against the $0 bail, and the "Defund The Police" movement was effectively shut down, and the POTUS is strongly pro-police.
Yes, there are some pushing for "$0 bail", but two things. First, this is not autocracy, it is idiocy. Second, those rapidly get shut down, as people realize that living crime-free is also kind of a right that needs to be enforced.
As far as I can tell, the Ds are about PERMISSION and building, not locking down everything for the state.
Please show me where the Ds are actually doing anything like the list I presented of live, current R activities and bills that take away people's rights.
EDIT: add 2nd-to-last para.
[deleted]
Surely a massive breach of that cluster is high income inequality. And that leads sometimes to socialism as one possible reaction.
This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism doesn't have welfare like this, it'd have full employment - look at the Soviet Union for example.
the country with 20% of its labor force in penal colonies at its peak?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_in...
I hate to tell you this but
> The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages. This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies.
I hate to tell you this but
> The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages. This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies.
> We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4—5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'.
> The total of arrests given in the Shvernik report for 1937-38 is 1 372 392, of whom 681 692 are given as shot. The total entering Gulag camps in that period as given by Zemskov is 1 853 513.
this is for one year mind you
https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdf
> The total of arrests given in the Shvernik report for 1937-38 is 1 372 392, of whom 681 692 are given as shot. The total entering Gulag camps in that period as given by Zemskov is 1 853 513.
this is for one year mind you
https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdf
It's not him who works that counts, but he who counts how many are working - J. Stalin, probably
>Which is why socialism trends to authoritarianism in practice
False. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism.
Authoritarianism thrives because the people fail at holding their leaders accountable for their actions.
The leaders will keep overreaching with their power as long as they see no consequences for them.
False. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism.
Authoritarianism thrives because the people fail at holding their leaders accountable for their actions.
The leaders will keep overreaching with their power as long as they see no consequences for them.
I agree that socialism isn't inherently authoritarian but it does enable authoritarianism when you aim to achieve socialism through centralized administration.
Not really. There are countries that are social democracies but have decentralized power. Look at Germany. Or Austria.
Those countries are pretty far from achieving big S Socialism.
Dalewyn(4)
Will lording over welfare recipients become another horseman of the infocalypse? "We have to surveil your every movement, including who you may or may not be dating, or else a single mother might get a few extra bucks to buy food for her kids." If you're so worried about fraud, one easy fix here is to make benefits universal.
That's not an easy fix at all. One of the forms of fraud they're worried about is people who aren't actually living in Denmark claiming benefits - generally by actually living in another country with lower cost of living and income (and potentially claiming benefits or working there without having to report that income). Universal basic income makes that easier if anything. There's also the huge difficulty of how to fund it, especially if you can't guarantee that the recipients are actually paying taxes to your government on their wages...
You go from several forms of fraud to only one, but somehow it gets harder to prevent the one remaining form?
Welfare benefits _are_ universal, you need only qualify for them. The problematic fraud is those who qualified and desire to return to regular society, but do not want to return their benefit to their fellow taxpayers.
The other fraud is those who qualify and have no desire to return to society, for which I think a small colony maintained by governments w/ tech from the last century would be appropriate. No modern requirements, no modern pleasures, cheap to operate and as reasonably safe as a farm in the late 1800s could be.
The whole "preventing fraud" thing is 95% strawman. Most of this dystopian bullshit within various nations welfare/safety net systems is implemented in the name of "nudging these people into making the right choices" to the applause of the very same people who are generally enthusiastic about the existence of these systems in the first place (whereas the whole fraud shtick mostly comes from people who don't want these systems to exist at all). The people running these systems are not incentivized to care about fraud, quite the opposite really. The more money they dispense and the more people the serve the more important their program or department is and important they are.
When government says they're doing something that increases their power over people at their expense you need to look at it the same as BigCo doing something that increases profit at the expense of consumers. Sure the pretext of fraud or theft or ambulance chasing lawyers might exist but it is not the whole story.
When government says they're doing something that increases their power over people at their expense you need to look at it the same as BigCo doing something that increases profit at the expense of consumers. Sure the pretext of fraud or theft or ambulance chasing lawyers might exist but it is not the whole story.
When the country I live in started to give money to Ukrainian refugees, an Ukrainian friend of mine requested them as well (although they aren't a refugee), and told me that _all_ of their friend were doing the same (again, all defrauding the state). Which means, here there has been a lot of fraud in relation to this scheme.
When it comes to welfare schemes, I'm very skeptical (like the current top post) that fraud rate can be as low as presented.
When it comes to welfare schemes, I'm very skeptical (like the current top post) that fraud rate can be as low as presented.
The nudging being required is basically the fraud. The systems are set up to be used "in case of emergency", not as a life style. If you need to be nudged towards "hey, maybe get a job and start contributing to society", you're abusing the welfare system. It's for those who can't, not for those who prefer not to.
"When government says they're doing something that increases their power over people"
I didn't see this in the article. The eligibility requirements and punishments remain the same regardless of the surveillance. It's just that with surveillance you're more likely to get caught.
The most compelling case against large scale surveillance is that future regimes can abuse that power. Surveillance itself is agnostic until employed to some end. The question becomes what level of use do people find acceptable. Of course this will always result in some level of minority abuse when certain activities are frowned upon my the majority.
The somewhat good news in the welfare case is that it's only enforcing existing laws, it only covers a subset of the entire population, and those in the subset have at least the theoretical choice to remove themselves from the surveillance.
I didn't see this in the article. The eligibility requirements and punishments remain the same regardless of the surveillance. It's just that with surveillance you're more likely to get caught.
The most compelling case against large scale surveillance is that future regimes can abuse that power. Surveillance itself is agnostic until employed to some end. The question becomes what level of use do people find acceptable. Of course this will always result in some level of minority abuse when certain activities are frowned upon my the majority.
The somewhat good news in the welfare case is that it's only enforcing existing laws, it only covers a subset of the entire population, and those in the subset have at least the theoretical choice to remove themselves from the surveillance.
[deleted]
Social rating? Anyone?
It is not visible for you yet?
All that's left on the table is some form of major economy crisis, centralization of agriculture of government and renting it to Black Rock, Vanguard, and you have the start. Add to it wartime economy and things are coming to fruition.
Or may be universal basic income?
Choose your poison carefully, the governments always love double standards and outreach of power.
Yes. To the extent that the expansion of the welfare state means the expansion of the surveilance state, we will be in a vicious, vicious cycle of perverse incentives that will lead to virtual slavery for all except the tyrants.
Nothing in the article seems too bad and they recovered several times their budget from fraud. It's good that they use technology effectively though.
But the real question is why they don't do the same for tax evasion?
But the real question is why they don't do the same for tax evasion?
> But the real question is why they don't do the same for tax evasion?
Who says they don't?
If I had to guess, I would say the magnitude of the problem is just more complex. The tax system is more complicated and impacts more people.
They did attempt to change the law to give the tax agency more similar powers[1]. Last I checked, it was rejected due to public outcry[2]. I do not expect this to be the last attempt.
--
[1] https://kammeradvokaten.dk/nyheder/nyt-lovforslag-kunstig-in...
[2] https://pro.ing.dk/datatech/artikel/efter-massiv-kritik-mini...
Who says they don't?
If I had to guess, I would say the magnitude of the problem is just more complex. The tax system is more complicated and impacts more people.
They did attempt to change the law to give the tax agency more similar powers[1]. Last I checked, it was rejected due to public outcry[2]. I do not expect this to be the last attempt.
--
[1] https://kammeradvokaten.dk/nyheder/nyt-lovforslag-kunstig-in...
[2] https://pro.ing.dk/datatech/artikel/efter-massiv-kritik-mini...
> Who says they don't?
Here in the US, they don't. https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-ea...
"Congress asked the IRS to report on why it audits the poor more than the affluent. Its response is that it doesn’t have enough money and people to audit the wealthy properly. So it’s not going to."
Here in the US, they don't. https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-ea...
"Congress asked the IRS to report on why it audits the poor more than the affluent. Its response is that it doesn’t have enough money and people to audit the wealthy properly. So it’s not going to."
And even if given that money, what have they singled out?
They bumped down financial institution income reporting down to $600. Going after low earners instead of going after the affluent.
They bumped down financial institution income reporting down to $600. Going after low earners instead of going after the affluent.
Because with welfare your "adversaries" are people in dire situation who won't be able to fight back much.
Tax evasion will generally run up against well informed and heavily lawyered entities (people or corporations).
Alternatively, it will again degenerate to destroying the lives of small time tax dodgers.
Tax evasion will generally run up against well informed and heavily lawyered entities (people or corporations).
Alternatively, it will again degenerate to destroying the lives of small time tax dodgers.
>But the real question is why they don't do the same for tax evasion?
Because "taxpayers" are a big enough demographic that you can't just kick them in the dick without consequence. Welfare recipients are a smaller and poorer demographic so the state can abuse them with invasive policy with less blow-back.
Because "taxpayers" are a big enough demographic that you can't just kick them in the dick without consequence. Welfare recipients are a smaller and poorer demographic so the state can abuse them with invasive policy with less blow-back.
They do, but probably not the same data, because taxes aren't really affected by you traveling somewhere, and they might owe you money if they figure out you're married and just forgot to tell them.
The other thing is of course that you don't want to piss off the people who give you money, while you don't worry too much about pissing off the people who take money from you. If you drive those away who give you money, you have less money. If you drive those taking money away, you have more money.
https://skat.dk/data.aspx?oid=2303874&lang=de
The other thing is of course that you don't want to piss off the people who give you money, while you don't worry too much about pissing off the people who take money from you. If you drive those away who give you money, you have less money. If you drive those taking money away, you have more money.
https://skat.dk/data.aspx?oid=2303874&lang=de
Because it's not about fraud per se, it's about punishing a specific class of people.
We see this in the US, too. Conservative politicians who are also trying to cut down welfare, but maybe not through such extreme means, are also very much against a recent expansion of the IRS (the US' tax enforcement group).
We see this in the US, too. Conservative politicians who are also trying to cut down welfare, but maybe not through such extreme means, are also very much against a recent expansion of the IRS (the US' tax enforcement group).
[deleted]
I remember seeing some danish users here on HN saying that they trust their government, and that surveillance only helps to optimize their taxes.
Well let's see how long that trust lasts, it certainly didn't last in Europe[1]
1. https://www.dw.com/en/danish-secret-service-helped-us-spy-on...
Well let's see how long that trust lasts, it certainly didn't last in Europe[1]
1. https://www.dw.com/en/danish-secret-service-helped-us-spy-on...
What does this have to do with Danish welfare?
Allies also spy on each other to make sure they're still on the same team and not dealing under the table with non-friendlies. The weren't spying on average joe citizens, but on high ranking politicians and weapons manufacturers. When you're in a military alliance with them you want to know what those parties are really up to.
Allies also spy on each other to make sure they're still on the same team and not dealing under the table with non-friendlies. The weren't spying on average joe citizens, but on high ranking politicians and weapons manufacturers. When you're in a military alliance with them you want to know what those parties are really up to.
> What does this have to do with Danish welfare?
I meant that the government isn't particularly trustworthy, so they will spy on everyone.
They did it on their allies, they will do it on their own citizens and use it against them too.
> Allies also spy on each other to make sure they're still on the same team and not dealing under the table with non-friendlies. The weren't spying on average joe citizens, but on high ranking politicians and weapons manufacturers.
I doubt your reaction would be the same if it was Germany spying on the US.
I meant that the government isn't particularly trustworthy, so they will spy on everyone.
They did it on their allies, they will do it on their own citizens and use it against them too.
> Allies also spy on each other to make sure they're still on the same team and not dealing under the table with non-friendlies. The weren't spying on average joe citizens, but on high ranking politicians and weapons manufacturers.
I doubt your reaction would be the same if it was Germany spying on the US.
>I doubt your reaction would be the same if it was Germany spying on the US.
I'm not American but European and I support US spying on German politicians if it means keeping them in check from their ties and dependency they had with Russia till recently, since we're all in this political alliance called the EU and in this military alliance called NATO, and if German politicians decide to do some dumb shit, if affects us all in a big way as Germany is Europe's biggest economy so if they sneeze we all catch a cold.
US and allies warned Germany repeatedly over their overdependence on Russian gas and Germany said "nah mate, it'll be fine".
As a high ranking politician you wave your right to privacy when entering office and being handed insane amounts of power, so expect to be spied on. "Trust but verify" should be the norm for them.
I'm not American but European and I support US spying on German politicians if it means keeping them in check from their ties and dependency they had with Russia till recently, since we're all in this political alliance called the EU and in this military alliance called NATO, and if German politicians decide to do some dumb shit, if affects us all in a big way as Germany is Europe's biggest economy so if they sneeze we all catch a cold.
US and allies warned Germany repeatedly over their overdependence on Russian gas and Germany said "nah mate, it'll be fine".
As a high ranking politician you wave your right to privacy when entering office and being handed insane amounts of power, so expect to be spied on. "Trust but verify" should be the norm for them.
Why are you treating america as an absolutely good side here?
You know that there is no way that america wants good for the EU right?
Also no, politicians definitely have right to privacy, otherwise they would've made all their plans in public.
You know that there is no way that america wants good for the EU right?
Also no, politicians definitely have right to privacy, otherwise they would've made all their plans in public.
It's almost like centralizing power into the hands of a small number of people makes it easy to abuse that power, who knew?
I'm hoping for a future where we can set a global browser setting / cookie
"news-style=scientific"
so that the article will aitomatically be transformed from
"In a sparsely decorated corner office …"
into something which I would read.
"news-style=scientific"
so that the article will aitomatically be transformed from
"In a sparsely decorated corner office …"
into something which I would read.
Lots of disturbing things in the report, but I’d like to highlight a slight parallel elsewhere in the hopes that people can see where this could be headed if it’s allowed to proceed without opposition — India and its deeply flawed Aadhaar system. When Denmark lands on biometrics and 360° surveillance by linking various accounts and documents, it will get far worse.
This “unique” number in India is assigned to residents (not just citizens) based on biometrics (probabilistic) across a population of more than a billion people (which magnifies the effect of even tiny error rates). Aadhaar is claimed by the government as saving money, but its results have been denial of benefits, including causing deaths due to starvation and people not getting pensions that they’re entitled to.
It has also suffered a lot of scope creep where it is now the only document that the government as well as private entities demand as an identity document for various purposes.
> Armed with questionable data on the amount of benefits fraud taking place, conservative politicians have turned Denmark’s famed safety net into a polarizing political battleground.
> The perception of widespread welfare fraud has empowered Jacobsen to establish one of the most sophisticated and far-reaching fraud detection systems in the world.
Same thing happened in India. The “savings” were also debunked through information obtained from the government (though the Supreme Court of India just took the government’s words on savings at face value and eventually decided that this whole program is constitutional).
> The bill was backed by all of the major political parties in Denmark and became law in April 2015.
In India, though the opposition political parties opposed the bill, there has been no difference on the ground. All the state governments, including those where the opposition parties (centrally) are in power have embraced this number. All of them have a standard formula:
a) link Aadhaar with everything
b) deny subsidies to beneficiaries due to network issues, biometric issues, etc. (Aadhaar is a centrally managed database that requires network connectivity for authentication)
c) deeply cut or remove the subsidies entirely after some time
> Jacobsen says her algorithms don’t actually cancel benefits—they only flag people as suspicious. Ultimately, it is up to a human fraud investigator to make the final call, and citizens have the right to appeal their decisions.
In India too, the law says that nobody shall be denied any benefit for want of Aadhaar. But the reality is that nothing moves without it working.
At least Denmark would have to consider privacy issues and privacy laws. India does not yet have a privacy and data protection law. It’s been open season for a lot of private companies (and probably other countries) for a long time with the amount of data that has leaked and/or is cheaply available.
This “unique” number in India is assigned to residents (not just citizens) based on biometrics (probabilistic) across a population of more than a billion people (which magnifies the effect of even tiny error rates). Aadhaar is claimed by the government as saving money, but its results have been denial of benefits, including causing deaths due to starvation and people not getting pensions that they’re entitled to.
It has also suffered a lot of scope creep where it is now the only document that the government as well as private entities demand as an identity document for various purposes.
> Armed with questionable data on the amount of benefits fraud taking place, conservative politicians have turned Denmark’s famed safety net into a polarizing political battleground.
> The perception of widespread welfare fraud has empowered Jacobsen to establish one of the most sophisticated and far-reaching fraud detection systems in the world.
Same thing happened in India. The “savings” were also debunked through information obtained from the government (though the Supreme Court of India just took the government’s words on savings at face value and eventually decided that this whole program is constitutional).
> The bill was backed by all of the major political parties in Denmark and became law in April 2015.
In India, though the opposition political parties opposed the bill, there has been no difference on the ground. All the state governments, including those where the opposition parties (centrally) are in power have embraced this number. All of them have a standard formula:
a) link Aadhaar with everything
b) deny subsidies to beneficiaries due to network issues, biometric issues, etc. (Aadhaar is a centrally managed database that requires network connectivity for authentication)
c) deeply cut or remove the subsidies entirely after some time
> Jacobsen says her algorithms don’t actually cancel benefits—they only flag people as suspicious. Ultimately, it is up to a human fraud investigator to make the final call, and citizens have the right to appeal their decisions.
In India too, the law says that nobody shall be denied any benefit for want of Aadhaar. But the reality is that nothing moves without it working.
At least Denmark would have to consider privacy issues and privacy laws. India does not yet have a privacy and data protection law. It’s been open season for a lot of private companies (and probably other countries) for a long time with the amount of data that has leaked and/or is cheaply available.
When you have strong methods of surveillance and identification it automatically leads to scope creep.
One egregious example is that it is effectively mandatory to share Aadhaar ID to visit the popular Venkateshwara temple(often considered as one of the richest in the world) in Tirumala, south India.
A government has no business in tracking religious practices of its citizens, yet it happens in the name of fraud detection and convenience.
One egregious example is that it is effectively mandatory to share Aadhaar ID to visit the popular Venkateshwara temple(often considered as one of the richest in the world) in Tirumala, south India.
A government has no business in tracking religious practices of its citizens, yet it happens in the name of fraud detection and convenience.
They also canceled a holyday to invest the tax into the military :)
Modern conservatism: the paranoid fear that someone, somewhere, might possibly be getting something for free.
And they, horror of horrors, don't look like you.
And they, horror of horrors, don't look like you.
2. The social contract of welfare is that you have a right to receive money from government when you hit hard times and the corresponding responsibility to not abuse the privilege. It's not a contract if it isn't enforceable by either of the parties.