There is a fable that is well known of the camel’s nose, where a Bedouin allows his camel to stick his nose into his tent. The camel then gradually sticks other parts of its body in until the whole camel is under the tent and refuses to leave. It is this that we should keep in mind when confronted by crises, because just like the camel, government will never pass up an opportunity to embed itself deeper into our lives.
History is replete with examples of this sort of thing. A crisis or tragedy happens, like an act of terrorism or a natural disaster. In response to the cries of "do something", government takes action by regulating the most fringe and unobjectionable cases. Once the precedent is set, the post is steadily moved and the state has a new weapon to use on citizens who don't toe the line.
Consider censorship, these days it is internet censorship in particular that is high on the governing classes' agenda. For example, a mass shooting occurs where some mentally deranged racist environmentalist takes precious innocent lives. The shooter also posts a 'manifesto' online explaining his motives or even live-streams the act. The saddened, enraged and scared public are suddenly more accepting of some controls over free speech. After all, we don't want free speech to protect the rights of these monsters! There ought to be a law, you can't just say anything. Some censorship is necessary to keep us safe.
Never mind the fact that censoring hateful rhetoric will simply drive it underground, increase its appeal and make it harder to identify and combat its authors and believers, the feeling is that banning hateful speech is a good idea. So the law is passed and a mechanism for government to shut down hateful speech is created. The camel's nose is in. Over the months and years that follow and after additional crises, the definition of hate starts to broaden. It starts with manifestos of spree killers, but it continues to people with far-right world views, then separatists and finally, traitors. And once traitors can be censored, the definition of traitor also begins to expand from military turncoats, then tax evaders, supporters of the opposition to you and me. The government can censor anyone they don't agree with and the camel is in the tent and refuses to leave.
Why does the state do this? I am not sure if the agents of the state, the unelected technocrats and dear leaders grab power in this way intentionally. Looking at a recent example in Turkey, were the president's actions after the failed coup are a very good example of how not to waste a crisis. Was this response planned all along? Sometimes it seems the state manufactures the crisis if one doesn't come along, like Trump's border emergency. However if Trump intentionally wanted to create a crisis to build a wall, he probably only wants to build the wall for political gain. He probably doesn't foresee what future administrations might do with that wall, like use it to prevent Americans from leaving. So maybe it is a bit of both, the state intentionally grabs power in the short-term and then sleep-walks its way to greater abuses of established tools of power in the long-term.
For me, it matters little. We should be wary of the camel's nose. Unfortunately, it means you have to defend the right of some deranged murderous lunatic to write and post his hate online. Free speech needs to be a right to protect objectionable speech, not inoffensive speech. What applies to speech can also be applied to banking regulation, banning encrypted communication and other targets of government aimed at making us safer. We should remember that those who trade freedom for safety lose both and deserve neither. We cannot empower government to make us safe because if we do, what will protect us from government?
Lagarrigue, France August 25th 2019
TLDR: Once empowered with a new tool, government will find ways to abuse it
History is replete with examples of this sort of thing. A crisis or tragedy happens, like an act of terrorism or a natural disaster. In response to the cries of "do something", government takes action by regulating the most fringe and unobjectionable cases. Once the precedent is set, the post is steadily moved and the state has a new weapon to use on citizens who don't toe the line.
Consider censorship, these days it is internet censorship in particular that is high on the governing classes' agenda. For example, a mass shooting occurs where some mentally deranged racist environmentalist takes precious innocent lives. The shooter also posts a 'manifesto' online explaining his motives or even live-streams the act. The saddened, enraged and scared public are suddenly more accepting of some controls over free speech. After all, we don't want free speech to protect the rights of these monsters! There ought to be a law, you can't just say anything. Some censorship is necessary to keep us safe.
Never mind the fact that censoring hateful rhetoric will simply drive it underground, increase its appeal and make it harder to identify and combat its authors and believers, the feeling is that banning hateful speech is a good idea. So the law is passed and a mechanism for government to shut down hateful speech is created. The camel's nose is in. Over the months and years that follow and after additional crises, the definition of hate starts to broaden. It starts with manifestos of spree killers, but it continues to people with far-right world views, then separatists and finally, traitors. And once traitors can be censored, the definition of traitor also begins to expand from military turncoats, then tax evaders, supporters of the opposition to you and me. The government can censor anyone they don't agree with and the camel is in the tent and refuses to leave.
Why does the state do this? I am not sure if the agents of the state, the unelected technocrats and dear leaders grab power in this way intentionally. Looking at a recent example in Turkey, were the president's actions after the failed coup are a very good example of how not to waste a crisis. Was this response planned all along? Sometimes it seems the state manufactures the crisis if one doesn't come along, like Trump's border emergency. However if Trump intentionally wanted to create a crisis to build a wall, he probably only wants to build the wall for political gain. He probably doesn't foresee what future administrations might do with that wall, like use it to prevent Americans from leaving. So maybe it is a bit of both, the state intentionally grabs power in the short-term and then sleep-walks its way to greater abuses of established tools of power in the long-term.
For me, it matters little. We should be wary of the camel's nose. Unfortunately, it means you have to defend the right of some deranged murderous lunatic to write and post his hate online. Free speech needs to be a right to protect objectionable speech, not inoffensive speech. What applies to speech can also be applied to banking regulation, banning encrypted communication and other targets of government aimed at making us safer. We should remember that those who trade freedom for safety lose both and deserve neither. We cannot empower government to make us safe because if we do, what will protect us from government?
Lagarrigue, France August 25th 2019
TLDR: Once empowered with a new tool, government will find ways to abuse it
No comments:
Post a Comment