UK government about to start monitoring personal data on social network sites

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Yeah, but you make it sound like it is some utopian dreaming, when in reality it is a simple, logical and urgent product of pure self preservation.

Else, in the foreseeable future, conditions will be very much worse then todays compromises might effect us, even if this does mean giving up valuable stuff. Going by human history such measures always came too late, if at all, be it the roman or british empire, ancient China or communist Russia.

I rather want the West to play a dominant and important role on the international stage even in the future, instead of an arrogant one for only at most 50 years from now.

You have to switch from Greed to cold blooded Intelligence here.

What cold-blooded intelligence? It is one thing to claim that the state can solve problems through "simple" or "logical" measures, it is quite antoehr to actually make them do it. Who makes those rules? What should they be? How does one keep private interests or the state itself from taking advantage of them?
I'm not sure if I understand your second paragraph, it is worded oddly. I assume you mean those nations to be examples of illogical policy? If so, let's look at them. What was it that brought about the downfall of all those nations? It was greed. Not private greed. Not individual liberties, it was the greed of the state.
Ancient Rome fell because the excesses of state bankrupted it. And do not forget that it started as a Republic, and it remained prosperous until the state claimed more power, as it always does.
Soviet Russia is possibly the most extreme example, all freedoms and most personal properties given up and even then the state could not succeed.
How about England, once the ruler of the world, fueled by private trade interests, utterly destroyed by the state. You and Sky should know that better than anyone. It was England's fear of German economic dominance on the European continent that caused them to participate in the world wars. I'm sure both of you know that Germany never had any aspirations of invading England. The English knew that as well, but their state saw a threat to its' power, and in its' selfish attempt to preserve that power, England destroyed herself. Bankrupted like the Roman Empire.

Even today, you can see the same pattern. Europe was reinvented after the Second World War, and many nations chose social market economies.
Have those policies prevented European governments from amassing great debts? Have they bought them immunity from the market dominance of a nation made great by free-market policy? Does Europe not now suffer from the increasingly statist policy of the U.S.? Does not the whole world?

The real cold-blooded intelligence that must be employed is the science of greed. It cannot be overcome, it is human nature, right down to our very genes. Even if you or Sky or myself or anyone overcomes the sin of avarice, how could we create a truly (or even mostly) beneficial state? None of us are smart enough to create a failsafe net of regulation of anything, the state included, and to assume that we could would be sheer arrogance. No one is that smart. And where we fail, the powermongers slip in, and warp the policy of state to their own ends. It has always been so. The only answer is to limit the power of the state as much as possible and guard against it constantly. A weak state is attractive to business, which creates prosperity. Even when business is unscrupulous, it never subjects the populace to the harms that the state has, and will.

Avarice must be harnessed, as it cannot be fought. No matter how much wealth a CEO or board member pockets for himself, he still must pay his employees and attract consumers, or his enterprise dies. Even if he makes off with millions, another company must fill the gap. The state is not subject to such regulation. It steals wealth at gunpoint, uses it for its' own gain or uses it ineptly, and no one has any choice in the matter. Even when we do have choice, in the form of elections, the choice matters little. The state's agenda remains unchanged. It must maintain popular support, even though its' policies continually fail. To do that, it lies and decieves and obfuscates the truth. It legislates freedom of choice out of exsistence. It is a monopolist's dream.

Logic is not required to say that business should benefit the community or that the state should be responsible or any of that other stuff. But it takes real logic to see that greed is the driving force behind humanity and that it must be properly harnessed.

I believe that both you and Skybird would make excellent state administrators. The trouble is that you would not be electable, and if you were appointed, how does one select the appointer of the appointed?
Despite my limited intelligence, I could beat either of you in an election hands-down because I am an excellent liar. It isn't something I'm proud of, but it is people like me who should cause you to reconsider giving legislative power to the state.

I'm sure you have contentions which I have not addressed, and I'll be happy to consider them, should you choose to participate further.