while i’m around, waiting for my fire to get raging, and my feet are getting cold..

been contemplating the state, both the tangible and intangible dimension/s of the state apparatus (publicly known, and unknown, formal and informal), but a more general view on the state, the instrument, and instruments of

seems to me some of the philosophical aspects of the current debate/s (in the media I see them), is to do with a particular function of democracy, or attributes, that could be diminished (even sent into retreat) in response to more uncertainty globally, whether terrorism threats or whatever

I was reading something the other day, about the right to remain silent, or to not self-incriminate under Australian law specifically, and bumped into some word formulation, which was, and I can’t remember properly…searching, yeah, there it is…neither a soul to damn, nor a body to kick

seems to be that a substantive difference between a democracy, and some other examples that aren’t, or are less so, is that a democracy does not so readily grant immunities (if you will) to those with state power, whether security agencies or whatever. Immunity from public scrutiny, and regular laws of the land

put another way it could be said in a democracy the detached ethereal powers, or hoodoo of the state can be subject to forces, processes that will find souls to damn, or a body to kick

so, the concerns about more secretive devices of the state enjoying dubious immunity from outside scrutiny have some merit given some problem countries are a problem because of lack of transparency and accountability that way

some of those problems elsewhere would be winning with more of the same if democracies went down the same road in response, the latter arguably becoming less democratic

wars over the internet, and perhaps the internet more generally, it seems as if it could possibly make the trend worse, or here to stay with less likelihood of it softening, or retreating

thing about the public, is it too has ways of diffusing power and responsibility, a potential oblivion, like dividing something up until it barely exists, over-determination for example, consider the firing squad example.

clearly some features of the state wouldn’t be effectual, so useful, they wouldn’t be what they need to be to do the job if overseen by the public

anyway, consider some security service gets sprung in an operation, or an operation gets busted, an act of espionage of sorts, whatever was a botch up. Conjure a hypothetical example

where do you go with the question of secretive state powers, devices for, their operations

i’m not inclined to be overly moralistic about it, but if the apparatuses fighting against less open forces gravitated toward becoming more like the forces they fight, well, that might be reason to be more moralistic

transition said:

while i’m around, waiting for my fire to get raging, and my feet are getting cold..

been contemplating the state, both the tangible and intangible dimension/s of the state apparatus (publicly known, and unknown, formal and informal), but a more general view on the state, the instrument, and instruments of

seems to me some of the philosophical aspects of the current debate/s (in the media I see them), is to do with a particular function of democracy, or attributes, that could be diminished (even sent into retreat) in response to more uncertainty globally, whether terrorism threats or whatever

I was reading something the other day, about the right to remain silent, or to not self-incriminate under Australian law specifically, and bumped into some word formulation, which was, and I can’t remember properly…searching, yeah, there it is…neither a soul to damn, nor a body to kick

seems to be that a substantive difference between a democracy, and some other examples that aren’t, or are less so, is that a democracy does not so readily grant immunities (if you will) to those with state power, whether security agencies or whatever. Immunity from public scrutiny, and regular laws of the land

put another way it could be said in a democracy the detached ethereal powers, or hoodoo of the state can be subject to forces, processes that will find souls to damn, or a body to kick

so, the concerns about more secretive devices of the state enjoying dubious immunity from outside scrutiny have some merit given some problem countries are a problem because of lack of transparency and accountability that way

some of those problems elsewhere would be winning with more of the same if democracies went down the same road in response, the latter arguably becoming less democratic

wars over the internet, and perhaps the internet more generally, it seems as if it could possibly make the trend worse, or here to stay with less likelihood of it softening, or retreating

thing about the public, is it too has ways of diffusing power and responsibility, a potential oblivion, like dividing something up until it barely exists, over-determination for example, consider the firing squad example.

clearly some features of the state wouldn’t be effectual, so useful, they wouldn’t be what they need to be to do the job if overseen by the public

anyway, consider some security service gets sprung in an operation, or an operation gets busted, an act of espionage of sorts, whatever was a botch up. Conjure a hypothetical example

where do you go with the question of secretive state powers, devices for, their operations

i’m not inclined to be overly moralistic about it, but if the apparatuses fighting against less open forces gravitated toward becoming more like the forces they fight, well, that might be reason to be more moralistic

> a particular function of democracy, or attributes, that could be diminished (even sent into retreat) in response to more uncertainty globally

That could be seen as either a rational response to mass _{(media generated)} hysteria, or as an opportunity for megalomania. You decide.

> a democracy does not so readily grant immunities (if you will) to those with state power, whether security agencies or whatever

Ooh. Wouldn’t it be true to say that the largest security agencies in the world are in the USA? Perhaps. Criticism of the government in a democracy is limited to matters that don’t matter. I noticed this when Michael Palin was interviewing hist handler in North Korea. The criticisms that were being levelled against the government of North Korea would get you jailed if you uttered the same criticisms against the government of the UK.

Western democracies can and do hide their secrets more effectively than so-called non-democratic countries. All they need to do is give the mass media some harmless political footballs to kick.

> neither a soul to damn, nor a body to kick

I still have not the foggiest idea what you mean by this phrase.

Wouldn’t any object have either one or the other?

Even a rock has a body to kick. And even Christianity has a soul to damn.

mollwollfumble said:

> neither a soul to damn, nor a body to kick

I still have not the foggiest idea what you mean by this phrase.

Wouldn’t any object have either one or the other?

Even a rock has a body to kick. And even Christianity has a soul to damn.

There’s a really clever book of ideas for provoking young minds to think in unusual ways. In developmental terms, it bridges the gap between dad jokes and lateral thinking. I poses questions like ‘Name ten things you can’t wash?’ or ‘Take you favourite toy; make it bigger, add one thing and take one thing away.’

The idea of not having a body to damn or a soul to kick would be no problem to kids who grokked.