“
I was right outside the NSA [National Security Agency building - during 9/11], so I remember the tension on that day. I remember hearing on the radio, 'the plane's hitting,'...I take the threat of terrorism seriously, and I think we all do. And I think it's really disingenuous for the government to invoke and sort-of scandalize our memories to sort-of exploit the national trauma...and to justify programs that have never been shown to keep us safe, but cost us liberties and freedoms that we don't need to give up, and that our Constitution says we should not give up.
~ Edward Snowden, former Central Intelligence Agency employee who leaked information about the US Government and its global surveillance programs.
How much government intervention in your life is reasonable?
Watch the following TEDTalk titled, Living in a Surveillance State, by Mikko Hypponen, and consider the following questions.
How much individual liberty would you be willing to give up for the stability and security of living in an organized society?
According to philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, your personal liberty - your rights as an individual under the social contract - are not as significant as the rights of society as a whole. It is the needs of the group that must be protected.
Whenever the social contract is discussed, it is Rousseau’s name with which it is most closely associated. His 1762 work, On the Social Contract, begins much like the concepts proposed by Hobbes and Locke - that the origin of government is the state of nature. Rousseau, however, is unlike Hobbes, who thought that humans in their natural state were inherently brutish, or like Locke, who thought they were naturally good and just. Instead, Rousseau believes that humans, by their nature, are amoral creatures, neither virtuous nor vicious. It is only by leaving the natural state that humans have had the opportunity to learn a higher form of goodness - moral goodness.
Rousseau saw the formation of the state as something that happened over a number of stages - from the earliest humans that would gather together long enough to complete a task, such as hunting - to the more complex, permanent civilizations where tasks had to be specialized and required a division of labour.
It is here, in one of Rousseau’s earlier works, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, where he puts forth the idea that, once there was a division of labour, distinct social classes formed, and those with the most to lose came together under a social contract for the protection of all.
Rousseau’s vision of a social contract is based on the superiority of the general will. Government, as he saw it, is formed to protect the majority, and to create a more egalitarian(definition:The principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.) society, even if it takes actions that may hurt a small section of society or suspend individual rights.
Very similar to the Rousseau’s central idea of the individual subject to the general will is the political ideology of Communitarianism(definition:A political ideology that considers the responsibilities individuals have to a society more important than their personal freedom.). Communitarians are interested in the collective nature of society and the individual’s responsibilities towards the whole. Like Rousseau, they posit that the needs of the community are superior to the needs of the individual.
Communitarians favour more societal involvement in the lives of individuals and placing limits on individual choice, if such choices could be detrimental to the good of all. In other words, taking away some of your freedom and liberty is justified because it will permit a better society from which you, ultimately, will benefit.
How would communitarianism be used to justify a surveillance state?
While the communitarian idea of the ‘greater good’ sounds very much like the other social contract theories we have studied so far, there is a difference. It is unlike the classic liberal interpretation of the social contract in which the state exists to benefit and protect the individual, and where laws that restrict freedom are a ‘necessary evil.’ Communitarianism tends to favour laws and rules which promote community values - disciplining those individuals who go against the greater good. In some ways, this is quite similar to Rousseau’s view that anyone who transgressed the will of the greater good was considered antisocial - and should be punished.
In both cases, there is a danger of imposing conformity, restricting individual expression, and suppressing dissent.
Most people would agree that some level of communitarianism is needed to keep societies functioning. After all, we need some aspect of working together for common benefit. However, is it possible to have a democratic government that can adhere to the will of the majority and still respect the views of the individual and the minority?
How much authority is ‘just enough’ without giving up our personal liberties?
For example, even governments that do not profess totalitarian ideologies still have measures in place to remove the liberty of citizens, when and if the circumstances arise.
Reflect on some of the philosophers we have studied so far in this unit. How do you think they would deal with the suspension of rights and liberty?
Brainstorm no less than three points in connection with two or more philosophers listed here. Keep in mind that your notes will come in handy when preparing for the consolidation for this activity.
Henry David Thoreau is often considered the father of civil disobedience theory. In an 1849 book entitled, On Civil Disobedience, Thoreau compiled his lectures, based on his theory that it is appropriate - even required - for a moral citizen to rebel against an unjust state authority.
Thoreau believed that government was essentially a bad thing, and that its power should be minimal. Indeed, he felt that people should only pay taxes for the services they approved of: Thoreau, himself a tax resister, even went to jail for refusing to pay a tax that would have supported the Mexican-American War and slavery.
Thoreau argued that normally moral citizens had a duty to take an active role in resisting any government initiatives that made them agents of injustice. Civil disobedience, he felt, was the logical response for all citizens to the actions or inactions of the state and its law enforcement agencies.
Even Rawls, whom we discussed in great detail in Activity 2 of this unit, supported a certain level of civil disobedience, as long as those engaged in such acts were non-violent and willing to accept the legal consequences of breaking the rule of law.
However, the concept of civil disobedience as a means of creating a just society is highly controversial; it has both opponents and proponents.
Critics of civil disobedience argue that it undermines the existing social order and, despite Rawls’ provision, the concept of the supremacy of the law. They also argue that those who participate in actions of civil disobedience are disrespectful of the principle of “majority rule.”
Consider this last point. What what could be the potential issues it presents? What would Locke and Thoreau, for example, say to the idea that we should temper our behaviour based on majority rule?
In truth, existing laws are not perfect. They cannot ensure the equality of all citizens under every circumstance or situation. This is especially an issue for those most commonly marginalized - for various reasons - in our society. Historically, from the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King Jr. to human rights activist, Malala Yousafzai, it is often those who have been silenced that are more likely to be abused under the rules of a social contract. These groups are pushed to organize and engage in acts of civil disobedience in order to demand justice. Below are just a few examples of marginalized groups that have chosen to organize against the status quo.
“
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?
~ Henry David Thoreau
How bad must things become to drive a group of people into publically digging in their heels and collectively declaring, “No more!”?
Throughout history, and possibly, even more so in the twentieth century, the manifesto(definition:A manifesto is a public declaration of the aims, intent, policies, and grievances of a specific group or organization.) has been a vehicle through which organizations and groups have declared and clarified their opposition to the status quo. Some manifestos are policy-driven with a list of demands, some are calls for social action, but at the heart of all of them is the belief that ‘something’ needs to change so that justice prevails.
Below are a few examples of manifestos.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
It is this, the depiction of the modern industrial society as a class conflict between the bourgeoisie(definition:As defined in the context of the Communist Manifesto, the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.) and proletariat(definition:As defined in the context of the Communist Manifesto, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.), that is the heart of the Communist Manifesto. Authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, it set out to clarify the intent of the Communist movement in the wake of hostility and propaganda from other, established government systems. Below is an excerpt - you can read the full text here: The Communist Manifesto.
The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.
In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.
In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.
In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.
But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.
The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!
‘The Hacker Manifesto’, also known as ‘The Conscience of a Hacker,’ is a small essay written January 8, 1986, by a computer security hacker who went by the nickname handle of ‘The Mentor.’ The original text was published in the magazine, Phrack, and can found online at several sites. Below is an excerpt - you can read the full text here: The Hacker Manifesto.
This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.
Anonymous is a loosely associated international network of hackers and activists - collectively known as “hacktivists.” The group is known for its participation in denial-of-service attacks on organizations, groups, companies, and governments, with which they have issues. While the members of the group remain personally anonymous, the public persona of the group is recognizable by its use of the Guy Fawkes mask as portrayed in the movie, V for Vendetta.
After reading the manifestos, choose one, and respond to the questions below. Remember to clearly indicate the manifesto to which you are responding. If you decided to find your own example, please provide context and a link so that others may benefit from your research.
Respond to the following questions:
“
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the endpoint of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
~ Francis Fukuyama, American political scientist and author.