> You have conflated major separate branches of not only government, but also society in general.
Where?
> You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed.
How exactly did I do that?
Pretty weak response to my post tbh. I get it though, it hurts to realize the benevolent and omnipotent protector and provider you are subservient to is anything but. Lashing out is not an unusual response.
> where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance
That is how to conflate branches of government. IMO it also is an unfair characterization of the underlying complexity of the situation.
I love it when you disagree, because I believe lively civic debate is very important. It’s just hard for me to become concrete when we get stuck in generalities about “the elite” and “those in power” without precision about what it is exactly that is the problem.
I also recognize my bias, because I am actually a (small) part of this omnipotent dangerous government filled with “others” you hate so much so I think we need to agree to disagree on just about everything.
It's the government though. The point from the start was that the judicial branch is part of government control. You are the one confused if you don't understand that.
> IMO it also is an unfair characterization of the underlying complexity of the situation.
IMO it isn't.
> I love it when you disagree, because I believe lively civic debate is very important. It’s just hard for me to become concrete when we get stuck in generalities about “the elite” and “those in power” without precision about what it is exactly that is the problem.
And yet you seem to know that the government is the solution to them all apparently without knowing what they are.
> I also recognize my bias, because I am actually a (small) part of this omnipotent dangerous government filled with “others” you hate so much so I think we need to agree to disagree on just about everything.
I think you're angrily lashing out at strawmen of your own making because it has become difficult for you to reconcile the scary new ideas in this conversation. But I do find it very interesting how wildly irrational and angry governments and bureaucrats become at the suggestion that they should be held to account for their actions, or that anything they do could be questioned or disagreed with, and by those "hateful commoners" of all people!
So just to confirm, you are in the government, and you view people who say the government should be held accountable for its actions as "the enemy", is that right? If not it should be simple to explain how you thought I saw you as the enemy for my comments.
Where?
> You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed.
How exactly did I do that?
Pretty weak response to my post tbh. I get it though, it hurts to realize the benevolent and omnipotent protector and provider you are subservient to is anything but. Lashing out is not an unusual response.