Idealist views like this get us nowhere either tho.

The reality is somewhat more murky. On a long enough time horizon your point makes sense, we might be able to get rid of the security state by slowly chipping away at ig over hundreds or thousands of years.

Most of us are going to be dead in about 40 years tho. Security state isn't going anywhere in that timeframe.

▲

_heimdall 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why not? Change like that happens slowly, then all at once. I can't say I'm optimistic that it will be gotten rid of, but if its worth fighting for then it doesn't matter if it seems likely.

▲

Roark66 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Most of us are going to be dead in about 40 years tho. Security state isn't going anywhere in that timeframe.

How would you know? Think about the collapse of the Soviet Union, or communism in other countries. 2-3 years before it was unthinkable.

▲

Zetaphor 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm curious to hear someone explain why you're being downvoted

▲

_factor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because it is defeatist and helps no one?

“Just give up, it’s a hard problem.”

▲

jll29 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Out of all places on the Web, this one should be where solutions to (get rid of/limit the surveillance state) are devised. If the HN community doesn't have the will or skill, who else has?

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

CalRobert 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe the dead in forty years comment. Though considering accelerating climate collapse and the possibility of nuclear conflict it’s not completely unreasonable in my view.

	▲	close04 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I read it as we’ll be dead because most people on this forum are 30+ years old and will statistically be dead ~70. Most of us, not most of humanity.