![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
That’s a pretty idealist take in the grand scheme of things. We have hard data that public opinion has virtually no influence on what the law is.
https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
If it’s something capitalists really want, it’ll get put into law. In this case, it’s possible they actually don’t care to give the government the ability to surveil the public better, so it might be one of the very few things where public backlash could stop it (would actually need data to support this, not just some anecdotes).
Trying to apply this to the broader sociopolitical climate and saying “your voices do matter” is just too reductive. If it’s the public vs. the capitalist class in American “democracy”, the capitalist class wins every time.
"For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. "
You really think “part of nature” is a good argument for if something is morally acceptable? You can’t think of anything that happens in the natural world that we choose not to do as civilized moral agents because it’d be wrong to do?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature