> So, while I agree that a solar farm needs virtually no safeguarding compared to a nuclear power plant, I don't think it would have any discernible effect in the overall state surveillance apparatus.
This is the argument I suggested you make in my first reply. I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s the best argument for your position: that the effect might exist, but is negligible.
To me the consolidation of power isn’t in surveillance it’s in force of mandate. If the government says “we must do this or the lights go off” that’s one consolidation of power. If they say “we must do this or else something will kill you and render the area uninhabitable for generations to come” that’s a much stronger force. When I read this paper that’s the relative difference that I’m feeling when they talk about authoritarian leanings.
I assume all organizations want more power (both government and corporate). To me, something that has an authoritarian-izing effect is one that provides an excuse for a consolidation of power. Whether it results in an authoritarian state is unknowable but the question “which of these fears would give the government more power” is (at least in the abstract and general sense) clear enough to be accurately debated. The authoritarian/democratic angle would be to clarify whether the mandate comes from the people (democratic), or from some immutable source, or both.
> and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less.
I could see how you could want that to be true. But I’m just guessing on how it could actually be true. How could we test this hypothetical?
This is the argument I suggested you make in my first reply. I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s the best argument for your position: that the effect might exist, but is negligible.
To me the consolidation of power isn’t in surveillance it’s in force of mandate. If the government says “we must do this or the lights go off” that’s one consolidation of power. If they say “we must do this or else something will kill you and render the area uninhabitable for generations to come” that’s a much stronger force. When I read this paper that’s the relative difference that I’m feeling when they talk about authoritarian leanings.
I assume all organizations want more power (both government and corporate). To me, something that has an authoritarian-izing effect is one that provides an excuse for a consolidation of power. Whether it results in an authoritarian state is unknowable but the question “which of these fears would give the government more power” is (at least in the abstract and general sense) clear enough to be accurately debated. The authoritarian/democratic angle would be to clarify whether the mandate comes from the people (democratic), or from some immutable source, or both.
> and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less.
I could see how you could want that to be true. But I’m just guessing on how it could actually be true. How could we test this hypothetical?