What does that mean? You would fire anyone who opens up Finder ever? As opposed to what? Doing everything from the command line? This sounds ridiculous without clarification.
Why ? The German state, like a lot of states I imagine, demands everybody give up their address, work, car details, children's records to an armed force controlled by these people that definitely doesn't always act in their interest. Especially not if you're a foreigner or immigrant.
They also share these details where they SHOULD NOT be allowed to go. For example, to the electricity monopoly, schools, IRS, ... and without consulting anyone on the matter, or allowing judicial oversight. Apparently both options are too expensive.
So yes "let's see how they like it". Entirely agreed.
We give up our address, work, car details, children's records to a government that we, the people, indirectly control by means of democratic process.
Not every populace thinks of themselves and their government as we and them. To some it's just us.
Granted, sometimes the people we put in charge fuck up, either because there was no clear signal from the populace since few people cared or because opinions of politicians and the populace diverged since the last election.
And when I feel proportionally (relative to the amount of people sharing my views) represented, I have no reason to call the Government them.
Might be different in a system where you need to get at least 50% of the votes to get any representation at all and where that same system has managed to maneuver itself into essentially only having two parties.
> We give up our address, work, car details, children's records to a government
While a comprehensive list is near impossible, you missed some of the information they can gather, from companies via (secret) subpoena/warrant, or directly: Your location via license-plate readers/cell-phone tracking/facial recognition, credit card transactions, who you talk with on your phone, which web-sites you visit, what you printed via tracking dots, etc. If you attend a protest, or try to organize a union, it's easy to know (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728). Looks less benign now.
More importantly for this conversation, we skipped a step - is there harm in being spied on? We are assured that no, we can trust them, only criminals should worry. Yet when the tables are turned, and we can spy on the powerful, this rhetoric disappears, all hell breaks loose, and a bunch of state/trade secret laws, non-disclosure agreements, espionage acts, computer-hacking prosecutions, and takedown requests appear.
Edit: Your point about 'us and them' vs. 'we' is good, but it's not enough. Compare it to getting put in prison - thinking of the government as 'us' doesn't make you any better off behind bars. Spying is supposedly different, since they tell us it's harmless. But they sure don't act like it when it's applied to them.
They're running a streak of fuck-ups and while different parties run different ideas, I want none of the current politicians running a country.
The problem is, that there is no "sack the heads of all parties and start new without those problematic persons so we can get a new start" option to vote for.
But yes, the typical person does not care...
On the other hand, the government will always stay them. They purely live off work others do. They have no incentive to improve since they do not need to generate income, they simply "take" what they need from the rest of the population.
Any kind of streamlining or efficiency improvement will just kill jobs of their political buddies.
> The problem is, that there is no "sack the heads of all parties and start new without those problematic persons so we can get a new start" option to vote for.
Why not? New parties replacing established parties does happen now and again in various countries. Recent example: 358 city/municipal councilors, 4 mayors, incl. mayor of Prague, etc. by the Czech Pirate Party (founded 2009).
Even more often than that established parties tend to revise their positions when a new party threatens them, essentially trying to absorb some of their viewpoints and votes. Recent example: various right wing parties like the German AFD (founded 2013) or UK's UKIP have been hugely influential.
Either way it means voters are heard in some way.
Now you might be talking from experience about some specific country, but in that case it would be helpful of you to mention which one.
There is no value to the red canvas; there is only value in the conversation you're able to have about the red canvas, and especially value in controlling that conversation (and where/when it happens) by owning the red canvas.
I.e., modern art is valuable in part because people will go to art galleries and museums to stare at denotationally-valueless art if it gives them an excuse to talk/think about art history. Art galleries and museums are willing to buy those pieces to capture that foot-traffic, which gives a price to the pieces.
