I didn't mean so philosophically. I meant more practically. Unless you are suggesting a malicious spy leaking secrets to the enemy should only be treated like a whistleblower, which I seriously doubt is the case.
> If you let someone else make that decision for you...
Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments).
If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy?
And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud.
> if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf?
This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)
Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions. All nations (worth a damn) derive their legitimacy from the people, people just like you. If you can't do it, you can't expect anyone else to.
That's very general and maybe not very helpful here, but I still wanted to make the point, because I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts". I can accept teachers, so that ideally when they're done with me, I'm an "expert", too. But I don't trust those who would just remain as experts hovering in some vague place above you. From what I learned about life so far, those are all hacks.
And if these things are too complicated for regular citizens to understand, then they need to be made less complicated, or we need better citizens. Democracy in an industrialized world is no trivial task.
Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others.
Yes, of course. But you still use indicators for that, yes? If you visited a new doctor, and you heard loud screams, you would slip out again. If a friend recommends a dentist and you're currently looking for a good one, you'll give the recommended one a try first, that sort of thing. I've seen doctors do shit (to others) that made me not EVER trust one blindly. I am usually lucky with mine, but I do pay attention to them, I do second-guess them, I measure up their character, how peaceful and concentrated they are, versus just loud and constantly on the move, etc. At the end of the day, nobody but my own immune system, family and friends truly care about my well-being, to the point they'd loose sleep over it.
> Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions.
I completely agree. And I agree with this as well:
> I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts".
But I think it's important to understand that whether you think Snowden is a whistleblower or a traitor, you are making that decision in part based on "experts." You are trusting people who haven't proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
We don't know everything (or maybe we do, it's difficult to say). Sure, we can say "Hey, he told us these things that were true." But I also don't have any reason to trust him outright. So, on one hand, I have valid reasons to distrust the government, but I also have valid reasons to distrust Snowden.
So on one hand, I want to believe he's told the entire story, and is being completely truthful. But on the other hand, on multiple levels he's demonstrated his untrustworthiness.
For what it's worth, I haven't decided Snowden is "a good guy". (I'm not 100% sure of anything in life other than "something exists", and so far I don't even know what "exists" means) But I consider it likely enough that I wouldn't feel good about anything but a very, public trial, where everybody moves reaaal slow and I can see their hands at all times. [which is silly of me to say, because I'm not even an US citizen, but that's how I think and feel about this, doubly so if I were one :P]
All those people, even officials who are already yelling traitor and espionage? Restrain those first, show them their place, before you ask Snowden to come into their reach.
Some guy who leaked slides is on the run, while the man with kill lists resides in the White house; there is so much wrong with that picture. Maybe Snowden should get a trial, but not one presided over by a bunch of hardened criminals who just happen to have the law on their side because they can't keep their fingers off it.
You look at the issue, and then you make the decision to either tell your government to pursue him or tell your government to back off. Everyone gets to finish the sentence "I think the government should..." as they choose.
Well then any good person would want the government to pursue him to be tried, so he could be found innocent by his peers and allowed to come home. But then a lot of people don't want to see that happen, and would rather see him exiled.
Of course, if he's guilty of some greater crime, I'd always want to see him punished. For me, it's simple.
But it's really not. It's not as simple as saying you want the government to pursue him or not, especially now when the information is still coming in.
Regardless, this is deviating from my original question, and I think you are missing the point.
> If you let someone else make that decision for you...
Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments).
If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy?
And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud.
> if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf?
This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)