Even absent a broader objective we should still look to history and understand that government only ever increases its own power, only ever reduces the liberty of the citizen.
Government actions move in one direction, to yell into the void "well that is a slippery slope fallacy" as if that means we should simply ignore all of the lessons history has to teach us about giving up liberty for perceived safety is crazy to me.
I am not sure what value there is in proclaiming a slippery slope fallacy or how that it a rebuttal to the very real historical record.
I agree with you. My point was that using slippery slope to discredit an argument is frustrating because it is practically impossible to know in advance whether the incremental change is part of a bigger objective, and yet we also know that the strategy can work and has been used in the past.
It's part of a broader objective because many of these projects are fueled by both private organizations and public for-profit organizations. Yes, this is indeed part of a broader objective to sell more of this technology. Lots of ARPA money out and about right now.
Even absent a broader objective we should still look to history and understand that government only ever increases its own power, only ever reduces the liberty of the citizen.
Government actions move in one direction, to yell into the void "well that is a slippery slope fallacy" as if that means we should simply ignore all of the lessons history has to teach us about giving up liberty for perceived safety is crazy to me.
I am not sure what value there is in proclaiming a slippery slope fallacy or how that it a rebuttal to the very real historical record.