5 ms·

so for example in any given country, you think the people who voted for president x, and the people who protest against him, both share the same culture ... the

so for example in any given country, you think the people who voted for president x, and the people who protest against him, both share the same culture ... the same values is culture something that can change, do you think your culture, values .. changed over time, or could have anyway .. check immigrants for crime records, check them for what they did, or do .. not what they think (or what you think they may do, based on what you think of their ideas), because you know what immigrants spend few years 3 to 6 usually in any country before being granted citizenship, during that time if they break the law in any major way, killed someone for example, this in most countries will prevent them from being granted citizenship ... so you see there is a way to see if they fit, and that is ... if they respect the law ... and the law should be fair, and the law can be changed, this is only to preserve freedom of expression and thinking and i agree immigration is not like hiring, because a country is not like a company, companies are not democracies .. companies have owners, countries dont

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
"a country is not like a company, companies are not democracies .. companies have owners, countries dont" I disagree - the citizens of a country are its owners.
- systems 9y ago
  no they are not, this is exactly my point, you dont own your country ... you just have a vote ... which you dont always use , sometimes your vote will win, sometimes not what separate a citizen from a resident is ... in most place i know .. the right to vote and an owner does need a vote .. he may have some restrictions imposed by law, or how to use what he owns, but beyond that .. he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    Says you. But shouldn't the citizens be the ones to decide what to do with their country, and whether they're 'owners' or not, whatever that means?
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Yet we have high-sounding words in law, about rights and pursuing happiness. Denying that to others is the highest hypocrisy, is it not?
      - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
        Hypocrisy would be forbidding immigration to others, while expecting other countries to allow it for yourself. I expect no such thing, and indeed most countries don't allow unlimited immigration. And the US is not the only place where one can pursue happiness.
        JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        Seems like excuses for the hypocricy. "All men are created equal" means all men. Not just Americans.
  - systems 9y ago
    if you own your country, this makes you responsible for the actions of your country say you country goes to war and kill innocent people, are you really responsible ... yes, only in the case a vote was cast and you voted yes on the war but in general you are not really responsible, because you dont own it, and because you dont own it, you dont control it ..
    - striking 9y ago
      You're responsible proportional to the amount of influence you could've had. If you were a celebrity of a large nation and this large nation begins an unjust war, if you didn't speak out against it, you are responsible to some degree. Just like shareholders in companies have the responsibility to vote for proposals that keep the company running.
  - fiblye 9y ago
    And if the people vote for strict immigration restrictions, including those based on immigrants' beliefs, that decision should be respected as much as any other, should it not?
    - systems 9y ago
      and the people who voted no, and lost the vote they are what .. non-owners winnings the vote, doesnt give you owners ship of the country, it gives you ownership of the vote
      - strictnein 9y ago
        Elections have consequences.
    - alphonsegaston 9y ago
      Not in America, no. This country was explicitly founded on a fear of majoritarian tyranny eroding what its founders saw as inalienable rights. The reason why we have a constitution that permanently enshrines things like freedom of speech and religion is exactly because the founders worried that some form of "democratic despotism" would try to vote them away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
  - white-flame 9y ago
    All the owners of a company (ie shareholders) have are a vote as well. They might not use it, they might not win. Few major companies have a singular owner who can act as dictator. Also, in the USA, idealistically citizens do not require permission to do whatever they want. All rights are given to the states & people; the federal government is specifically given delimited authority that it can manage.
    - systems 9y ago
      you cannot really compare a citizen to a shareholder (if you cannot sell it, you dont own it) 1- not all shareholders have votes 2- as a shareholder your vote is proportional to your owner ship 3- you can sell your shares, you cannot sell your rights of citizenship .. to another immigrants for example they are not the same .. they are just not .. maybe on the surface from far far away they look the same .. to you maybe as a citizen it feels good to think you own your country, but you dont .. really you dont
  - bad_user 9y ago
    In a company having the right to vote means you're a shareholder. Citizens are shareholders of their own countries. Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy, it's just a means to an end. A democracy is defined by a set of liberal values and freedoms and the vote is there to prevent those values and freedoms from being taken away. > he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet. So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it. In a society we are all interconnected. People that fuckup get marginalised.
    - JackFr 9y ago
      > In a company having the right to vote means you're a shareholder. Citizens are shareholders of their own countries. Being a shareholder means you have volunteered part of your personal treasure to be part of an on going enterprise in the hopes of earning more treasure. In the modern world, native citizens put nothing up for their vote. Taxes are not voluntary, nor are they required for a vote. > Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy, That is simply, plainly wrong. Words don't change to mean what you want them to mean. The essence of democracy, that which literally defines it, is voting. >Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet. So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it. Your thinking is very muddy.
      - bad_user 9y ago
        > The essence of democracy, that which literally defines it, is voting No dude, party members in the Eastern Europe's communists countries also voted. Our dictators called our stalinism a democracy. The essence of democracy is the rule of law and the individual freedoms of the citizens, which makes it possible for citizens to participate, the vote being a means to an end and not being possible without the rule of law and without those freedoms. And I'm not assuming too much here, but within this context, my opinion is that if you haven't lived under some form of dictatorship, you don't know what you're talking about.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

"a country is not like a company, companies are not democracies .. companies have owners, countries dont" I disagree - the citizens of a country are its owners.

systems 9y ago
no they are not, this is exactly my point, you dont own your country ... you just have a vote ... which you dont always use , sometimes your vote will win, sometimes not what separate a citizen from a resident is ... in most place i know .. the right to vote and an owner does need a vote .. he may have some restrictions imposed by law, or how to use what he owns, but beyond that .. he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  Says you. But shouldn't the citizens be the ones to decide what to do with their country, and whether they're 'owners' or not, whatever that means?
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Yet we have high-sounding words in law, about rights and pursuing happiness. Denying that to others is the highest hypocrisy, is it not?
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      Hypocrisy would be forbidding immigration to others, while expecting other countries to allow it for yourself. I expect no such thing, and indeed most countries don't allow unlimited immigration. And the US is not the only place where one can pursue happiness.
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        Seems like excuses for the hypocricy. "All men are created equal" means all men. Not just Americans.
- systems 9y ago
  if you own your country, this makes you responsible for the actions of your country say you country goes to war and kill innocent people, are you really responsible ... yes, only in the case a vote was cast and you voted yes on the war but in general you are not really responsible, because you dont own it, and because you dont own it, you dont control it ..
  - striking 9y ago
    You're responsible proportional to the amount of influence you could've had. If you were a celebrity of a large nation and this large nation begins an unjust war, if you didn't speak out against it, you are responsible to some degree. Just like shareholders in companies have the responsibility to vote for proposals that keep the company running.
- fiblye 9y ago
  And if the people vote for strict immigration restrictions, including those based on immigrants' beliefs, that decision should be respected as much as any other, should it not?
  - systems 9y ago
    and the people who voted no, and lost the vote they are what .. non-owners winnings the vote, doesnt give you owners ship of the country, it gives you ownership of the vote
    - strictnein 9y ago
      Elections have consequences.
  - alphonsegaston 9y ago
    Not in America, no. This country was explicitly founded on a fear of majoritarian tyranny eroding what its founders saw as inalienable rights. The reason why we have a constitution that permanently enshrines things like freedom of speech and religion is exactly because the founders worried that some form of "democratic despotism" would try to vote them away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- white-flame 9y ago
  All the owners of a company (ie shareholders) have are a vote as well. They might not use it, they might not win. Few major companies have a singular owner who can act as dictator. Also, in the USA, idealistically citizens do not require permission to do whatever they want. All rights are given to the states & people; the federal government is specifically given delimited authority that it can manage.
  - systems 9y ago
    you cannot really compare a citizen to a shareholder (if you cannot sell it, you dont own it) 1- not all shareholders have votes 2- as a shareholder your vote is proportional to your owner ship 3- you can sell your shares, you cannot sell your rights of citizenship .. to another immigrants for example they are not the same .. they are just not .. maybe on the surface from far far away they look the same .. to you maybe as a citizen it feels good to think you own your country, but you dont .. really you dont
- bad_user 9y ago
  In a company having the right to vote means you're a shareholder. Citizens are shareholders of their own countries. Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy, it's just a means to an end. A democracy is defined by a set of liberal values and freedoms and the vote is there to prevent those values and freedoms from being taken away. > he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet. So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it. In a society we are all interconnected. People that fuckup get marginalised.
  - JackFr 9y ago
    > In a company having the right to vote means you're a shareholder. Citizens are shareholders of their own countries. Being a shareholder means you have volunteered part of your personal treasure to be part of an on going enterprise in the hopes of earning more treasure. In the modern world, native citizens put nothing up for their vote. Taxes are not voluntary, nor are they required for a vote. > Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy, That is simply, plainly wrong. Words don't change to mean what you want them to mean. The essence of democracy, that which literally defines it, is voting. >Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet. So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it. Your thinking is very muddy.
    - bad_user 9y ago
      > The essence of democracy, that which literally defines it, is voting No dude, party members in the Eastern Europe's communists countries also voted. Our dictators called our stalinism a democracy. The essence of democracy is the rule of law and the individual freedoms of the citizens, which makes it possible for citizens to participate, the vote being a means to an end and not being possible without the rule of law and without those freedoms. And I'm not assuming too much here, but within this context, my opinion is that if you haven't lived under some form of dictatorship, you don't know what you're talking about.