11 ms·

You're very confused. Nothing I said implies anything you said. > You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty Uh, no, try reading that again,

by zorga 8y ago

You're very confused. Nothing I said implies anything you said. > You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty Uh, no, try reading that again, I implied no such thing.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> You're very confused Well, someone is; specifically, you are confused on what “sovereignty” means, and are confusing it for having limitations which are directly contrary to what it means. What you claim is demanded by “national sovereignty” is instead radically opposed to it (though it would be consistent withstand global sovereign imposing particular limits on a geographically-bounded subordinates.)
- zorga 8y ago
  Again, I think you're misreading something. > You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty for a global sovereign with geographically-bounded subordinate jurisdictions No I don't, nor did I say or imply that. > “National sovereignty” is exactly the idea that every state has only the constraints imposed either by it's physical power and behavioral constraints it voluntarily (and revocable) imposes on itself. Correct and I'm well aware of that, and I used it with exactly that meaning. So your response to that comment simply doesn't make sense. Watch... > What you claim is demanded by “national sovereignty” Which is the point I was making, I'm in support of national sovereignty; if you think I've implied otherwise, you've misread something. > is instead radically opposed to it You seem to have not understood what I claimed, but I assure you it's not opposed to national soverenty, here I'll add context to my original statement which I think you misread or understood. >> (OP)What is the mechanism by which step 4 is accomplished > There isn't one; I'm telling OP step 4 doesn't exist yet; the US courts don't just accept and execute the judgement of foreign courts. Certainly not in cases where said actions are perfectly legal in the US. > that's the point these GDPR supporters aren't comprehending, national sovereignty is a thing I'm saying the people supporting the GDPR don't seem to understand it's a violation of national sovereignty for the EU to be able prosecute non-EU citizens for crimes that are only crimes in the EU when said citizens are not subjects of the EU. I'm subject to the laws of the US only, not the EU's laws. We have treaties that allow such prosecutions in cases where said behavior is a crime in both countries, but that doesn't apply in the case of the GDPR. > the world cannot function if every country can impose its laws on every citizen in the world. Saying nations are sovereign, that's how the world works. That's what a nation "is".

by zorga 8y ago

You're very confused. Nothing I said implies anything you said. > You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty Uh, no, try reading that again, I implied no such thing.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> You're very confused Well, someone is; specifically, you are confused on what “sovereignty” means, and are confusing it for having limitations which are directly contrary to what it means. What you claim is demanded by “national sovereignty” is instead radically opposed to it (though it would be consistent withstand global sovereign imposing particular limits on a geographically-bounded subordinates.)

zorga 8y ago
Again, I think you're misreading something. > You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty for a global sovereign with geographically-bounded subordinate jurisdictions No I don't, nor did I say or imply that. > “National sovereignty” is exactly the idea that every state has only the constraints imposed either by it's physical power and behavioral constraints it voluntarily (and revocable) imposes on itself. Correct and I'm well aware of that, and I used it with exactly that meaning. So your response to that comment simply doesn't make sense. Watch... > What you claim is demanded by “national sovereignty” Which is the point I was making, I'm in support of national sovereignty; if you think I've implied otherwise, you've misread something. > is instead radically opposed to it You seem to have not understood what I claimed, but I assure you it's not opposed to national soverenty, here I'll add context to my original statement which I think you misread or understood. >> (OP)What is the mechanism by which step 4 is accomplished > There isn't one; I'm telling OP step 4 doesn't exist yet; the US courts don't just accept and execute the judgement of foreign courts. Certainly not in cases where said actions are perfectly legal in the US. > that's the point these GDPR supporters aren't comprehending, national sovereignty is a thing I'm saying the people supporting the GDPR don't seem to understand it's a violation of national sovereignty for the EU to be able prosecute non-EU citizens for crimes that are only crimes in the EU when said citizens are not subjects of the EU. I'm subject to the laws of the US only, not the EU's laws. We have treaties that allow such prosecutions in cases where said behavior is a crime in both countries, but that doesn't apply in the case of the GDPR. > the world cannot function if every country can impose its laws on every citizen in the world. Saying nations are sovereign, that's how the world works. That's what a nation "is".