5 ms·
This essentially gives the government much tighter control of a process that, while decent, has some loose ends in it. For instance, document forging is somethi
by tehjoker 8y ago
This essentially gives the government much tighter control of a process that, while decent, has some loose ends in it. For instance, document forging is something that is less effective than it used to be given digital chips and facial recognition.
It is of course legitimate for a democracy to check things like which plants are coming across the border and to deny access or apprehend war criminals and the like. However, the USG does not have a current record of using its powers for good recently. Example: the muslim ban. Anyone who managed to get around that is a hero even if it was illegal because it's an immoral policy.
Tighter control means tighter control of dissent. Want to find that soldier with those leaked documents? Want to locate that journalist with news of unseemly interventions in central America? Want to find those people of the wrong race or religion that are the convenient scapegoat of the moment? Sure, let's make border control more precise. Most people are actually decent and should have default global freedom to move and work by birthright. US border control is about denying people entry, but the main effect is denying ordinary people with a minor effect of deterring crime.
- Lost_BiomedE 8y agoWe have yet to see another Stalin with all this new tech. Something I hope we never see. I wish Gulag Archipelago was history 101 at university.
- raquo 8y agoNew Stalin style dictatorships are unlikely to arise in developed countries. A gradual descend into modern-Russia style governance is much more likely. We have learned a lot about building stable power structures in the last 50 years. You don't need to have a death grip on everything in the country. A much softer touch is the technique of choice of modern oppressive regimes. Why disallow other parties when you can just make sure the right party always wins? Why get rid of capitalism if you can just pick the winners? Why censor information when you can drown the airwaves in fake news? Why purge dissidents if they have no power to change things? Why control what people do when you can control what people want to do?
- NotSammyHagar 8y agothat feels more theoretical. Looks like they are close to failing in Venezuela, for example.
- raquo 8y agoEh, I don't really think we're about to see a stable government in Venezuela, let alone a stable Stalin-grade dictatorship.
- skrebbel 8y agoXi Jinping is trying pretty hard.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y agoStalin is 10M deads in the lead.
- ben_w 8y agoI thought most of those deaths were indirectly, resulting from agricultural and economic policies and forced relocations and only a relatively (10%) small number of executions? If you include economic causes, you might need to include the excess mortality of systematically impoverished communities in western nations — and I don’t just mean “PoC in the USA”, as I can point to a UK study claiming the government’s austerity policies since 2010 have caused 120,000 excess deaths: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-spending-cuts-linked-to-120000-excess-deaths-in-england/ https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-... Also, if those deaths were related to economic policies, you probably have to weigh them by population size. Obviously that’s still a million executions more than most; I am not defending him, this is just about making it an apples-to-apples comparison.
- estsauver 8y agoThere's some evidence it was not accidental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Genocide_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Genocide_question
- _Codemonkeyism 8y agoIt looks like something of ~7M from the famines, ~2M from Gulags, ~1M from executions, uncertain number from torture. Numbers from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet... I'd say if famines are the cheapest way, many dictators with a genocide mind set would do that if possible.
- 8y ago
- raxxorrax 8y agoSadly, fear was the strongest motivator for policies of this kind. If you get rid of increased controls on airports, flying would still be the safest form of travel and terrorism is a negligible danger exaggerated by media reporting. It is ridiculous what latest generation of politicians will leave behind. How can we get rid of this madness?
- mschuster91 8y ago> How can we get rid of this madness? Hold politicians accountable for what they are doing, from the local community to the President. Defend the freedom of the press, especially when Trump goes on a rampage again. Vote for someone better than him, vote for someone actually progressive. Convince family, friends and co-workers. Organize yourself and head on to the streets. For those willing to practice with arms, join Redneck Revolt. Protest against Nazis taking the streets, protest them wherever they appear and want to spread their propaganda. Oh, and a look towards France and the Yellow Vests is never wrong. The willingness of the French to go on mass strikes and the occasional riot has proven to be very effective against the worst of neoliberal politics over the last decades.
- raxxorrax 8y agoTrump cannot be the problem, since these controls were already implemented. Blaming dickhead absolves the people responsible.
- ViViDboarder 8y agoThey don’t appear to be blaming him for the controls. They are saying you should protest his attempts to intimidate and build distrust towards journalists.
- raxxorrax 8y agoFair enough. I just think it is counterproductive to frame that as a bipartisan issue. You would only get disappointed again if these kind of policies are implemented by whoever is responsible.