8 ms·

i'd like to see a movement which clearly places the internet above the sovereignty of any nation

by exit 15y ago

rheide 15y ago
I'd like to see pigs fly.
- kahnship 15y ago
  The sheep have downvoted you. In other words, the kids don't get it. In other words, they don't deserve the freedom they have.
fleitz 15y ago
it's called humanity. The sovereignty of your nation is really only important to your sovereign. No one else really cares, except insofar as much as your sovereign can steal money from you and give it to them. Stop confusing your 'country' with your 'nation state' the two are not synonymous. Your country is important because it contains people with whom you share culture, your nation state is a bunch of pieces of paper and lines drawn on a map, if no one believed in these pieces of paper and lines on maps it would cease to exist. The nation state is next on the list of business models that the internet is going to kill. They aren't going to take it lightly.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  I care. It's little things like not having all my stuff taken from me by armed thugs and not getting murdered that are important to me. I guess you value information freedom over basic living conditions huh. I also like this thing called democracy and freedom of speech, which a bunch of people, normal everyday people like me, round the world really don't like. There's a hell of a lot of them. And even if they do like democracy, they also rather like this totally bizarre idea to me called religion. In my sovereign state is pretty insignificant. I can poke fun at it. They makes a lot, billions of people, not very happy. Just not in my little sovereign state. It's great being in my country. There's a social state, which a bunch of American's think is a really bad idea but which I, and a lot of my sovereign state, happen to think is pretty nifty. So before you start saying that the sovereignty of your nation is really only important to your sovereign, take a look at all the people in England who love being English, France, who love being French, Iranians, who love being Iranian, Indians, who love being Indian, Chinese, who love being Chinese, Russians, who love being Russians. You get the idea. I personally think you and reality are very far divorced in your views of sovereignty. A lot of people like it.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure thats the same reasoning Kings and Queens used for thousands of years to describe all the horrible things that would happen should the people be put in charge. Go ask your average cop how many people they arrested for armed robbery and murder, then ask them how many seat belt tickets they handed out.
    - parasubvert 15y ago
      Many horrible things have happened when "the people" WERE put in charge. The difference with democracy is not that you pick better leaders, it's that the majority is free to pick the leaders they want. It is arguably as easy to pick a scoundrel as bloodline was.
      - arethuza 15y ago
        If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control (somewhat to their own surprise) and did anything they deemed necessary to maintain their grip on power - mostly by killing anyone who could conceivably be an opponent.
        anamax 15y ago
        > If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control And this time things are going to be different because ....? A huge fraction, if not most, revolutions end badly.
        beedogs 15y ago
        Badly for whom?
        anamax 15y ago
- danielsoneg 15y ago
  Not to be pedantic (who am I kidding, this is the internet) but I believe the people with whom you share culture is called your Nation, not your Country - which is, however, distinct from your "Nation State" as you point out.
sigzero 15y ago
Not only no but hell no. There is no justification you could give me to think that would be a 'good' idea.
ratsbane 15y ago
I just accidentally down voted this when I meant to up vote. IPad, small arrows, big fingers. Sorry about that. [edit] not that I completely agree, just that I think it's an idea worth more exploration.
bdunbar 15y ago
places the internet above the sovereignty of any nation How would that work?
cabalamat 15y ago
It's called the Pirate Party.
orblivion 15y ago
My personal feeling: It's sortof inevitable. Governments are subject to economic forces. They can't make the Internet go away by decree. They can make their country's access go away by decree, but that's economic suicide. For example, does China want to risk giving their citizens access to all the goodies on the other side of the great firewall? But they have to do it to keep up. They will decide that ruling over a prosperous country is worth more to them than being a tyrant.

i'd like to see a movement which clearly places the internet above the sovereignty of any nation

by exit 15y ago

i'd like to see a movement which clearly places the internet above the sovereignty of any nation

rheide 15y ago

I'd like to see pigs fly.

kahnship 15y ago
The sheep have downvoted you. In other words, the kids don't get it. In other words, they don't deserve the freedom they have.

fleitz 15y ago

it's called humanity. The sovereignty of your nation is really only important to your sovereign. No one else really cares, except insofar as much as your sovereign can steal money from you and give it to them. Stop confusing your 'country' with your 'nation state' the two are not synonymous. Your country is important because it contains people with whom you share culture, your nation state is a bunch of pieces of paper and lines drawn on a map, if no one believed in these pieces of paper and lines on maps it would cease to exist. The nation state is next on the list of business models that the internet is going to kill. They aren't going to take it lightly.

mattmanser 15y ago
I care. It's little things like not having all my stuff taken from me by armed thugs and not getting murdered that are important to me. I guess you value information freedom over basic living conditions huh. I also like this thing called democracy and freedom of speech, which a bunch of people, normal everyday people like me, round the world really don't like. There's a hell of a lot of them. And even if they do like democracy, they also rather like this totally bizarre idea to me called religion. In my sovereign state is pretty insignificant. I can poke fun at it. They makes a lot, billions of people, not very happy. Just not in my little sovereign state. It's great being in my country. There's a social state, which a bunch of American's think is a really bad idea but which I, and a lot of my sovereign state, happen to think is pretty nifty. So before you start saying that the sovereignty of your nation is really only important to your sovereign, take a look at all the people in England who love being English, France, who love being French, Iranians, who love being Iranian, Indians, who love being Indian, Chinese, who love being Chinese, Russians, who love being Russians. You get the idea. I personally think you and reality are very far divorced in your views of sovereignty. A lot of people like it.
- fleitz 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure thats the same reasoning Kings and Queens used for thousands of years to describe all the horrible things that would happen should the people be put in charge. Go ask your average cop how many people they arrested for armed robbery and murder, then ask them how many seat belt tickets they handed out.
  - parasubvert 15y ago
    Many horrible things have happened when "the people" WERE put in charge. The difference with democracy is not that you pick better leaders, it's that the majority is free to pick the leaders they want. It is arguably as easy to pick a scoundrel as bloodline was.
    - arethuza 15y ago
      If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control (somewhat to their own surprise) and did anything they deemed necessary to maintain their grip on power - mostly by killing anyone who could conceivably be an opponent.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control And this time things are going to be different because ....? A huge fraction, if not most, revolutions end badly.
        beedogs 15y ago
        Badly for whom?
        anamax 15y ago
danielsoneg 15y ago
Not to be pedantic (who am I kidding, this is the internet) but I believe the people with whom you share culture is called your Nation, not your Country - which is, however, distinct from your "Nation State" as you point out.

sigzero 15y ago

Not only no but hell no. There is no justification you could give me to think that would be a 'good' idea.

ratsbane 15y ago

I just accidentally down voted this when I meant to up vote. IPad, small arrows, big fingers. Sorry about that. [edit] not that I completely agree, just that I think it's an idea worth more exploration.

bdunbar 15y ago

places the internet above the sovereignty of any nation How would that work?

cabalamat 15y ago

It's called the Pirate Party.

orblivion 15y ago

My personal feeling: It's sortof inevitable. Governments are subject to economic forces. They can't make the Internet go away by decree. They can make their country's access go away by decree, but that's economic suicide. For example, does China want to risk giving their citizens access to all the goodies on the other side of the great firewall? But they have to do it to keep up. They will decide that ruling over a prosperous country is worth more to them than being a tyrant.