8 ms·

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 sovere

by fleitz 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y ago
        Badly for whom?
        anamax 16y ago
        "The people". They get lower living standards, more political oppression, and bad art. It's almost like revolutions are intended to demonstrate that "it can't get worse" is horribly wrong.
      - parasubvert 16y ago
        I was not particularly thinking about the Russian Revolution. On the "scourge of humanity" side, there's always Hitler, who was popularly elected multiple times. On the scoundrel side, there are folks like Nixon. Every U.S. president since 1960 has also presided over a lot of death and misery, and propped up "friendly" dictators in various global locales, plus a huge proliferation in armaments, often as part of proxy battles in the Cold War.
- shpxnvz 16y ago
  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. In my country (the U.S.) neither the federal nor state governments have any obligation to protect me from criminals (1). In fact, if the statistics are accurate, my country has a higher murder rate (5 per 100K) than the "libertarian paradise" of Somalia (3.2 per 100K) (2) who have no central government (3). 1) See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
  - arst 16y ago
    In fact, if the statistics are accurate, my country has a higher murder rate (5 per 100K) than the "libertarian paradise" of Somalia (3.2 per 100K) (2) who have no central government (3). There have been over 4,200 civilians killed in the fighting in Mogadishu in just the last 2 years (1). Even if that were the extent of violent crime in Somalia it would amount to an annual rate of ~23 per 100k. By all accounts, however, violent crime remains extraordinarily high throughout the entire country, we just can't put numbers to it because there are no authorities to report to. Here's some more context: over 1.5 million Somalis have been internally displaced by the violence, and over 600,000 have fled to other countries (2). That number on Wikipedia is so low because it came from a 2004 WHO report which was compiled using data from national authorities - the vast majority of violent crime in Somalia never gets reported to any authority. 1) http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article782458.ece/4200-Somalis-killed-in-2-years http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article782458.ece/4200-Som... 2) http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483ad6.html http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483ad6.html
    - shpxnvz 16y ago
      Fair enough, thanks for the correction to the data. I think the Wikipedia article could use an edit to note the discrepancy.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Armed.... Internet thugs?
danielsoneg 16y 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.

by fleitz 16y ago

mattmanser 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y ago
        Badly for whom?
        anamax 16y ago
        "The people". They get lower living standards, more political oppression, and bad art. It's almost like revolutions are intended to demonstrate that "it can't get worse" is horribly wrong.
    - parasubvert 16y ago
      I was not particularly thinking about the Russian Revolution. On the "scourge of humanity" side, there's always Hitler, who was popularly elected multiple times. On the scoundrel side, there are folks like Nixon. Every U.S. president since 1960 has also presided over a lot of death and misery, and propped up "friendly" dictators in various global locales, plus a huge proliferation in armaments, often as part of proxy battles in the Cold War.
shpxnvz 16y ago
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. In my country (the U.S.) neither the federal nor state governments have any obligation to protect me from criminals (1). In fact, if the statistics are accurate, my country has a higher murder rate (5 per 100K) than the "libertarian paradise" of Somalia (3.2 per 100K) (2) who have no central government (3). 1) See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
- arst 16y ago
  In fact, if the statistics are accurate, my country has a higher murder rate (5 per 100K) than the "libertarian paradise" of Somalia (3.2 per 100K) (2) who have no central government (3). There have been over 4,200 civilians killed in the fighting in Mogadishu in just the last 2 years (1). Even if that were the extent of violent crime in Somalia it would amount to an annual rate of ~23 per 100k. By all accounts, however, violent crime remains extraordinarily high throughout the entire country, we just can't put numbers to it because there are no authorities to report to. Here's some more context: over 1.5 million Somalis have been internally displaced by the violence, and over 600,000 have fled to other countries (2). That number on Wikipedia is so low because it came from a 2004 WHO report which was compiled using data from national authorities - the vast majority of violent crime in Somalia never gets reported to any authority. 1) http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article782458.ece/4200-Somalis-killed-in-2-years http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article782458.ece/4200-Som... 2) http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483ad6.html http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483ad6.html
  - shpxnvz 16y ago
    Fair enough, thanks for the correction to the data. I think the Wikipedia article could use an edit to note the discrepancy.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Armed.... Internet thugs?

danielsoneg 16y 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.