3 ms·

You put nationalism in a list of bad things, as if it too were a bad thing. I don't think you consider what you're saying before you post it.

henearkr 4y ago
Yes to "consider the well-being of one's own nation before the well-being of all of the other things on Earth" is bad in my opinion. It is bad because you could end up exterminating everyone (or polluting everything) for the sake of a few lucky ones. Happened a couple of times already. Anyway it's bound to fail, as on this planet we share the same atmosphere, oceans, and almost all living species have no borders (including viruses). PS: you should tone down your prejudice that I didn't think a lot about what I'm writing, it's... wrong and hurtful.
- paisawalla 4y ago
  The whole point of exit is that there are too many people, such as yourself apparently, who consider their underdeveloped and underinformed notions of society to be universally applicable -- under force of law if necessary. Put bluntly, I don't want a world where you can tell others whom they should value more than others. That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant proposition and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    What you call "force of law" is just rules decided by everybody for the good of all, in a democracy. You use this expression to make it look like oppression, but it is the complete contrary, it is mutual help by choosing beneficial rules. Helping to build democracies, you help everybody! Except the few dictators, but why would you care for their feelings more than the feelings of the whole population. Unless they are happy being enslaved, in which case I'd say that it is already a democracy, because things are like they wish they'd be! But this is delusional. Planet-wide rules are necessary because the world is finite and connected, that's as simple as that. You impoverish the neighbor countries for the sake or the nation's wealth, and next thing you know there is war at your border. Or your supplier is from a country in crisis and suddenly you can't work anymore. Or your exported all of your CO2 emissions so that you don't produce it directly, but now all your country's forests are on fire because of the warming from emissions you made happen on other places on Earth... But this idea of world democracy is not at all incompatible with locally applied specific rules too. It even already exists in modern democracies: for specific issues you decide local solutions, with the benefit of the larger scale government being that it is guaranteed to not jeopardize the greater good of the whole (in the case at hand, the planet! it is always a good thing not to jeopardize the planet!). Without the existence of such planet-scale government, you end up with local agents (countries) who take decisions seemingly in their benefit but actually with consequences putting the planet and everybody in danger (harmful instantly for some people outside their country, and harmful for themselves too on a time scale greater than their next election -- this problem is solved by considering the impact of all decisions on all points of the planet, thus my idea).
    - paisawalla 4y ago
      TLDR: democracy is rule by the people, unless the people choose poorly or refuse to accept what is Obviously Good and Right. Your ideas are bad and naive, and because you seem to be disavowing my natural right to refuse to participate in this poorly thought out ideological regime which you would have rule the world, you are also proposing tyranny. I don't accept that your idea of what "bad" is, is anything other than "stuff I personally don't like," only you have not examined your beliefs enough to realize that. In my view, you are unreasonably optimistic about the prospects for success for any of what you described, and I assume it's because you are unaware of, or view unrealistically, the history of these and related ideas.
      - henearkr 4y ago
        If you don't like democracy, why would you get upset that the government of a country/region is not listening to your opinion? By dichotomy: - either the government listens to your preferences, so it is not a tyranny, but as you are not alone to be listened to, a democratic system becomes required (unless you want to be the dictator?) - either your preference is to not live in a democracy, and in this case the gvt does not listen to you, because you have no such right . By the way, do you live currently in a democracy?
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      > ...for the good of all... There is absolutely no evidence that this is an intrinsic characteristic of a democracy. This is the fundamental problem with your naive proposal. There's no such thing as "for the good of all."

henearkr 4y ago

Yes to "consider the well-being of one's own nation before the well-being of all of the other things on Earth" is bad in my opinion. It is bad because you could end up exterminating everyone (or polluting everything) for the sake of a few lucky ones. Happened a couple of times already. Anyway it's bound to fail, as on this planet we share the same atmosphere, oceans, and almost all living species have no borders (including viruses). PS: you should tone down your prejudice that I didn't think a lot about what I'm writing, it's... wrong and hurtful.

paisawalla 4y ago
The whole point of exit is that there are too many people, such as yourself apparently, who consider their underdeveloped and underinformed notions of society to be universally applicable -- under force of law if necessary. Put bluntly, I don't want a world where you can tell others whom they should value more than others. That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant proposition and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
- henearkr 4y ago
  What you call "force of law" is just rules decided by everybody for the good of all, in a democracy. You use this expression to make it look like oppression, but it is the complete contrary, it is mutual help by choosing beneficial rules. Helping to build democracies, you help everybody! Except the few dictators, but why would you care for their feelings more than the feelings of the whole population. Unless they are happy being enslaved, in which case I'd say that it is already a democracy, because things are like they wish they'd be! But this is delusional. Planet-wide rules are necessary because the world is finite and connected, that's as simple as that. You impoverish the neighbor countries for the sake or the nation's wealth, and next thing you know there is war at your border. Or your supplier is from a country in crisis and suddenly you can't work anymore. Or your exported all of your CO2 emissions so that you don't produce it directly, but now all your country's forests are on fire because of the warming from emissions you made happen on other places on Earth... But this idea of world democracy is not at all incompatible with locally applied specific rules too. It even already exists in modern democracies: for specific issues you decide local solutions, with the benefit of the larger scale government being that it is guaranteed to not jeopardize the greater good of the whole (in the case at hand, the planet! it is always a good thing not to jeopardize the planet!). Without the existence of such planet-scale government, you end up with local agents (countries) who take decisions seemingly in their benefit but actually with consequences putting the planet and everybody in danger (harmful instantly for some people outside their country, and harmful for themselves too on a time scale greater than their next election -- this problem is solved by considering the impact of all decisions on all points of the planet, thus my idea).
  - paisawalla 4y ago
    TLDR: democracy is rule by the people, unless the people choose poorly or refuse to accept what is Obviously Good and Right. Your ideas are bad and naive, and because you seem to be disavowing my natural right to refuse to participate in this poorly thought out ideological regime which you would have rule the world, you are also proposing tyranny. I don't accept that your idea of what "bad" is, is anything other than "stuff I personally don't like," only you have not examined your beliefs enough to realize that. In my view, you are unreasonably optimistic about the prospects for success for any of what you described, and I assume it's because you are unaware of, or view unrealistically, the history of these and related ideas.
    - henearkr 4y ago
      If you don't like democracy, why would you get upset that the government of a country/region is not listening to your opinion? By dichotomy: - either the government listens to your preferences, so it is not a tyranny, but as you are not alone to be listened to, a democratic system becomes required (unless you want to be the dictator?) - either your preference is to not live in a democracy, and in this case the gvt does not listen to you, because you have no such right . By the way, do you live currently in a democracy?
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    > ...for the good of all... There is absolutely no evidence that this is an intrinsic characteristic of a democracy. This is the fundamental problem with your naive proposal. There's no such thing as "for the good of all."