4 ms·

From the first sentence of the related post — “The European Commission is currently in the process of enacting a law called Chat control. If the law goes into e

From the first sentence of the related post — “The European Commission is currently in the process of enacting a law called Chat control. If the law goes into effect, it will mean that all EU citizens' communications will be monitored and listened to.” Level headed person would see that the next step is logically that all communications regardless if they’re in private, in person, etc should be monitored. If that’s not an authoritarian state, I am happy to be listen to why. As for a vast percentage, I mean that topic like this would not even see the light of day if there wasn’t source of significant support; hint, there is. I have neither have preference over given political party, nor would I be affiliated with a given group; that is, I am fine independently observing, understanding, evaluating, and if needed, acting on any situation as needed. Not sure understand you point 3, please feel free to clarify. As for point 4, I covered a possible reasoning why current democracies might be viewed as unjust; if you missed that, might be worth reading my OP comment again. And yes, nationalism is toxic. It treats other humans as subhumans by default, that is non-citizens are not treated equal, and for sure not as citizens by default. If there was a country that treated all humans as citizens, equally, fairly, etc - I would be happy to reevaluate my beliefs related to nationalism. And for your two cents, I prefer plain-English and first principle reasoning, not reference to historical ideologies, list of ism’s, etc. Said another way, I don’t understand what you hoped I would understand, but happy to listen.

fidgewidge 4y ago
"I mean that topic like this would not even see the light of day if there wasn’t source of significant support; hint, there is." Where are you from? This is an initiative of the EU Commission. The EU is not a democracy, the Commission doesn't care what voters think and is quite open about that. It can take that attitude because there are no voters: the Commission is an appointed civil service and the people there get their jobs via opaque processes. So the Commission trying to do something tells us exactly nothing about society, democracy, the will of the majority, how supported the policy is, or anything else beyond what a tiny club of Eurocrats thinks and wants. As for the percentage of people who want to live in a totalitarian system, it's probably about 25%-30%. A lot but not a majority. That's roughly the proportion of people who in polls in the UK during the Brexit campaigns said they're true EU supporters, and not merely supporting it due to fear of the consequences of disobedience. Why do they like it and support it so much, well, exactly because it's not a democratic system and they'd like to live under such a system (they had no answer back to criticism of the EU as undemocratic).
midoridensha 4y ago
>If there was a country that treated all humans as citizens, equally, fairly, etc - I would be happy to reevaluate my beliefs related to nationalism. I don't see how a democratic system could possibly work without nationalism. Why would you allow people all over the world to vote in your country's elections? This runs completely counter to the very idea of democracy, which is that people should govern themselves and choose their own leaders. People outside the country being non-citizens is simply necessary for this to work at all.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Understand your point, though you might make voting requirements that for example require a residence duration. Problem with that is it would likely result use of cost of living increases that would make residence unaffordable by default. That said, would be extremely interesting if the whole world was allowed to vote how things would go, never know until you actually try. Likely closest existing comparable would be the UN, not because of it’s democratic representation, but because on the global nature of its membership. Also, easily see other countries actually making dual citizenship illegal, which would mean to

fidgewidge 4y ago

"I mean that topic like this would not even see the light of day if there wasn’t source of significant support; hint, there is." Where are you from? This is an initiative of the EU Commission. The EU is not a democracy, the Commission doesn't care what voters think and is quite open about that. It can take that attitude because there are no voters: the Commission is an appointed civil service and the people there get their jobs via opaque processes. So the Commission trying to do something tells us exactly nothing about society, democracy, the will of the majority, how supported the policy is, or anything else beyond what a tiny club of Eurocrats thinks and wants. As for the percentage of people who want to live in a totalitarian system, it's probably about 25%-30%. A lot but not a majority. That's roughly the proportion of people who in polls in the UK during the Brexit campaigns said they're true EU supporters, and not merely supporting it due to fear of the consequences of disobedience. Why do they like it and support it so much, well, exactly because it's not a democratic system and they'd like to live under such a system (they had no answer back to criticism of the EU as undemocratic).

midoridensha 4y ago

>If there was a country that treated all humans as citizens, equally, fairly, etc - I would be happy to reevaluate my beliefs related to nationalism. I don't see how a democratic system could possibly work without nationalism. Why would you allow people all over the world to vote in your country's elections? This runs completely counter to the very idea of democracy, which is that people should govern themselves and choose their own leaders. People outside the country being non-citizens is simply necessary for this to work at all.

O__________O 4y ago
Understand your point, though you might make voting requirements that for example require a residence duration. Problem with that is it would likely result use of cost of living increases that would make residence unaffordable by default. That said, would be extremely interesting if the whole world was allowed to vote how things would go, never know until you actually try. Likely closest existing comparable would be the UN, not because of it’s democratic representation, but because on the global nature of its membership. Also, easily see other countries actually making dual citizenship illegal, which would mean to