4 ms·

- Social Media doesn't have age restrictions, so in a sophisticated society it would be illegal for underage people to have an account on those platforms. That'

• verisimi 1y ago
  You are just listing the laws that the UN (an unelected self-proclaimed authority) already has planned. But living in a highly legislated society, is not advancing anything for individuals - people will be far less free. Lots of legislation is the wrong direction for those who value quality of life.
  • ako 1y ago
    That is just nonsense, most people would enjoy living in a society with the right legislation much more than a society with no legislation. How are you less free if there’s no genocide, nor invasions? To me it feels you’re just thoughtlessly repeating nonsense produced by rightwing America.
    • nradov 1y ago
      The USA hasn't had any invasions or genocides lately. That's probably why so many foreigners want to immigrate here.
    • verisimi 1y ago
      Legislating against genocide or whatever, doesn't make it so. What you have is a society with lots of legislation. Lots of well-meaning legislation has a genuine negative impact on people daily. Think about queues in airports because of terrorists, or traffic cameras, or - the issue we have at present - the developments towards de-anonymising the internet because of children, terrorists. Legislation has a cost. One has to wonder whether the 'side effects' of legislation were actually the intended effects, and that the main target the legislation was intended to solve was merely an excuse. Edited for clarity.
  • Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    > But living in a highly legislated society, is not advancing anything for individuals - people will be far less free. Legislation against polluting, for example, gives you the freedom to swim lakes and rivers and eat their fish without getting poisoned. Or to breathe the air without it destroying your lungs. Regulations can give the freedom to not have financial industries 'fee' you to death. Laws can be to used ensure that you have the freedom to push back against the many other encroachments that powerful companies and corporations will always be grabbing for. In fact its our only defense. You look at laws as restricting individuals, and while that is sometimes the case, their real power is restricting and holding back the worst behaviors of tech companies, factories, banks, insurance companies, tele-service providers, mega-retail chains, property owners, health service providers and all the other key components that make our society run. If they have free reign to do whatever whenever, they will inevitably consolidate, monopolize, and then use that power to squeeze every last bit of an individual's freedom. Not just because they could set any arbitrary pricing (see drug companies), but also dictate behaviors through TOS. All of this will be for their benefit only, at the expense of your freedom. We need all of these industries to make everything work, but without laws and regulations, things can pretty dystopian for the freedom of the average individual. The heads of these industries will be doing great though, so there's that.
    • verisimi 1y ago
      Honestly, I read this and feel confused. You don't need legislation to swim or eat fish. In a real way, the legislation sanctions a certain level of poisoning to be acceptable. How much fluoride in water, zinc or metals in food, can we 'fortify' food with iron filings and chalk (calcium). The problem you seem to miss, is that the legislation is already written in favour of the corporations and government in the first place. It is not about the citizens, it just has to appear that way for people to buy into it. Corporations already have free reign to act as they like - mobile phones are essentially government id at this point - the governance system is delighted that they have access to your private information. There is no concern with protecting people from the worst corporate actions. Corporations are already monopolies, and this is fine. The legislation is already corporate and merely pays lip service to citizens/consumers - it's there to to provides cover for corporates, as well as providing other benefits, such as creating huge barriers to entry via licensing, etc.
  • bawolff 1y ago
    > You are just listing the laws that the UN (an unelected self-proclaimed authority) already has planned. The UN doesn't make laws, it just brings countries together to talk things through and maybe make treaties together. But in the end its always individual countries making the laws†. † im skipping over the unsc's power to make binding rulings under international law because i dont think that is the type of law you mean. Groups that are part of the UN like the ICJ and ILC have a role in determining intl law, but they more eludicate it, they dont make it.
• tbrownaw 1y ago
  - why? - aiui sanctions tend to not be super effective at forcing improvements, so again why? - as opposed to what? - sounds silly, details plz? - this is foolish and would not have the effects that proponents seem to think it would - this is a demand that some job functions be contracted out, and that companies handling cheap roles be small. Both of which are silly. - what? - citizen disarmament hasn't had the best results for the disarmed citizenry - can't be made illegal, but not limiting housing supply would make it impractical - it's generally considered bad investment advice to own too much stock in your employer - it already is - is already is
• derektank 1y ago
  How can you make both genocide and invasion illegal? If a state is committing genocide (or allowing genocide to take place in its borders), surely another nation state must be able to invade it to conduct regime change and civil affairs operations, no?
  • ivape 1y ago
    Not really. Cops breaking your door down to get you is not the same as you breaking doors down all over town.
    • ben_w 1y ago
      While true, lots of people will tell you at length how much they don't trust the police. Also, for police to function, each person cannot be sovereign over their home, they are under the authority of the state whose police force is allowed to break into their home. Same applies to nations: if there's a global peacekeeping corp, and it's allowed to go wherever with the full support of world governments, no government is sovereign over that corp. This may start out fine, but even then there's a danger of it quickly becoming a case of "who watches the watchers?"
      • ivape 1y ago
        Um, okay I guess. My response was for the person who couldn’t figure out how invasion could be both illegal and legal at the same time with regards to doling out justice in the context of Genocide. “Who watches the watchmen?”, the ultimate is answer is God. There isn’t much humanity can do if the fear of God is not there, as humans will violate all natural and artificial law. Everything before that point is just our human experience of collective compromise and compassion.
• alfiedotwtf 1y ago
  To be honest, your future society looks terrible
  • exe34 1y ago
    Yep, exploitation and destruction are things we should absolutely want to keep!
    • 69tg69 1y ago
      If you say so.
      • exe34 1y ago
        I don't.
• bawolff 1y ago
  > Genocide would truly be illegal. That's basically as illegal as anything possibly could be. 153 countries have signed the genocide convention. This treaty requires countries make domestic laws punishing not just genocide but also inciting it. Even just being the supervisor of someone who commits genocide is a crime if you don't try to stop & punish your subordinate. Its also considered part of customary intl law, which means that even if a country doesnt sign the agreement, its still binding on them. In addition to all that it is an international crime, so can be punished by the ICC or other international tribunals. This isn't just theoretical, people have gone to jail for genocide. I dont know what more you want here. Its literally the most illegal thing on earth.
  • ben_w 1y ago
    Not the poster you're replying to, but the USA, Russia, China, India, North Korea, and Israel are not in the ICC, and that list by itself is already ~45% of the world population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta... That also means, out of all nuclear powers and all permanent members of the UN security council, only France and the UK are in the ICC.
    • bawolff 1y ago
      All of these countries are members of the genocide conventon which means that even if not members of the ICC they have domestic laws criminalizing genocide. The great thing about the ICC is that if the perpetrator isn't a member they still have juridsiction if the victim country is (talking somewhat informally since the ICC prosecutes people not countries) If all else fails, the UNSC is allowed to "refer" situations (basically add juridsiction) to the ICC. They can also set up ad-hoc tribunials, like they did for Yugoslavia (which did send Ratko Mladić to jail for genocide). Some countries (e.g. Germany) also practise universal juridsiction for genocide. They have indeed sent people to jail for genocide even though it took place in a foreign country (e.g. Taha al-Jumailly). In fact, the ICC has only ever accused one person (Omar al-bashir) of genocide, and that person hasn't been tried because he is already in jail for other things. All succesful genocide prosecutions have been through other bodies, not the ICC. My main point though is i think genocide is the most illegal thing in the world. The ICC is part of the reason, but only part. There is of course always challenges enforcing stuff in failed states and war-torn regions, but I would challenge people to come up with something more criminalized than genocide.