4 ms·

Countries are just arbitrary divisions. Just because you are born in a certain geographic region doesn't mean you are the property of the government of that reg

by canvia 13y ago

Countries are just arbitrary divisions. Just because you are born in a certain geographic region doesn't mean you are the property of the government of that region. Every person is a human being with inherent rights and freedoms. You think we are all equal, but Americans are just more equal than others? Dividing people is counter productive and antiquated. We are all unified as citizens of Earth and denizens of the internet.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mpyne 13y ago
> We are all unified as citizens of Earth and denizens of the internet. That's something we would all probably like, but that's not actually true to this point. Today we can't even keep $FOOs from killing $BARs (or other $FOOs) when they're in the same national boundary, so why would you pretend the world is something other than what it actually is? FWIW I think the U.S. needs to normalize how it conducts surveillance with other nations and political entities, but I don't think that should apply to everyone. Instead it should be dependent on bilateral treaty (we won't spy or do this list of things to you, without arranging with your Foreign Ministry, and you won't do those things to us without arranging with our Dept. of State).
- meepmorp 13y ago
  > we won't spy or do this list of things to you, without arranging with your Foreign Ministry, and you won't do those things to us without arranging with our Dept. of State During the Bush years, I recall reading that the US had (secret) bilateral agreements with the UK, wherein the Brits would spy on the Americans for the US govt and the US would spy on the Britons for the UK govt. This was supposedly a way of working around legislation governing domestic surveillance. I've no idea if this is actually true or not, but perhaps bilateral agreements aren't necessarily better.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Hell, it probably is true. But it is something that can and should be covered an agreement. The alternative is no agreement and the status quo of nations spying on each other, and citizens getting caught up in the crossfire since we now all share the same Internet.
rayiner 13y ago
> Countries are just arbitrary divisions. No, they're not. People in China will not fight and die to defend your freedom, but people in Nebraska will. There is a real world outside the internet, and in that real world countries and national boundaries are tremendously important.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  This doesn't address the parent's point. First, the context of the parent's comment about countries being arbitrary divisions was clearly with regard to human rights. Secondly, your argument is completely circular. That people in Nebraska will defend your freedom does not make national divisions any less arbitrary. It simply means that those who would do so have bought into the arbitrary divisions. So, you are effectively saying that if we can get people to believe in those arbitrary divisions, then they are not arbitrary.

by canvia 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mpyne 13y ago

> We are all unified as citizens of Earth and denizens of the internet. That's something we would all probably like, but that's not actually true to this point. Today we can't even keep $FOOs from killing $BARs (or other $FOOs) when they're in the same national boundary, so why would you pretend the world is something other than what it actually is? FWIW I think the U.S. needs to normalize how it conducts surveillance with other nations and political entities, but I don't think that should apply to everyone. Instead it should be dependent on bilateral treaty (we won't spy or do this list of things to you, without arranging with your Foreign Ministry, and you won't do those things to us without arranging with our Dept. of State).

meepmorp 13y ago
> we won't spy or do this list of things to you, without arranging with your Foreign Ministry, and you won't do those things to us without arranging with our Dept. of State During the Bush years, I recall reading that the US had (secret) bilateral agreements with the UK, wherein the Brits would spy on the Americans for the US govt and the US would spy on the Britons for the UK govt. This was supposedly a way of working around legislation governing domestic surveillance. I've no idea if this is actually true or not, but perhaps bilateral agreements aren't necessarily better.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Hell, it probably is true. But it is something that can and should be covered an agreement. The alternative is no agreement and the status quo of nations spying on each other, and citizens getting caught up in the crossfire since we now all share the same Internet.

rayiner 13y ago

> Countries are just arbitrary divisions. No, they're not. People in China will not fight and die to defend your freedom, but people in Nebraska will. There is a real world outside the internet, and in that real world countries and national boundaries are tremendously important.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
This doesn't address the parent's point. First, the context of the parent's comment about countries being arbitrary divisions was clearly with regard to human rights. Secondly, your argument is completely circular. That people in Nebraska will defend your freedom does not make national divisions any less arbitrary. It simply means that those who would do so have bought into the arbitrary divisions. So, you are effectively saying that if we can get people to believe in those arbitrary divisions, then they are not arbitrary.