10 ms·

Reminder: the real reason Snowden could not walk out of the airport is not because of some virtual "passport" that US "revoked". It is because there are real ar

Reminder: the real reason Snowden could not walk out of the airport is not because of some virtual "passport" that US "revoked". It is because there are real armed obedient guys on the border who would not let Snowden go his way. This whole story is not about privacy, spying or politics. It is about your personal inability to choose your phone company, internet provider, or a bank without confronting armed "state" which dictates what is allowed to you. Don't like NSA spying through Verizon? Build your own phone company. Oops, there are feds with an order to "cooperate". Guns and violence are the problem, not all these abstract inventions like "rights" or "privacy".

nobodyshere 13y ago
Kind of a useless reminder. Not a single source given for 'real armed obedient guys on the border'. On what border? Where? Besides, his revoked passport is not virtual. It is quite real.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- snitko 13y ago
  His revoked passport is real in a sense that it's a real piece of paper that some guys decided should be required for people they rule to travel.
  - marcc 13y ago
    So... it's real. It's a piece of paper required to travel internationally. It's not virtual. A driver license isn't a virtual document stating you can legally drive a car, it's just a document stating you can legally drive a car.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      Lets start with "Reality 101". The documents do not talk and do not act. It's just a piece of paper (real) with some text on it (real). But it becomes a legal thing only when some particular armed dude is looking at it and makes decisions. So: the decisions of the armed dude are real, but "legal statement" is just a virtual abstraction invented to hide the fact that some violence will be applied.
      - TuringTest 13y ago
        You should attend "Reality 102", where they explain how abstractions and inventions like "rights" or "patriotism" or "duty" can affect the mind of the guys with the guns and influence whether they shoot or not.
        oleganza 13y ago
        Millions of people believe in one god or another and visit churches where they are being taught about what's good and what's right. Does that kind of "education" make something right or wrong? Does it make it right for me to comply with soldier's orders if he was properly educated about patriotism by some people I don't even know about? So lets simply pray that gunned men are educated well and let them do their thing. E.g. killing innocent people overseas.
        TuringTest 13y ago
        I thought you wanted to talk about what happens in reality. If you start discussing what's right or wrong, then you are no longer talking of what things are. You've switched courses to Ethical Philosophy 101; Reality was taught in the hard sciences faculty, Ethics is at liberal arts. In that case you'll have to consider all kind of perspectives, because what's considered right or wrong varies greatly by who is doing the consideration.
        oleganza 13y ago
        I am talking about what's happening in reality. "Morality" and "ethics" are creations of our minds, not something we find lying around. When these abstractions are used to justify violence, then I come and expose it. I'm not the one who teaches you what's good and what's bad. I'm just pointing out grave contradictions in other people's justifications that lead to all sorts of things that many consider "evil". In other words: I'm not the one who will violently oppose your lifestyle, nor will I support those who will violently intervene in your life. Believe in what you want, live with people you like. I'd only like the same respect from you towards me. And in case we have some conflict, I'm all for peaceful non-violent solution. E.g. dialog, public debate, "defamation", boycott, economic ostracism etc. But no guns and ass-kicking (unless someone pulls out knifes and forks, in which case I'd have to run away and/or fight back, but I still don't justify violence).
- oleganza 13y ago
  What do you think was stopping Snowden from sitting on a bus and going to Moscow? Armed soldiers. What do you think is stopping Google from non-complying with an order to install a fedbox in their datacenter? Armed guys who would go in and confiscate equipment, or even put some managers in jail for "aiding the enemy". "Court order" is just a paperwork to justify concrete violence. What stops you from not paying your taxes (when you dislike war, spying or whatever gov is doing)? It is armed people who would come in and extract your property from you. And they will always be slightly more violent than amount of self-defense you'd try to apply.
  - manish_gill 13y ago
    Armed soldiers are also stopping me from going to any country I want, without a visa. Should I start protesting about my right to travel any-fucking-where? Your argument is silly. "Armed people" are just a tool to enforce policies enforced by governments. It is them, not the soldiers, we should be worried about.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      Armed people are those who make the choice. Gun does not kill, Putin does not kill. Armed dude who can follow or not follow the orders kills. The whole point of my comments is that what is generally considered immoral (threatening and killing) becomes 180 degrees different when some man in a nice costume says so. Don't you think someone was bullshitting us? In my view, murder is never justified. Even in self-defense. However, in case of self-defense, you don't have much choice (and people around might understand you), while guys in the airport don't have any kind of attack and everyone can be peaceful and nice to each other and walk their way.
      - xentronium 13y ago
        So what? That's sad, but in the end we rely on existence of these armed guys to do whatever we need to do. In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. At least we have some mechanisms to influence the armed guys we have now.
nodata 13y ago
Why is "passport" in quotes? What real armed obedient guys on the border?
- snitko 13y ago
  Ask yourself, why does the state require you to have a passport to travel? Why can't you just go wherever you want without it? Passports don't seem to stop bad guys from doing bad things.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Because passport is just a piece of paper (or a record in a database) that armed dudes called "border control policemen" are asking for to let you go. And if you don't have one, they'll point a gun on you. Make a thought experiment what would happen if you try to peacefully move to another country without a passport.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  It's Randroid rhetoric. Their entire worldview circles around the perceived evil men with guns who control our lives.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    It's a deep denial of the reality when you say that. Both my and your lives are 95% peaceful anarchy - we voluntarily interact with who we want and ignore people we dislike or disapprove of. The remaining 5% - is when some dudes in costumes brainwash us to comply with a well-hidden gun. Try to "disagree" by not paying your taxes and see what happens.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Why would I ever not pay my taxes? I have no desire to harm society. That you require the threat of a gun to pay your taxes is scary.
      - oleganza 13y ago
IvyMike 13y ago
It's not just the passport: you need a visa to enter Russia, and there's normally no way to acquire one except through an embassy in your home country. So even with a valid passport, Russia would have had to make an exception to their normal rules.
- varjag 13y ago
  Asylum application procedures normally allow for such exceptions.
john_b 13y ago
If your point is that the nature of the state as an institution with a monopoly on violence is the core issue here, then you've overgeneralized the problem. That is the source of many ills in the world. This situation is unique because states nominally protect certain rights for their citizens, and denying them those rights subjects the state to a risk that some subset of the populace will do violence to it (whether by voting out officials or rioting in the streets). The US has calculated that the negative consequences from its populace in this situtation are likely to be minimal, and the worrying part is that it may be correct.

nobodyshere 13y ago

Kind of a useless reminder. Not a single source given for 'real armed obedient guys on the border'. On what border? Where? Besides, his revoked passport is not virtual. It is quite real.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
snitko 13y ago
His revoked passport is real in a sense that it's a real piece of paper that some guys decided should be required for people they rule to travel.
- marcc 13y ago
  So... it's real. It's a piece of paper required to travel internationally. It's not virtual. A driver license isn't a virtual document stating you can legally drive a car, it's just a document stating you can legally drive a car.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Lets start with "Reality 101". The documents do not talk and do not act. It's just a piece of paper (real) with some text on it (real). But it becomes a legal thing only when some particular armed dude is looking at it and makes decisions. So: the decisions of the armed dude are real, but "legal statement" is just a virtual abstraction invented to hide the fact that some violence will be applied.
    - TuringTest 13y ago
      You should attend "Reality 102", where they explain how abstractions and inventions like "rights" or "patriotism" or "duty" can affect the mind of the guys with the guns and influence whether they shoot or not.
      - oleganza 13y ago
        Millions of people believe in one god or another and visit churches where they are being taught about what's good and what's right. Does that kind of "education" make something right or wrong? Does it make it right for me to comply with soldier's orders if he was properly educated about patriotism by some people I don't even know about? So lets simply pray that gunned men are educated well and let them do their thing. E.g. killing innocent people overseas.
        TuringTest 13y ago
        I thought you wanted to talk about what happens in reality. If you start discussing what's right or wrong, then you are no longer talking of what things are. You've switched courses to Ethical Philosophy 101; Reality was taught in the hard sciences faculty, Ethics is at liberal arts. In that case you'll have to consider all kind of perspectives, because what's considered right or wrong varies greatly by who is doing the consideration.
        oleganza 13y ago
        I am talking about what's happening in reality. "Morality" and "ethics" are creations of our minds, not something we find lying around. When these abstractions are used to justify violence, then I come and expose it. I'm not the one who teaches you what's good and what's bad. I'm just pointing out grave contradictions in other people's justifications that lead to all sorts of things that many consider "evil". In other words: I'm not the one who will violently oppose your lifestyle, nor will I support those who will violently intervene in your life. Believe in what you want, live with people you like. I'd only like the same respect from you towards me. And in case we have some conflict, I'm all for peaceful non-violent solution. E.g. dialog, public debate, "defamation", boycott, economic ostracism etc. But no guns and ass-kicking (unless someone pulls out knifes and forks, in which case I'd have to run away and/or fight back, but I still don't justify violence).
oleganza 13y ago
What do you think was stopping Snowden from sitting on a bus and going to Moscow? Armed soldiers. What do you think is stopping Google from non-complying with an order to install a fedbox in their datacenter? Armed guys who would go in and confiscate equipment, or even put some managers in jail for "aiding the enemy". "Court order" is just a paperwork to justify concrete violence. What stops you from not paying your taxes (when you dislike war, spying or whatever gov is doing)? It is armed people who would come in and extract your property from you. And they will always be slightly more violent than amount of self-defense you'd try to apply.
- manish_gill 13y ago
  Armed soldiers are also stopping me from going to any country I want, without a visa. Should I start protesting about my right to travel any-fucking-where? Your argument is silly. "Armed people" are just a tool to enforce policies enforced by governments. It is them, not the soldiers, we should be worried about.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Armed people are those who make the choice. Gun does not kill, Putin does not kill. Armed dude who can follow or not follow the orders kills. The whole point of my comments is that what is generally considered immoral (threatening and killing) becomes 180 degrees different when some man in a nice costume says so. Don't you think someone was bullshitting us? In my view, murder is never justified. Even in self-defense. However, in case of self-defense, you don't have much choice (and people around might understand you), while guys in the airport don't have any kind of attack and everyone can be peaceful and nice to each other and walk their way.
    - xentronium 13y ago
      So what? That's sad, but in the end we rely on existence of these armed guys to do whatever we need to do. In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. At least we have some mechanisms to influence the armed guys we have now.

nodata 13y ago

Why is "passport" in quotes? What real armed obedient guys on the border?

snitko 13y ago
Ask yourself, why does the state require you to have a passport to travel? Why can't you just go wherever you want without it? Passports don't seem to stop bad guys from doing bad things.
oleganza 13y ago
Because passport is just a piece of paper (or a record in a database) that armed dudes called "border control policemen" are asking for to let you go. And if you don't have one, they'll point a gun on you. Make a thought experiment what would happen if you try to peacefully move to another country without a passport.
nknighthb 13y ago
It's Randroid rhetoric. Their entire worldview circles around the perceived evil men with guns who control our lives.
- oleganza 13y ago
  It's a deep denial of the reality when you say that. Both my and your lives are 95% peaceful anarchy - we voluntarily interact with who we want and ignore people we dislike or disapprove of. The remaining 5% - is when some dudes in costumes brainwash us to comply with a well-hidden gun. Try to "disagree" by not paying your taxes and see what happens.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Why would I ever not pay my taxes? I have no desire to harm society. That you require the threat of a gun to pay your taxes is scary.
    - oleganza 13y ago

IvyMike 13y ago

It's not just the passport: you need a visa to enter Russia, and there's normally no way to acquire one except through an embassy in your home country. So even with a valid passport, Russia would have had to make an exception to their normal rules.

varjag 13y ago
Asylum application procedures normally allow for such exceptions.

john_b 13y ago

If your point is that the nature of the state as an institution with a monopoly on violence is the core issue here, then you've overgeneralized the problem. That is the source of many ills in the world. This situation is unique because states nominally protect certain rights for their citizens, and denying them those rights subjects the state to a risk that some subset of the populace will do violence to it (whether by voting out officials or rioting in the streets). The US has calculated that the negative consequences from its populace in this situtation are likely to be minimal, and the worrying part is that it may be correct.