ieS7rpVU

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ieS7rpVU 7y ago

   I would probably choose the the opposite. My most likely state-actor adversary would be "my" government so I would prefer to not to make it easier for them to spy on me.
2. 2.▲
   by ieS7rpVU 7y ago

   Inside their own borders as well. States are creatures of violence. They are created by violence and require continuous violence to remain in existence.
3. 3.▲
   by ieS7rpVU 7y ago

   >The defining characteristic of a nation state is that it has a monopoly on violence within its borders. That seem like a good reasons for people within US borders to prefer to be spied on by the Chinese government rather than the US gov
4. 4.▲
   by ieS7rpVU 7y ago

   Imagine this hypothetical scenario: The US government, acting in accordance with its constitution invades and occupies Canada. Congress creates 13 new states corresponding to the previous provinces and territories and elections are held. Al
5. 5.▲
   by ieS7rpVU 7y ago

   Ignoring the fact that many of the people assassinated by the US government where not US citizens and never set foot on anything the US government claimed as territory... Who exactly is consenting to be governed? I know I'm not consent
6. 6.▲
   by ieS7rpVU 7y ago

   I wouldn't. Why can't you use banks that agree to follow rules you like and be monitored by people you trust while I can use banks that agree to follow rules I like and be monitored by people I trust?
7. 7.▲
   by ieS7rpVU 7y ago

   There is nothing wrong with facilitating drug deals and there is not a shred of evidence to support the other allegation. An allegation from the US government means absolutely nothing to me. It's also quite ironic that an organization