241–250 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stupid question. I actually am a big fan of no borders but what's wrong with this? Seems like America entering the new millennium. Edited also why was this downvoted?
I downvoted because open-borders is one of the stupidest mainstream ideas I ever heard. Right up there with flat earth. Of course you want to keep people that don't share your value system out of your country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I downvoted because open-borders is one of the stupidest mainstream ideas I ever heard. Right up there with flat earth. Of course you want to keep people that don't share your value system out of your country.
That statement is incoherent. I know for a fact that 90% of the population of my country don't share my values in a material way. I am perfectly happy sharing my country with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a comment below about how does this violate privacy rights? I think we all feel at a certain level, making it easier to identify people feels unnatural and unnerving, may be because for long swaths of history we had a certain level of anonymity just by the nature of reality. Should that be something that is our right? Does that mean we should explicitly impede the efficiency of the government in doing things l…
Nowhere in my previous comment does it say that I'm opposed to lack of privacy in public so I'm not sure how to respond to your comment -- that's not my issue. My issue is that someone shouldn't be targeted for monitoring on the basis of their immigration status. Either do it for everyone or nobody. If you're going to do it for everyone, then have a technical framework in place to ensure (to the best of our ability t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess what this is happening every time you walk into a big store , casino or mall. Americans live in a fantasy where they allow large corporations unlimited power but want to keep law enforcement stuck in the 90s because of this administration. Enjoy your fantasy
That's a broad assertion about a whole country. Plenty of us don't want any large institutions with unchecked surveillance power. Up to a point you can choose not to patronize such places, but where do we draw the line? I'm curious as to any legal arguments other than "You don't have a right to privacy in public." You can't opt out of society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bernie sanders calling open borders a "Koch brother" conspiracy. Quite right. It wasn't just that Bernie disagrees with open borders, in that video he is visibly upset. He really doesn't like it. (It was the Vox interview I assume, unless you saw another one) Also if you are old enough you might remember large anti-globalization protests around G8, Bilderberg and other such meetings. It is kind of baffling how just…
I'm pretty sure the people getting tear gassed over globalization at the G8 were against capital leveraging international workers to destroy domestic labor power and the ones getting tear gassed recently are fighting against policies targeting immigrant and refugee communities. It seems pretty consistent to want to protect workers and also fight xenophobia.
The first is a stance against a clear consequence of globalization, one that has had extremely negative effects for the American middle class.
The other is a stance on social issues, unrelated to labor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, that "health tourism" isn't really a thing, however my use of the term "open-borders" was in reference to how detractors of universal healthcare, (mostly on the right), in the U.S. straw man it as meaning that it means the entire Latin America moving to the U.S. Putting aside the implied supremacy of the U.S. etc., I just wanted to point out that this is not what people like Bernie are arguing for and is the…
Health tourism absolutely is a thing. There are even companies that specialize in arranging it. However, my understanding is that it predominantly falls into two categories, neither of which is particularly about exploiting systems like the NHS: 1) People traveling to e.g. the US or Israel to get procedures that aren't available in their home country. 2) People traveling from high-cost to low-cost countries and payin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. Guns don't attack people either. There's a saying: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
And they kill each other much more the easier it is to do so...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil disobedience is a real thing, the first example that comes to mind is ignoring laws that require a front license plate, specifically because it reduces the likelihood that your vehicle tag will be caught on camera, those automated ticket system might move on to the next plate if they don't get a scan. I totally agree with you.
That’s not civil disobedience. In civil disobedience you blatantly and publicly violate an unjust law with the intention of being punished so that the public will be repulsed by the injustice of it. I don’t think anyone is going to cry for you if you get a ticket for not having a front plate. You’re doing it to avoid the consequences of a separate illegal act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stupid question. I actually am a big fan of no borders but what's wrong with this? Seems like America entering the new millennium. Edited also why was this downvoted?
Because constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, activists, political opponents. That is extremely frightening coming from an administration that is increasingly using violent and elimitionist language to levy completely made up charges at immigrants, LGBT, and particularly political opponents.
I'm interested in how you would define systematic abuse vs. just plain abuse.
Police forces have adopted new technology for many decades now (e.g. radio, high-speed police cars, helicopters with search lights, RDBMSs, body armor, DNA sampling and matching, speed measuring radar, tasers ...) and, while it is probably true that all of these technologies have been abused by the police at times, can we also say that they have been "systematically abused?" What does that mean?