81–90 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine European countries denying human rights to non citizens: cough European countries have a history of doing just that. Hence why they don't tend to do it anymore.
Yep the world used to be horrible and barbaric pretty much everywhere but we're talking about modern day.
Problem is quite a few european countries right now don't trust american companies anymore so they are working on their own mail service, cloud, network and hardware components, ... (you know if american companies agreed with american government to spy on us they kinda deserve a nice f k off). So who is damaged by this european behaviour? American companies. And now Google is suddenly concerned about our privacy. Mid…
"if american companies agreed with american government" Just as a reminder, The government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 a day if it did not immediately cave in and comply with the secret court order. http://www.wired.com/2014/09/feds-yahoo-fine-prism/ This blog post could actually be Google's way of silently signaling us that the US gov't is still strong arming american companies, and it needs the help of public…
That had to have been a bluff. There's no way to hide that kind of money from the balance sheet of a public company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep the world used to be horrible and barbaric pretty much everywhere but we're talking about modern day.
It was less than 100 years ago. Which in Europe, isn't that long ago.
In relationship to the age of the planet or the age of the species, no its not a long time. In relationship to the age of the people, it's been long enough.
Given the secrecy on this topic, the anti-democracy that was revealed by Snowden and how the US government (and other institutions) deals with this makes that sound very naive. As sad as this might make me I do not see ordinary democratic ways working anymore in the US. However I'd love to see someone proving me wrong.
>However I'd love to see someone proving me wrong. Legalization of marijuana. The government is absolutely against it but helpless to stop it.
So we see a country where there is capital punishment, but it's fine to smoke weed. It feels a bit like government are more in favor of drugs than they want to pretend, not only for the good of drugs being legal, but because someone who is under influence of drugs - any kind of - is less likely to be politically active or reject orders. This has been used in military and in many authoritarian governments.
It could be even worse. It's a topic, like many others that are mostly artificial. It's not a complex topic at all. It's a good distraction from other things.
When it comes to people dying, be it the death penalty or wars then the US looks like a one-party system. Republicans tend to be for death penalty, but even Obama is according to Wikipedia.
When it comes to war politics it remains the same. Most anti war movements are killed off in many ways: controlled media, violence and arrests at demonstrations, infiltration of social networks (as outlined by Edward Snowden releases), the suicide letter to MLK, that just was on the front page, COINTELPRO, overthrowing (democratic and non-democratic) governments, ... There has been no change in more than 50 years on these.
There doesn't seem to be strong opposition to marijuna, just it gives you a bad image to start out with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>However I'd love to see someone proving me wrong. Legalization of marijuana. The government is absolutely against it but helpless to stop it.
I have been thinking about this, but it actually seems kinda weird. So we see a country where there is capital punishment, but it's fine to smoke weed. It feels a bit like government are more in favor of drugs than they want to pretend, not only for the good of drugs being legal, but because someone who is under influence of drugs - any kind of - is less likely to be politically active or reject orders. This has been…
In general, whenever it comes to human rights - or civil rights as Americans like to call it - it's appalling that they distinguish between citizens and foreigners (or aliens as they label us). Imagine European countries denying human rights to non citizens: Okay to torture a Somali? No problem throwing Americans in prison without trial? Sure, let's wiretap cell phones of all Turks in Europe? I don't think so.
Rights are the reciprocal of responsibilities.[1] American law cannot impose responsibilities on a Frenchman living and acting in France. Correspondingly, American law does not extend rights to that person.
And I can't speak to EU law, but my understanding is that Canada's law is similar to that of the U.S. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties is only applicable in Canada: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/sclr/article/view/3....
[1] Rhetoric aside, the tradition of Anglo-American law is that "rights" only bind the actions of the government to the extent that they are recognized by the social compacts that bind the nation together. Someone outside the compact cannot be bound by its rules, but nor can those within the compact be bound as to that person.
In general, whenever it comes to human rights - or civil rights as Americans like to call it - it's appalling that they distinguish between citizens and foreigners (or aliens as they label us). Imagine European countries denying human rights to non citizens: Okay to torture a Somali? No problem throwing Americans in prison without trial? Sure, let's wiretap cell phones of all Turks in Europe? I don't think so.
It's not a matter of distinguishing between citizens and foreigners on the mere basis of their being citizens and foreigners. It's a matter of distinguishing between people who have obligations under American law (people physically present on American soil or people with American citizenship) and those who do not. Rights are the reciprocal of responsibilities.[1] American law cannot impose responsibilities on a Frenc…
This is a design decision that parents have taught their children to believe is normal and sensible. It's also effective. Nothing like an "us vs them" mentality to unify a nation.
But what if some country tried to extend rights to foreigners anyway? There's nothing stopping anyone from doing so.
Does anyone know whether this has been tried before, and how the country fared? Can we look at the data? Did they fall victim to the foreigners taking advantage of the new rights? Or did they encourage a better world as a result of the reforms?
The tendency to exclude is practically ingrained into the human soul. Does it have to be that way? Are people so fundamentally wired to expolit each other that nobody can make the first gesture of acceptance without immediately being exploited?
Sadly, it's possible. But it doesn't seem like we should allow ourselves to believe that people generally aren't trustworthy unless evidence forces us to agree. Imagine living life without trusting anybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been thinking about this, but it actually seems kinda weird. So we see a country where there is capital punishment, but it's fine to smoke weed. It feels a bit like government are more in favor of drugs than they want to pretend, not only for the good of drugs being legal, but because someone who is under influence of drugs - any kind of - is less likely to be politically active or reject orders. This has been…
Occam's razor. People wanted to make it legal and voted that way. The mental contortions needed to support your theories are too great.
I just don't think that politicians care that much about legalizing marijuana. Why would they?
And the other statement that I made is that legalizing marijuana isn't something successful politicians start out with alone. Usually that worsens there image.
Theories?
The other (unrelated) things I pointed out was that the US has a history of oppressing opposition, which is history. See the mentioned COINTELPRO. Known history.
Then I pointed out the the US overthrows governments in multiple ways. Also a well-known fact. Obama mentioned it once. The CIA released the documents on it last year. Nothing new. Known history again.
Martin Luther King Suicide Letters. That just was on HN. Official documents again. Again known history.
I am confused about where you see a theory.