[Reblogged:The Practical Equivalent of War]

Stupid socialist: "Capitalism is bad"

Stupid capitalist: "If capitalism is so bad, why don't you nuke third world countries first? HMM?"

If stupid capitalists keep characterizing Nordic countries as socialist and countries like India as capitalist, they shouldn't cry when people vote for socialism. When people attack capitalism, these idiots should stand up for themselves instead of pointing fingers at barely developed third world countries which are not capitalist. It is not inconsistent that socialists who attack capitalism/industry does not want to attack India.

[Reblogged:The Practical Equivalent of War]

5 hours ago, Gus Van Horn blog said:

One could just as well ask the Democratic Presidential candidates -- who all favor the Green New Deal or something similar -- why none of them has discussed bombing the coal plants in India or China.

Why the fuck does this idiot keep dragging India into this again and again. India's greenhouse gas emission is extremely low. It was practically zero until recently and the only way it can go is up. India is barely industrialized. On the bright side, he didn't randomly start talking about rape and street-shitting.

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Please use some critical thinking if you're going to ask me a question.

I could, but you usually deny any implications for your statements. Besides, your reasoning is circular (according to you, suspicion would be established even before collecting intelligence. Then you use this intelligence to establish suspicion to search people).

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

If the license plate matches some known suspect, then clearly it would be justified ask for identification at that point. 

Why would there be license plates in a world where cars don't need to be registered (and even if they did, suspects could just get out of the car and just walk across the border)?

[Immigration restrictions]

On 10/1/2019 at 11:06 AM, Eiuol said:

I've made it consistently clear that intelligence agencies would be important, and those agencies would provide the information necessary to determine suspects. 

And by what right are these intelligence agencies allowed to spy on people? Isn't that a violation of right to privacy of foreigners? Intelligence agencies wouldn't exist if right to privacy was an absolute right.

 

On 10/1/2019 at 11:06 AM, Eiuol said:

But do keep in mind that I'm not completely against border stops so you can look at license plates and whatnot

And how would these border patrol agents know that the person standing in front of them is the person that they're looking for, without asking for identification?

[Immigration restrictions]

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It makes no sense at all to convict a person before you have any information. Completely backwards.

If you can't convict a person before you have any information, wouldn't you have to "initiate force" (by your own logic) to search potentially innocent but suspicious people, then gather information and convict them?

Or are you suggesting that it's not a violation of rights to initiate force against innocent people, as long as they're "suspicious-looking"? Or do people stop being innocent if they're "suspicious-looking"?

Why are you using double standards for immigrants? If innocent but suspicious citizens can be searched for information without violating rights, why can't immigrants be asked for information?

Also, your magical solution to let anyone walk through the border without being asked for information is probably the stupidest immigration policy ever and hurts legitimate immigrants.

For example, across the India-Pakistan border, the Pakistani Agency (ISI) trains and sends terrorists and insurgents across the border, disguised as immigrants. Pakistan has government projects setup to infiltrate India, disguised as immigrants. Since these terrorists are part of the Pakistani government, they can easily obtain Pakistani passports and fake visas to India. Now your solution to all this is to just let the Pakistani Army just walk in, no questions asked?

[Reblogged:Numbskull Is Too Kind a Word]

5 hours ago, Gus Van Horn blog said:

and are oddly focused on depriving only Western economies of the fuel they need:

To the extent that mankind has an influence on climate change, the United States is a minor player. The United States has been reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, but these reductions are overwhelmed by the increases coming from China, India and some others.

So, the focus should instead be on blaming India even though literally every western country (and non-western country) emits more CO2 (per capita) than India? Of course, most of the increases are coming from India, but India is basically starting from zero. Most of the reductions are coming from Western countries, but they're starting from very high numbers (way higher than India). The only way India's emissions wouldn't increase is if it was left at zero (comparing increases in India to reductions in Western countries and assigning blame accordingly is non-sense, because we're starting from different base levels). Even after the "reductions", emissions by Western countries are orders of magnitudes higher than India (but apparently, "depriving only Western economies of the fuel they need" is the real injustice). India's emissions should be way higher, if "equality of blame" is the goal.

[Immigration restrictions]

13 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Man, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China and the Soviet Union must've been using the wrong kind of paper,

And China is nothing like the other four.

[Immigration restrictions]

6 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Magical paper! Man, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China and the Soviet Union must've been using the wrong kind of paper, since they write down all sorts of things as rights.

Your IQ is off the charts mahn. You understood everything I said (and didn't say).

[Immigration restrictions]

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What kind of negative consequences do you see?

It's like having the right to life but not having that right written down in a legal document. Non-citizens would face the same problem that undocumented immigrants face: the constant fear that a new government could deport them, since it's not written down anywhere that they don't belong to a foreign country. You could say that under new laws, everyone inside the country's territory would have rights even without citizenship, but citizenship is the only way to guarantee, with a legal document, that no future government can deport immigrants. Without the promise of rights protection being written down as a legal document (via citizenship), it's not really a law, just a promise. Just like rights like "right to life", "right to property", etc need to be written down on paper, the "right to non-deportation" (aka citizenship) also needs to be written down on paper. Since US law doesn't apply to everyone in the Universe, it needs to be written down to whom the law applies to (via citizenship), not just the geographical jurisdiction (which is indirect and incomplete [earlier example]).

Without legal documents, immigrants would be no different from slave workers in UAE, who don't even have a right to get a passport to escape (because they're not citizens).

If you're not a citizen, technically, you're not a legal entity. Just like the US doesn't have to grant rights to animals (even when they are within US territory), they don't have to grant rights to you (if they don't recognize you as a legal entity to whom rights apply). Even historically, people from certain races as well as women were excluded from citizenship. Immigrants would have the same fate.

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not saying anything deeper than "earning the right to participate in government should not come easy, but having your rights protected in a rights protecting society shouldn't be a struggle."

That translates to this:

On 9/1/2019 at 7:39 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Then we should make it easy to immigrate and become a citizen but very hard to gain enfranchisement.

not what Yaron Brook said (and no, it's not a matter of definition. You can't define citizenship away and expect it to have no consequences).

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

not any in order to have their rights protected in any rights-respecting society =/= not any for anything

If not for rights protection, why would all these immigrants be given legal status? What makes it necessary to give every immigrant legal status? What is every immigrant entitled to, apart from rights protection (that makes it necessary to give all of them some so-called legal status in your society)?

If there is nothing more (than rights protection) all immigrants are entitled to, they're not getting any legal status (in your society).

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

But where did I say or imply that an immigrant doesn't need any kind of legal status? 

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

no legal status required for that bare minimum within the borders of the country

Essentially implying that there would be some immigrants stuck with the bare minimum: no legal status.

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Where did I say or imply immigrants shouldn't get citizenship? 

 

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

We were talking about immigration being easy and citizenship being hard

 

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Where are you getting "not having any legal status of any kind" from?

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Although I think any proper government should protect the rights of everyone within their jurisdiction, regardless of specific legal status.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that immigrants shouldn't get citizenship and don't even need legal status.

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing about.

I'm disagreeing with the idea that you should take away people's citizenship.

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I thought it didn't need to be said, but citizens could get that protection, and that would make sense.

The point was that geographical jurisdiction wasn't the quality that determines which government enforces your rights, as you said earlier.

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

No one said that not having citizenship means you are an illegal immigrant.

I don't know what kind of hypothetical world you're inhabiting where (a fraction of people) not having citizenship or visas or legal status of any kind (while others do) doesn't make them illegal aliens.

[Immigration restrictions]

35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

To protect this base, we deem it necessary to patrol the moon with weaponized spaceships in orbit, and to check every foreign spaceship and question every foreigner attempting to land on the moon. Are we violating the rights of others to land on the moon?

If you prevent them from landing for no legitimate reason (involving any actual, past violation of rights), then yes. If you just ask them questions and let them land anyway, no.

 

35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Citizens might be less suspected at checkpoints, because we know who they are, but the reason to have border control has to do with protecting the life and property within the border.

People can travel without violating the life and property of people within a border. That's not physically impossible (unless they're on a 737 max). If they do violate it, they can be deported, but not beforehand.

 

35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm saying you don't have a right to enter a foreign country at will. It is a privilege granted by the government that controls that territory.

I would say that the government controls, not the entry, but the flow of people through the border. They can check the immigrants for any past crimes committed or if they have enough funds for rent, etc but if they satisfy the criteria, the government cannot stop them. That privilege is not theirs to grant. The government cannot control your destination, even if they control how you reach there.

[Immigration restrictions]

31 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Constructing an an actual argument that isn't dumb as shit and begs the entire question, well that's harder than it seems for most people.

Maybe if you stick to actual meanings of words, your arguments wouldn't be worse than trash.

Clearly, everyone has been wrong all along. Taking away citizenship, making every immigrant an illegal immigrant is the solution everyone has been yearning for. Everyone should be an illegal immigrant because anything else is "dumb as shit" and all its corollaries.

[Immigration restrictions]

On 1/28/2019 at 1:21 PM, MisterSwig said:

Non-citizens at the border are not citizens. They therefore do not have the rights of a citizen, such as the right to be in this country.

They have the same rights as anyone else. Their rights are just going to be enforced by a different government. However, once they enter the country, the foreign government doesn't have any jurisdiction, so it's better to transfer citizenship (or give them visa, depending on intentions).

Citizenship is part of the machinery that determines who enforces the protection of your rights. People still have rights, even if they're not citizens. Not being a citizen only means that your rights cannot be enforced (by the government you're not a citizen of). If you're not a citizen, you still have the right to enter a country, although that right is to be enforced by a foreign government (which is an awkward arrangement). The correct way would be to transfer citizenship, so that enforcement of rights can still be followed (deportation would be contrary to the enforcement of rights, for which the concept of citizenship was designed anyway).

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Outside the country's borders, I don't know a good reason to protect the rights of noncitizens as far as foreign policy is concerned.

And what about citizens? What if an American student studying in China or, say, Saudi Arabia gets detained by the Chinese government or Saudi government? Should the American government care? Why should they care?

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

No one permits, but it is permitted because all people have rights

I'm not questioning whether non-citizens have rights. I'm questioning whether the rights of non-citizens can be legally enforced by a particular government (since if you're not a citizen of a country, the legal enforcement of your rights don't come under that government, even if you're physically present in that country). If you don't have legal status (citizenship/visa), the government has no obligation to protect your rights, even if you're in that country (as is the case with many "illegals" in USA currently). Citizenship is your legal status, that entitles you to protection from a particular government. The fact that a particular government has jurisdiction over a geographic area is not sufficient.

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

If you deny a Nazi from becoming a citizen, but still permitting their freedom of speech, you would prevent them from reaching any kind of political power anyway

Can you define what a citizen is? What makes a citizen different from a non-citizen? Citizenship is the permission. How are you "permitted" to have free speech if you're not a citizen? Who permits you and for what reason? What quality determines which government enforces your rights? Does the American government protect my free speech in India? Why not?

 

1 hour ago, 2046 said:

Citizenship is a type of relationship or association.

Between who?

[Immigration restrictions]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

And as long as they're legally entitled to use our courts and policemen (but not our ballot boxes) I don't think it really matters whether they're technically considered "foreign Nationals" or not

But that's exactly what citizenship means: that they come under the country's legal system. It's not just semantics, that's the definition of citizenship. If you're not a citizen of a country (or part of their visa system), then that country's government has no legal obligation to protect your rights. Being legally entitled to a country's court system and not being a citizen/national are contradictory ideas.

 

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

It'd be pretty weird for the police to respond to any emergency by first checking everyone's citizenship or something

Of course, the police may accidentally protect your rights, but accidental rights are worse than the worst legal systems currently existing in the world. Enforcement of rights are not possible without citizenship. Citizenship determines which government enforces your rights. Having no citizenship means having no government to enforce your rights.

 

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I'm pretty sure voting was his main point.

Then why take away citizenship? Sure, in most countries citizenship automatically qualifies you for voting, but what's the point of taking away all legal rights, just so that you can be disqualified from voting. Citizenship and voting rights are two completely separate things. Citizenship is what entitles you to any possible rights by a particular government. If you're not a citizen, then legally, you have no rights. Citizenship usually qualifies you for voting, but getting rid of citizenship just to disqualify people from voting is absurd.

[Immigration restrictions]

16 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Yaron Brook has said "immigration should be easy and citizenship should be hard"

So people would become permanent foreigners in their own country? Would they always be considered foreign nationals? Sure, they don't need to vote, but why can't people become members of nations they immigrate to?

(A citizen is a member of a nation and is entitled to protection of their rights by the nation's government. If citizenship should be hard for immigrants, aren't immigrants entitled to have their rights protected by that nation's government? What exactly does "citizenship should be hard" mean?)

[Immigration restrictions]

On 3/10/2019 at 7:04 PM, Eiuol said:

Beliefs don't necessarily include actions, but these sort of questions are asking about actions.

In a democracy, the government regularly polls the population about their beliefs and acts according to the results of that poll. Of course, your belief by itself doesn't constitute action but a government is going to survey your opinion and is going to act on it using force (even if you dislike that). In a democracy, beliefs and opinions become law (because there exists legal machinery that converts belief to law).

Of course, the actions are carried out by the government (based on people's beliefs), so the people should not be blamed, punished or "screened" for it.

[DIVERGENT OPINIONS ON KASHMIR: ANALYSIS OF THOUGHT ELEMENTS INVOLVED]

On 5/7/2016 at 7:06 AM, RohinGupta said:

Chetan Bhagat’s solution can actually be implemented by first creating a mass Kashmiri movement citing ills of Article 370, and finally repealing it.

Well, the Modi government has repealed Article 370 without any mass Kashmiri movement or support and it's definitely been controversial. Kashmiris (atleast the ones in Kashmir valley) were flying Pakistani and ISIS flags (as well as flags of other terrorist organizations as a symbol of freedom) and clearly don't seem to want to join India. There has been a communications blackout in the region aimed at curbing protests (the curfew has been lifted in the Jammu & Ladakh regions which have majority Hindu/Buddhist population). Temporarily, there is no freedom of speech or freedom of movement in the region. When curfew in Kashmir valley is lifted, there's probably going to be mass protests and conflicts between Kashmiris and the Indian Army.

India is definitely not a capitalist country and it's questionable if this move is economically useful for Kashmiris. However, now private companies and investors (as well as Indians from other states) would be allowed to buy land in Kashmir (so it would probably be better).

Pakistani prime minister, Imran Khan has been going from door to door, calling the Indian government fascist Nazis and Hindu supremacists (and anyone who doesn't oppose India to be Hitler appeasers). Many media outlets are also fueling the fear mongering, with clickbait titles such as "Is India trying to 'ethnically cleanse' Kashmir?". Once curfew is lifted in the Kashmir valley, we'll know what to make of all this.

[Notes and Comments on "The Virtue of Nationalism"]

17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Racialism

(n.) The mindset of consistently acting under the assumption that the actions of others are racially motivated whenever they concern members of separate races.

 

23 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You are lying, you saw my comment as racism