Crime Congress just passed a bill to make warrantless spying way easier.

[Teppodama]

That doesn't even make sense. Sometimes I forget just how low effort some of you guys are with your posting.

Like, are you even understanding what's being written?

The US is able to do the very thing that this thread is complaining about because the laws that protect us in this country do not apply in other countries. It's a simple exploitation of differences between how nations handle searches. So long as every nation runs different laws on subjects, nations will be able to exploit those differences for their advantage.

No different than how criminals and corporations will set up shop in some nations to avoid the legal ramifications of their actions in other nations.

So, people who understand differences in national laws but also oppose what the OP is talking about should want more universality in laws, if only to reduce exploitation. Opposing the exploitation of legal differences across borders in order to reduce the ability of nations to perform the opposed action wouldn't make someone a "Bootlicker".

But understanding that requires people to actually think about the problem and not just type whatever superficial thing pops into their heads.

I would never be comfortable with it because a One World Government would have to address the various desires of peoples and societies that comprise it. Europe and Asia are entirely too comfortable with a truly invasive amount of government attention and intervention into their lives. America with all of its faults still nominally has a high standard of personal freedom, or at least used to.

 

[jx820]

This puts us in a tough place. The government can search anyone overseas without a warrant but if Americans are sharing information with those overseas individuals then the information obtained from the overseas individual is legally obtained, even if it includes information about the American. As the article points out, once the government builds a database with this legally obtained information, it's no longer our private info, it's theirs and they can search it without violating the 4th Amendment.

I suspect that this is an irreversible outcome, regardless of the gnashing of teeth. The world of information is global now and that means that government protections we take for granted don't have the same teeth that they did 200+ years ago.

The legitimate only real solution would be a one world government but that, obviously, is not going to happen anytime soon. So people have to be smarter about their own actions knowing that nothing we do via phone or internet is hidden from the government.

The problem with this take is that it assumes the laws should be amended to smooth this issue out for the government rather than to further solidify the civil rights of American citizens.

They could absolutely modify the laws providing greater protections to citizens and their expectation of privacy and they could do it with a much lower bar than establishing a world government. They just don't want to.

 

[MMAisGod]

That doesn't even make sense. Sometimes I forget just how low effort some of you guys are with your posting.

Like, are you even understanding what's being written?

The US is able to do the very thing that this thread is complaining about because the laws that protect us in this country do not apply in other countries. It's a simple exploitation of differences between how nations handle searches. So long as every nation runs different laws on subjects, nations will be able to exploit those differences for their advantage.

No different than how criminals and corporations will set up shop in some nations to avoid the legal ramifications of their actions in other nations.

So, people who understand differences in national laws but also oppose what the OP is talking about should want more universality in laws, if only to reduce exploitation. Opposing the exploitation of legal differences across borders in order to reduce the ability of nations to perform the opposed action wouldn't make someone a "Bootlicker".

But understanding that requires people to actually think about the problem and not just type whatever superficial thing pops into their heads.

You wrote all those words on a two word joke lol. Might be time to log off for a bit and fire up the PS5.

 

[Sinister]

The Government lost that trust a long time ago.

I'm pro-law enforcement in general, but there's protections put in place for a reason.

Law enforcement has effectively become feelings enforcement, and property enforcement. Law enforcement is a good concept, but its just an enforcement Arm of that same Governmental notion that has lost trust.

 

[jamel]

Lmao

Y’all obviously never looked at the patents detailing the old cable boxes of the 80’s and 90’s

They had micro cameras and microphones in them.

None of this is new except them telling you truthfully that they’re doing it.

 

[spamking]

I don't hope for it but I think it would be hugely beneficial in some ways.

Frankly, I've never understood most of the arguments against it. They rarely have anything to do with functionality or practicality and are more about identity.

It might be beneficial when it comes to various decisions that have a global impact. But I doubt consensus would be very easy in many of those discussions.

I've never understood the arguments for it . . . seems like it's simply giving various elite groups more power and has the potential for more conflict.

 

[Sinister]

Also, just to make another note...much of this is a system of corporatism. Right now surveillance capitalism is a huge racket for giant corporations and they're going to throw money around to politicians to alter the legal climate to favor that, which opens to the door for all kinds of shenanigans. Combine that with the paranoia that brought the Patriot Act into existence and it's going to lead to erosion of rights, which also begins with other issues.

One of the bigger pictures in the debate about abortion was the utterance of the phrase "no inherent right to privacy." That should set off alarm bells for people who say they value freedom.

 

[panamaican]

It might be beneficial when it comes to various decisions that have a global impact. But I doubt consensus would be very easy in many of those discussions.

I've never understood the arguments for it . . . seems like it's simply giving various elite groups more power and has the potential for more conflict.

That's what I mean. What elite groups are we talking about? Which ones need a global government for more power? What type of conflicts would it create?

I'm not advocating for it but those aren't real things. We're already running large multi-national governance in so many arenas from economics to war that I'm not sure what new fears are realistic.

 

[spamking]

That's what I mean. What elite groups are we talking about? Which ones need a global government for more power? What type of conflicts would it create?

I'm not advocating for it but those aren't real things. We're already running large multi-national governance in so many arenas from economics to war that I'm not sure what new fears are realistic.

Sometimes I think you argue on here just to be contrary.

You don't see it giving those groups involved in the multi-national governance you mentioned more power or even more control over a higher number of nations?

 

[panamaican]

Sometimes I think you argue on here just to be contrary.

You don't see it giving those groups involved in the multi-national governance you mentioned more power or even more control over a higher number of nations?

No, I don't. No one explains how, they just say "Global elites..." as if that's an explanation. People say I argue just to argue when the reality is that most people just don't want to have to explain the things they say. They want everyone else to just take their claims as fact and they don't like having to explain the origin of those claims or having the assumptions that underpin the claim questioned.

Let's take hypothetical George Soros. He's a commonly referred to boogey man of the elite. How does a one world government give him more power? What new conflicts would it let him create? If he's already involved in power dynamics across multiple nations, how does a 1 world government give him more power over more nations?

If people really thought about it, they would see that it doesn't make sense. Someone like Soros benefits from multiple small nations because he can control each of those small nations with minimal competition from other "elites". Soros can run machinations in Venezuela while the Koch brothers manipulate Brazil, each controlling a mini-fiefdom while also trying to compete in the US. Bribing the leaders of poverty stricken nation far from the scrutiny of major powers is far cheaper than bribing the leader of a world power where more people are involved in trying to control the same individual. But if it was a single nation, Soros, Koch, Russian oligarchs, etc. would all be engaged in competing for the same leaders which would push more of what they do into the open as they fight over limited resources.

That's why the majority of the claims about one world governments don't make any sense. If people were really worried about shadow groups controlling everything, they would understand that fractured small governments are easier to control. This methodology is well known and has been employed by every empire under the sun. Every major empire maintained its power by preventing small groups from banding together into larger ones.

A global government might interfere with US or Chinese hegemony but it would be horrible for elite cabals trying to run things from the shadows. The US, for example, doesn't want South America to organize under a single government because we control this region because no single entity in the region can compete with us, even though those nations would outnumber and outproduce us if they unified. We work very hard to keep them from doing so. But George Soros would be worse off because he would be forced to compete for a smaller number of elite difference makers against a larger group of elite individuals.

But if you think I'm wrong -- explain how.

 

[spamking]

No, I don't. No one explains how, they just say "Global elites..." as if that's an explanation. People say I argue just to argue when the reality is that most people just don't want to have to explain the things they say. They want everyone else to just take their claims as fact and they don't like having to explain the origin of those claims or having the assumptions that underpin the claim questioned.

Let's take hypothetical George Soros. He's a commonly referred to boogey man of the elite. How does a one world government give him more power? What new conflicts would it let him create? If he's already involved in power dynamics across multiple nations, how does a 1 world government give him more power over more nations?

If people really thought about it, they would see that it doesn't make sense. Someone like Soros benefits from multiple small nations because he can control each of those small nations with minimal competition from other "elites". Soros can run machinations in Venezuela while the Koch brothers manipulate Brazil, each controlling a mini-fiefdom while also trying to compete in the US. Bribing the leaders of poverty stricken nation far from the scrutiny of major powers is far cheaper than bribing the leader of a world power where more people are involved in trying to control the same individual. But if it was a single nation, Soros, Koch, Russian oligarchs, etc. would all be engaged in competing for the same leaders which would push more of what they do into the open as they fight over limited resources.

That's why the majority of the claims about one world governments don't make any sense. If people were really worried about shadow groups controlling everything, they would understand that fractured small governments are easier to control. This methodology is well known and has been employed by every empire under the sun. Every major empire maintained its power by preventing small groups from banding together into larger ones.

A global government might interfere with US or Chinese hegemony but it would be horrible for elite cabals trying to run things from the shadows. The US, for example, doesn't want South America to organize under a single government because we control this region because no single entity in the region can compete with us, even though those nations would outnumber and outproduce us if they unified. We work very hard to keep them from doing so. But George Soros would be worse off because he would be forced to compete for a smaller number of elite difference makers against a larger group of elite individuals.

But if you think I'm wrong -- explain how.

I offered an opinion. One you disagreed with. Where did I say you were wrong?

I do understand that fractured small governments are easier to control. The point I was making that the folks currently controlling them will continue to do so and many would gain more control and likely increase the numbers of countries where they hold high influence and control. I'm just of the opinion that the biggest of these "global elites" would simply join together with others who share their same views.

 

[panamaican]

I offered an opinion. One you disagreed with. Where did I say you were wrong?

I do understand that fractured small governments are easier to control. The point I was making that the folks currently controlling them will continue to do so and many would gain more control and likely increase the numbers of countries where they hold high influence and control. I'm just of the opinion that the biggest of these "global elites" would simply join together with others who share their same views.

I had originally said that the only real way to prevent one government from exploiting differences between national laws to work against their citizens is to employ a single world government, thus allowing rights to be consistent everywhere. You said that you hope it never happens and I stated that the majority of the arguments against one world governance never made any sense because they ignore functionality.

You responded to me about the potential pitfalls, global elites and power consolidation. I never disagreed with your opinion, you disagreed with mine. I only asked you for the reasons behind your opinion.

For example -- why would global elites join together under a one world government but not join together under the current model? It's not me disagreeing with your opinion, it's me asking you to explain why you think this conclusion is more valid than the other conclusion. Which goes back to my original point about functionality in arguments. But again, it's not "disagreement", it's "Can you explain why you think this is more likely than that?"

 

[spamking]

I had originally said that the only real way to prevent one government from exploiting differences between national laws to work against their citizens is to employ a single world government, thus allowing rights to be consistent everywhere. You said that you hope it never happens and I stated that the majority of the arguments against one world governance never made any sense because they ignore functionality.

You responded to me about the potential pitfalls, global elites and power consolidation. I never disagreed with your opinion, you disagreed with mine. I only asked you for the reasons behind your opinion.

For example -- why would global elites join together under a one world government but not join together under the current model? It's not me disagreeing with your opinion, it's me asking you to explain why you think this conclusion is more valid than the other conclusion. Which goes back to my original point about functionality in arguments. But again, it's not "disagreement", it's "Can you explain why you think this is more likely than that?"

Who knows if some of them aren't already joining together?

I'm simply not interested in the United States being more influenced by foreign players. I don't know how likely it is or what it would take for it to happen. I don't go seeking out reasons for or against it. I don't care that there might be some benefits to it. I'm just not interested.

I wish the US would take half the effort used in foreign affairs and use that to focus on our own issues for a little while to improve things here.