Quantcast
U.S. withdraws from UN Human Rights Council

Forums - Politics Discussion - U.S. withdraws from UN Human Rights Council

HylianSwordsman said:

 The larger and more consolidated a regime, the less likely for it to just collapse in an Arab Spring style event or any sort of revolution. China and Russia, China especially, are approaching dystopian levels of power. 

It seems to me that you have blinders on.  You're talking about the 1984-like states and how bad they are (and, you're right).  Then you call for an organization of those same states to reign themselves in.  If you truly think that's a reasonable system, with a realistic chance to be a net-positive for humanity, I'd like to have some of the shit you're smoking.  

I chose not to directly address the rest of your comment.  I read it all, but really, it all comes down to the apparent fact that you believe more government is the solution to government-created problems.  If you truly believe the stuff you're saying, then I don't know what to say to you other than this: History has proven you wrong over and over and over again.



Around the Network

The epoch of human rights was partly a development of Enlightenment and British/French Liberalism, and the emergence, later, of American Wilsonian Liberal "New Deal" politics. It became cemented as a global concept after the end of WWII and under the aegis of USA hegemony. USA and the concept of international regulation and administration of human rights is American through and through - and was a necessity in order to signal to the Soviets and their sphere of influence that America is here, and that it is a beacon of hope and the centre of the Free World. Fast forward to 2018, and 1 out of 2 Americans believe human rights are unamerican. As USA turns itself away from the world order it created, other states will start filling these massive gaps of moral, intellectual, and economic influence. It is such a disaster and such a disappointment - that the country who owes it to History to be on the frontline of human rights is now a laggard, and its population largely opposed to the very political and legal legacy their own ancestors created. I wonder those who oppose UNCHR, do they even know their American history or are they "American patriots" in name only?



VAMatt said:

It seems to me that you have blinders on.  You're talking about the 1984-like states and how bad they are (and, you're right).  Then you call for an organization of those same states to reign themselves in.  If you truly think that's a reasonable system, with a realistic chance to be a net-positive for humanity, I'd like to have some of the shit you're smoking.  

I chose not to directly address the rest of your comment.  I read it all, but really, it all comes down to the apparent fact that you believe more government is the solution to government-created problems.  If you truly believe the stuff you're saying, then I don't know what to say to you other than this: History has proven you wrong over and over and over again.

I have no blinders. You do. You refuse to address the parts of my comment that address your blinders. You seem to be unable to conceive of global collective action being democratic. You seem to be unable to comprehend that there is more than one form of power, besides government, that can restrict your liberty. I even offered you the hypothetical possibility of a future institution built democratically from the ground up using technology rather than laws, but that's either beyond your imagination or you really are against collective action. And you seem to not get that destroying government from the bottom up won't work, because without a sufficiently powerful institution or series of institutions, government or otherwise, you cannot defeat a 1984 state. Your plan is to have no plan and let someone else worry about it because you don't think it will ever affect you.



iron_megalith said:
Aeolus451 said:
Considering that's been the law to temporarily separate kids frim their parents when they attempt to cross illegally before Trump was the president. it's like the stormy daniels thing in the sense that it's being weaponized politically.

UN human rights council is full of the worst offenders. Redundant and only serves as a shield.

Welcome to 2018, where the memes just won't stop.

Been saying this for quite a while.

And you would still be wrong.  There is a policy and then there is how you enact a policy.  Trump made it mandatory to separate kids from their families.  No other administration did this.  The only time they would do it is when the child was in danger.  When you have Session saying this is the new policy, you have to them wonder what was the old.  People need to understand this was a direct agenda by Trump and Session.



HylianSwordsman said:
VAMatt said:

It seems to me that you have blinders on.  You're talking about the 1984-like states and how bad they are (and, you're right).  Then you call for an organization of those same states to reign themselves in.  If you truly think that's a reasonable system, with a realistic chance to be a net-positive for humanity, I'd like to have some of the shit you're smoking.  

I chose not to directly address the rest of your comment.  I read it all, but really, it all comes down to the apparent fact that you believe more government is the solution to government-created problems.  If you truly believe the stuff you're saying, then I don't know what to say to you other than this: History has proven you wrong over and over and over again.

I have no blinders. You do. You refuse to address the parts of my comment that address your blinders. You seem to be unable to conceive of global collective action being democratic. You seem to be unable to comprehend that there is more than one form of power, besides government, that can restrict your liberty. I even offered you the hypothetical possibility of a future institution built democratically from the ground up using technology rather than laws, but that's either beyond your imagination or you really are against collective action. And you seem to not get that destroying government from the bottom up won't work, because without a sufficiently powerful institution or series of institutions, government or otherwise, you cannot defeat a 1984 state. Your plan is to have no plan and let someone else worry about it because you don't think it will ever affect you.

I don't know what to say, man.  As near as I can tell, you're just hearing what you want to hear.  I said unequivocally that I am cool with collective action.   I said that I want the US out of the UN, and you say that I'm talking about destroying government from the bottom up (which, in fairness, I do support).  My "plan" (which I am not obligated to have before I express an opinion on something), is to get dissolve the UN, have the USA lead by example, and to support efforts to shrink government anytime, anywhere.  I do not have a plan to topple any dictators, just the same as you don't (at least, not that you have shared).  

As for your hypothetical future institution, I guess I missed the comment.  But, my position is almost certainly this - I support anything voluntary.  So, to the extent that individuals, or collectives of individuals (to which they are members solely by choice), are free to do anything (literally anything) they want, so long as it doesn't impede anyone else's right to do the same.  So, if this institution of your fits these criteria, I'm good with it.  I'm good with it even if it works counter to my interests, my desires, or whatever.  So long as it is completely voluntary, I'm cool with it.  

I'm not cool with the UN, NATO, or other organizations like that because they are not voluntary.   



Around the Network

The US is becoming more evil every single day and conservatives just seem to be ok with it.



VAMatt said:

I don't know what to say, man.  As near as I can tell, you're just hearing what you want to hear.  I said unequivocally that I am cool with collective action.   I said that I want the US out of the UN, and you say that I'm talking about destroying government from the bottom up (which, in fairness, I do support).  My "plan" (which I am not obligated to have before I express an opinion on something), is to get dissolve the UN, have the USA lead by example, and to support efforts to shrink government anytime, anywhere.  I do not have a plan to topple any dictators, just the same as you don't (at least, not that you have shared).  

As for your hypothetical future institution, I guess I missed the comment.  But, my position is almost certainly this - I support anything voluntary.  So, to the extent that individuals, or collectives of individuals (to which they are members solely by choice), are free to do anything (literally anything) they want, so long as it doesn't impede anyone else's right to do the same.  So, if this institution of your fits these criteria, I'm good with it.  I'm good with it even if it works counter to my interests, my desires, or whatever.  So long as it is completely voluntary, I'm cool with it.  

I'm not cool with the UN, NATO, or other organizations like that because they are not voluntary.   

There are some really disruptive technologies in the pipeline that could become the institutions I describe. Blockchain is one. It has more potential than just disrupting banks.  It could disrupt the entire market and the way we exchange goods, maybe even a way to verify truth and defeat fake news. 3D printing is another, as it could democratize manufacturing. Mesh networks could create an alternate internet free from ISPs and make net neutrality secured forever, and make the internet free like it used to be, freer even, because it could never be tied down again. If it sounds fantastical, that's because it's science fiction at this point. But the beginnings of these technologies are already here, and the trends are promising. Free exchange of ideas on a free internet with the ability to verify the truth of information independent of governments, churches, corporations, or any institution that you'd have to merely trust the authority of, and you'd have an informed populace immune to propaganda. 3D printing allows them to make what they need and want without need of governments, corporations, or charity. Blockchain, applied correctly, eliminates all middlemen and creates more efficient ways of distributing goods than even the freest market would unaided. Add a few technologies of abundance, such as some upcoming farming technologies that could let us grow 5 acres worth of food in a space smaller than your living room with a fraction of the water and non of the pesticides, or expanding the 3D printing technology with advanced enough nanotechnology to allow for 3D printing entire buildings in weeks to months for a fraction of the cost, and all of humanities basic needs could be met without the need for large concentrations of power, government, church, corporation, or otherwise. It's a more than optimistic outlook I know, more a utopian one, and I don't think it's guaranteed, just very much possible. The right mix of powerful technologies could obsolete government and completely reorganize society, and give billions the power to act collectively and democratically with enough disruptive power to overturn any government or other corrupt concentration of power. 

Right now though, there are just too many ways that everything could be ruined forever and either an apocalypse or a horrific, eternal dystopia would result, and I don't want that to happen before technology can advance enough to free us. I don't know how long that might take, and technology can also work against us. If the autocratic states can master the right technology before us, the rest of human existence will be lived at the hands and under the thumbs of immortal, unstoppable, all-controlling regimes. They will conquer everything just because they can. Lacking organization on a grand scale, we cannot resist them, we just lack the power. So while I do genuinely understand your desire for freedom, I consider it frustratingly naive to think you could destroy concentrated power from the bottom up. You have this notion that if the United States dissolved all government tomorrow, that the rest of the democratic world would just follow suit and not get conquered by the autocratic world. You have this seeming insistence on equating all governments as equally unfree and equally unresponsive to their peoples, and seem blind to the danger you would put the world into if all of the responsive governments dissolved and all of the autocratic governments remained. We'd just be a bunch of people, regular joe schmoes, unorganized, unable to resist. Sure, some would try, but there would be nothing left powerful enough to oppose them. I don't love the UN, but I think it holds the tyrants at bay, and with the right action and leadership from the right governments, the balance of power within it could be shifted such that it could be reformed to be more democratic, responsive, and supportive of a democratic world. I wouldn't want to keep it forever, just as long as it served the purpose of being the only thing staving off tyranny. I would hope to replace it and all institutions of concentrated power with something like what I described above.

If I misrepresent you, it is because I don't understand your viewpoint. I apologize for the shortcuts I've taken thus far. I've tried to use words like "seem" when describing your viewpoint unless I'm fairly sure you actually believe something. The comments about voluntary support shed some light, though. I understand that we will never see eye to eye, of course, as I view government as a sometimes democratically responsive necessary stepping stone to a better world, and you view it as worthless and inherently evil.



Can someone give me proper context?



My true form. You like it?

HylianSwordsman said:

There are some really disruptive technologies in the pipeline that could become the institutions I describe. Blockchain is one. It has more potential than just disrupting banks.  It could disrupt the entire market and the way we exchange goods, maybe even a way to verify truth and defeat fake news. 3D printing is another, as it could democratize manufacturing. Mesh networks could create an alternate internet free from ISPs and make net neutrality secured forever, and make the internet free like it used to be, freer even, because it could never be tied down again. If it sounds fantastical, that's because it's science fiction at this point. But the beginnings of these technologies are already here, and the trends are promising. Free exchange of ideas on a free internet with the ability to verify the truth of information independent of governments, churches, corporations, or any institution that you'd have to merely trust the authority of, and you'd have an informed populace immune to propaganda. 3D printing allows them to make what they need and want without need of governments, corporations, or charity. Blockchain, applied correctly, eliminates all middlemen and creates more efficient ways of distributing goods than even the freest market would unaided. Add a few technologies of abundance, such as some upcoming farming technologies that could let us grow 5 acres worth of food in a space smaller than your living room with a fraction of the water and non of the pesticides, or expanding the 3D printing technology with advanced enough nanotechnology to allow for 3D printing entire buildings in weeks to months for a fraction of the cost, and all of humanities basic needs could be met without the need for large concentrations of power, government, church, corporation, or otherwise. It's a more than optimistic outlook I know, more a utopian one, and I don't think it's guaranteed, just very much possible. The right mix of powerful technologies could obsolete government and completely reorganize society, and give billions the power to act collectively and democratically with enough disruptive power to overturn any government or other corrupt concentration of power. 

Yeah, I like all of that stuff, and I too am hopeful that these (and likely other) technologies will fundamentally change the way humans interact with each other for the better.  Of course, we're a long way from it all fitting together, so it remains to be seen just how positive it will be, or if it will even work out anything like we hope.  

HylianSwordsman said:

If I misrepresent you, it is because I don't understand your viewpoint. I apologize for the shortcuts I've taken thus far. 

No problem.  It is a political (philosophical, maybe) discussion on a gaming site.  This has gone better than can reasonable be expected.  



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuAh1baXPpE

The US supports countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. They even were one of the very few nations who elected NOT to ban the death penalty for consensual same-sex relations in 2017 and took a hissy-fit when most of the rest of the world voted yes to eliminate it.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.