This thread is permanently archived
right to privacy

| ... is bs. people should not have a right to privacy. there should be a right to surveilance people instead. (srs opinion)

| I wouldnt mind super surveilance, a dictator and death penalty if:
1- the law system was perfect and could actually work with no breaches and a solution for everything
2-there was an immortal person with the abillity to have a perfect judgement as our leader

| Fail to comply wih the above and then its just another shity korea/china

| >>691414 what about AI what would lives over thousands years? "^^

| >>691419 pretty sure ai can be hacked

| It's not about any AI, now can judgement be perfect? There is no such thing as ansolute truth, so it wouldn't matter if a person would rule the world or an AI of some sorts, hacked or not

| And since we ar ethe ones who program AIs they wont be perfect for sure

| What about social engineering? manipulation? how you can trust "authority"?

| The right to privacy is heavily linked with freedom.
But surprisingly many people would be fine with having no freedom either. Do as you wish, but I don't want to be a part of your human cattle group.

| >>691442 my point is that my definition of freedom inclides the freedom to surveil. I disagree with the notion of being free from anything, rather I think the freedom to act is true freedom. Although that's just my opinion.

| *includes

| >>691446
>my definition of freedom inclides the freedom to suppress other people's freedoms

You should do yourself a favor and spend some more time thinking this trough.

| >>691492
I have, and I do not think privacy is a freedom, nor do I think protecting people from X is a freedom, either. Freedom means total freedom to me.

| i think i should have the freedom to shoot you in the face if you spy on me brudda

| >>691517
I agree with that too, so I should probably clarify what I mean. Negative freedom is cool, but my definition of freedom is synonymous with total positive freedom. Example: government has freedom to spy on you, just as you have the freedom to stop them from spying on you. It's just a matter of who wins in the end.

| >>691518 but thats just conflict

| i have the freedom to rob my neighbor at gunpoint

| >>691522
thats my point tho??
yes, you do, and the neighbor has the freedom to shoot you aswell and if there is a government they have the freedom to arrest you and you have the freedom to escape them, etc.

| >>691516
There is no such thing as total freedom. It's a myth and only exists in fantasy and not the real world. Do yourself a favor and think this trough.

My personal opinion(which I don't know how to implement... yet!) is that you're free to do whatever you desire as long as you don't compromise the freedom of another individual to do whatever he desires. That way we will find the middle ground where everyone can be the most free we can get.

| Just blatantly allowing full freedom will lead to less freedom, since someone will use it to prevent other/most people from being free. It will 100% lead to slavery.

| >>691414
So in other words you don't want super surveilance since your demands aren't rooted in realistic achivements.

| >>691559 yes because no one can be perfect leader, I would only give my life and freedom if it was for someone who is actually perfect and can manage everthing rightly but no one in our species has such ability so we should all be free

| >>691556 thats why the current world is better but people still complain

| >>0c9b42
that is something that I have thought of, that someone could game the system and mess with others. It would be a better society if it was the way you described, personal freedom without stopping others, but that is a very fuzzy boundary on what is personal freedom then, which is why I go to total freedom instead. There is no rational way of dividing personal freedoms from others, ie freedom from unwanted speech vs freedom of speech, without it being subjective morals based

| as 4 slavery the slaves and the abolitionists have the freedom to tortue and kill the slave owners, so problem solved

| Thsi thread is just anarchy apologists, not that its bad or anything

| >>691571 every one agrees that slavery is wrong but who would actually go out of their way to fight the slave owners, and thats the problem of just letting people deal with it, not everyone wants to do a certain job even if they need to, and then those who exploit will eventually amass so much power that no can stop them

| I think your idea of "total freedom" would eventually just lead to fascism. 1930s germany was the lite version of this. Hitler and his party gradually stripped some people of their freedom. Even if people had the "freedom" to oppose, any such attempt would be met with force.

| >>691583
in that case the people are just as bad, and probably wouldn't even have freedom in the first place.
fascism is a very different system which holds somewhat the opposite: less freedoms to do x, more freedom from x instead. also I'm pretty sure the main reason he succeeded is through propoganda.

| >>691779 the world started in anarchy and then the dark age came, so yeah people ARE just as bad and thats why we lost our freedom during that era and we only got part of it back when societies evoled and developed, we enslaved ourselves to capitalism, religion and etc cuz its the only thing that keeps people in a moral scale
Thats why any utopia is impossible, we are horrible when truly free, thats why we created society

| >>691779 >>691788
I don't understand! I don't even wrote something like "fack you" or "you retard and don't deserve to write anywhere accept your own 12 iq mind." Don't make my mind broke by your hard-understandable english writing!

| >>691792 what do I have to do with that?

| >>691792 it's not me "^^

| >>691792

| >>691788
I would disagree as in anarchy everything is homogenized (the same) and in societies social stratification causes problems. ofc, they are both societies of humans so at the end of the day they all have their own problems.

| >>691526
>the government has the right to restrain my freedom
aaand that's how it works folks

| Freedom is gay, but even more gay is a goverment that requires to film my every move to know I touched the little girl. They should do it the proper way, with hearsay, perjury and hard work!

>But it's fine if they say No Homo.

| >>691925
what if you don't say no homo when you touch little girl?

| And in a more serious tone, I prefer a goverment that has to outsmart their criminals to one that owns the evidence. It's asking for manipulation.

| >>691927 Then the one standing in court would be the little girl.

It's a sin to tell a lie.

| >>3d846f g/u/rl, you could've just said that you're a libertarian

| This whole thread is just you trying to explain that to everyone

| >>691932 pretty much

| >>691931
im not libertarian.

| >>691955
well i know one thing for sure is that you are annoying.

| >>691955 you are.

| >>691931
How the fuck is being a mommy state bootlicker considered libertarian?

| >>691980 its 2020 dude

| >>691423
erm, anything can be compromised :/

I don't wanna be a dick though, I understand what you mean.

| >>691980 he clearly advocates for freedom and regulation of society via NAP

| >>691990
I messed up some of the ids, my bad.

| You guys should watch Kino's Journey.

| >>691535 >the government has the freedom to arrest you and you have the freedom to escape them

this is true in any circumstance. if someone holds a gun to your head, and tells you to do something, you're still free to not do it, and they're free to shoot you.

this doesn't really sound like an ideology, it sounds like a way of viewing the choices people make.

| >>692513
So it's a Hobson's choice

| >>691400 ok, I hear China is a fine place.

Total number of posts: 55, last modified on: Fri Jan 1 00:00:00 1598640230

This thread is permanently archived