Why is this news?

Zuckerberg ist going to call Cheeto Benito and he’ll find a way to supress the trials outcome.

…I’m tired.

The UN is as strong as it members allow it to be. Its a platform, nothing more nothing less.

If this goes through it sets a precedent for the government declaring someone a criminal for being in a political organisation simply unfavorable to them. He couldn’t destroy evidence if he wasn’t a criminal could be the take-home-message between the lines they intend to propagate.

He doesn’t understand the concept of ‘allies’. I thought this was clear by now.

The US is currently directing the gulf states towards China and Iran as the former has large influence on the latter which claims to attack mainly due to the gulf states being ‘allies’ to the US… which seems to be a worthless titel nowadays.

The Apache could also possibly have been downed by Israel to sabotage the ‘peace talks’.

My two cents:

It’s unlikely Cuba is able to fend off an American bombing campaign / possible invasion, given the US wasn’t ruled by a maniac surrounded by yes-men lacking competence. However it is also unlikely that a) this US admin is able to pull off a well planned and organized intervention/invasion, Mango Mussolini is first of all to impatient b) the US would be able to win anything in this conflict as the sure as hell won’t be able to install a pro-US regime let alone govern the island themselves… this is also the reason nobody since Kennedy tried it.

Most probable outcome would be Israelian playbook the US is trying to experiment with in Iran: Bomb necessary infrastructure to ruins and let civilians suffer in order to weaken the nation you’re attacking and claim victory even though you achieved nothing besides willingly breaking international law.

I’d argue the windows are way to big for a plane as well…

On a positive note:

It’s fairly probable that someone inside those companys doesn’t pay enough attention due to being overly confindent in the product… and we’ll see leaks of classified data decades before they would have been available to the piblic.

Just as if there was a reason the US didn’t attack Iran directly in the last decades eventhough the theocracy dethroned their puppet…

I understand exactly what you mean.

But at the same time, I also believe that the inherent problem with our representative democracies is this: Voters are asked about EVERY issue all at once every four years and then vote for ONE representative party. So, in the end, everyone ends up voting on a whole bunch of issues that neither interest nor affect them. Worse still: when checks and balances are undermined, as is currently the case, the elected representatives can do whatever they want for four years.

In the best-case scenario, the majority of today’s voters inform themselves about the current campaign promises and forecasts a few weeks before the election and then lose interest again for four years. Or, to put it another way, the system actually provokes the “I don’t do politics” attitude among a majority of voters.

However, if the effects of their own decisions were transparent and immediate, I believe there would be a greater willingness to actually inform themselves.

And on the topic of demagoguery and populism: If people had the opportunity to vote against immigration (even if you don’t agree with that position) without undermining democracy through a corrupt bunch of politicians, we as a society would still be better off than in the current situation, where emotionally charged issues are used to make dictators and shitty politics palatable to people.

That’s a framework for a technocracy. The question here was for a blueprint for an anarchist society.

And if we take your line of thinking further: At what point do you stop denying people the right to vote?

Should only those in a particular industry have a say when it comes to regulating that industry? In that case, issues like environmental and consumer protection would become unenforceable… because why would a CEO or worker care about the impact their own actions have on the rest of society if regulation can be framed as a threat to their own job?

I would argue that neither you nor most other people like making bad decisions, right?

If, after the vote, there’s no representative—aka “those up there”—to blame for your own bad decision, that probably sets off a learning process where you either do better research next time or, if you’re too unsure or not interested in the topic, stay out of it and leave the choice to people who think they know more about it.

Without fixed terms, you can vote again in six months if you realize that your decision isn’t solving the problem and enough other people feel the same way… whereas now you have to rely on a representative to make decisions in your best interest (and not in the interest of their own wallet), and, if the decision turns out to be bad for you, hope that another government will revisit the law in 20 years.

You may as well just form government by having your largest 500 companies nominate a representative from their board.

That’s basically the case right now, so it wouldn’t even constitute a deterioration?

In the system I’ve proposed, however, this would only work until enough resistance to corporate practices builds up because the business model harms the majority. Since there are no legislative terms, such practices could be stopped more quickly than in today’s system, where industry simply buys off the newly elected representatives and can then carry on as before for another four years…

Thank you!

That’s my point.

I basically agree with you.

However, the slowness of paper-based administration is the reason why we’ve ended up with the (increasingly) poor solution of representative systems and the corruption that goes hand in hand with them.

In an age where fake news and propaganda spread in real time, I believe our democracies must also find a way to react more quickly… The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else in real time; in my opinion, it’s time to use this FOR rather than AGAINST our societies.

f that is the premise, then any form of anarchist society is obsolete.

I was responding here to a question about a blueprint for an anarchist social order. That presupposes a reasonably positive view of human nature… which, in my opinion, is actually the more realistic one.

Otherwise, we’ll always need an authoritarian system that patronizes “the stupid people” and looks after them… a narrative that is used to justify domination over others and is deeply rooted in our societies today.

Open source, direct internet democracy.

Let anyone vote on anything basically.

My hope is voters tend to vote on matters relevant to them providing initative to get/beeing informed on the matter they vote on.

I see representative systems as root of corruption so my solution calls for a system with direct decisions without political representatives.

Left out the part where the US/Israel bombed Iran TWICE during ongoing negotiations. Read earlier that the draft for an UN security council resolution demands Iran to go ,with good faith" into negotiations with US/Israel… who came up with this, did they miss the last two rounds of negotiation-bombing?

Having the same thought.

If capitalism eats its own children it might force the world to use FOSS and non-proprietary company structures.

Doesn’t this boil down to self-censorship in public? Better not critizise the government in public becaus you never know whos waring smart glasses…