Zoe @ekg@librem.one

@RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake the idé that invitation can't occur because it hasn't magically solved all problems is bad. What we should look at is the trend, are states today's getting less violent?

@HeavenlyPossum Iceland is dependant on the EU for basically everything but fish and energy. The EU would make it much harder to access their economy if Iceland didn't agree to enforce the EUs borders. It's not Icelandic violence that enforce their borders, it is the EUs.

Iceland as nordic nation. In the nordic we have long history of collected barging. That is the labours negotiated their labour conditions, that might not have happened in a fair way.

@Phosphenes @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake you aren't wrong, but it necessary to define what you want to see less of in the world. Saying that states are violent and I don't like it isn't bad.

Where things get iffy is when you denie states the ability to use violence to protect people from it.

@HeavenlyPossum they have something they call police. Labour rights should be well protected.

They are part of the Custom Union, they are as much subject to that violence as an any importer, they are also part of Schengen. So any border control isn't their violence but a consequence of their "choice" to have a functioning economy.

@HeavenlyPossum maybe Iceland? But I don't think I have enough insight in their society to say that clearly. And fishing is inherently violent, so if violence against fish count definitely not. I could easily be convinced that violence against fish count.

@HeavenlyPossum yes, but their violence isn't. Which is why I don't want to define them by their violence.

@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake okay, that doesn't mean that it doesn't makes it harder.

I truly want to give every subject as much benefit of the doubt as possible.

@Moss @HeavenlyPossum I never said anything of the sort. I said I mean something else by the same word. And yes that happens all the time while traveling.

@HeavenlyPossum if I say that I define a state as what is necessary for a civilisation. And you then claim I am wrong. How is that not a disagreement on linguistics?

It happens that we both say state we are referring to mostly the same collection of subjects, we disagree about why they belong together.

@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake language is restrictive. By calling these organisations for violent, or evil, it becomes harder to see them as anything else.

I don't want to dismiss all acts of what we might traditionally call state's as violent before understanding what lead to those decisions being made, and the consequence they might have.

@HeavenlyPossum as long as we agree that the disagreement is about linguistics, I think we are done.

As certain you are that I am wrong about the meaning of a state, I am that you are.

@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake this is only true because you in part define a state as violent. Which might be appropriate, but it's not the definition I am used too.

@HeavenlyPossum okay, you have a narrow view of what a state is.

And I agree, it's fundamentally wrong to force anyone to live in a social order they don't agree to.

I define a state by what enables a civilisation, meaning it is literally what is necessary for for civilisation.

@neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum no.

I said that the specific violence reference is not universal. And only a select few state has the capacity for that kind of violence.

Me saying that a debate on whatever a state necessary means violence is me ending that debate before asking an related question to the topic.

@HeavenlyPossum I am sorry if I was unclear, I meant I don't think a debate on whatever a stat is violence or not is meaning full.

I can still be curious what your perspective is on state on the higher order social organisation that make morden living possible.

@HeavenlyPossum I disagree. But I have been down this road before and knows it lead nowhere.

What would you call a higher order social structure that make civilisation possible, if you don't call it a state?

@HeavenlyPossum you do realise that a sate doesn't necessitate a global war on civilisation?

Their exist plenty of states that doesn't have the capacity for indiscriminate bombings against targets they don't like on the other side of the globe.

I can't decide of Trump does or doesn't realise that without USA backing we in Europe has to be able to meet Russian aggression on our own. If we in Europe could meet Russian aggression, we would have no reason to tolerate their continued existence.

As far as I can tell without the US guarantee, it is a matter of time before Europe decided it's cheaper to eliminate the enemy on the border. Then maintaining the capacity to do so in the future.

And acceptable results

@sima and avoid re-prints after as well, just in case they decided that the lack of LLM was an error.