NationStates

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:I know. I mean, then the illegals might have an opportunity to avoid it.

We can't have that.

So hang on a second - the conservative, small-government-loving right side people are the ones advocating for government toadies to come stick their noses into people's business, and the left-wing regulation-happy hippies are the ones saying "stay outta my business gummit"?

Did I get teleported to the mirror universe or something?

>tfw anyone right of center is automatically a conservative, small-government type

You don't know much about me.

Nova Cyberia wrote:You don't know much about me.

That's fair, I guess, but I was speaking more generally. Do you favor larger government with stricter laws and/or a larger regulatory presence in people's daily lives?

Luna Amore wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty then?

There's no presumed guilt in this example and that's not what that means otherwise police could never question or arrest anyone.

Arrest requires evidence or probable cause. What is the probable cause for going Papers, Please on a random bus?

Vassenor wrote:

Luna Amore wrote:There's no presumed guilt in this example and that's not what that means otherwise police could never question or arrest anyone.

Arrest requires evidence or probable cause. What is the probable cause for going Papers, Please on a random bus?

How is asking for ID the same as arresting someone?

Vassenor wrote:

Luna Amore wrote:There's no presumed guilt in this example and that's not what that means otherwise police could never question or arrest anyone.

Arrest requires evidence or probable cause. What is the probable cause for going Papers, Please on a random bus?

What's the probable cause for having sobriety checkpoints on public roads?

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Arrest requires evidence or probable cause. What is the probable cause for going Papers, Please on a random bus?

What's the probable cause for having sobriety checkpoints on public roads?

There isn't one and it's quasi-authoritarian nonsense.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:What's the probable cause for having sobriety checkpoints on public roads?

There isn't one and it's quasi-authoritarian nonsense.

Stopping drunk drivers is authoritarian?

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:You don't know much about me.

That's fair, I guess, but I was speaking more generally. Do you favor larger government with stricter laws and/or a larger regulatory presence in people's daily lives?

It depends on the circumstances.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Twilight Imperium wrote:
There isn't one and it's quasi-authoritarian nonsense.

Stopping drunk drivers is authoritarian?

Stopping everyone because they might be drunk is, yes.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Stopping drunk drivers is authoritarian?

Stopping everyone because they might be drunk is, yes.

Driving's a privilege, not a right.

Same with immigration.

Vassenor wrote:

Luna Amore wrote:There's no presumed guilt in this example and that's not what that means otherwise police could never question or arrest anyone.

Arrest requires evidence or probable cause. What is the probable cause for going Papers, Please on a random bus?

Asking for ID is not an arrest.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Stopping drunk drivers is authoritarian?

Stopping everyone because they might be drunk is, yes.

We have sobriety checkpoints that do that.
And no it is not. Driving on public roads reduces your expectation of privacy and requires you comply with certain regulations and laws.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Twilight Imperium wrote:
Stopping everyone because they might be drunk is, yes.

Driving's a privilege, not a right.

Same with immigration.

And neither is authoritarianism a binary thing. It happens in stages, usually small, palatable, reasonable ones.

"Well of course we can stop anyone while they're driving, they might be drunk!"
"Well of course we should ask random people off the street if they're citizens!"
"Well of course we should make them prove they're not the Enemy, how else do we get rid of the Enemy?"
...
"Well of course we have to monitor people's houses, what if they're plotting terrorism in there?"

This is of course a bit alarmist, but it's definitely why it puts a bad taste in people's mouths. Fascist governments don't happen all at once, they happen via small, reasonable-seeming steps that erode your freedoms.

Also, authoritarianism isn't automatically bad, either - if your police, for example, don't have any authority with which to ism, they won't have much to do, and you'll be in anarchy. It's about finding a balance.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Driving's a privilege, not a right.

Same with immigration.

And neither is authoritarianism a binary thing. It happens in stages, usually small, palatable, reasonable ones.

"Well of course we can stop anyone while they're driving, they might be drunk!"
"Well of course we should ask random people off the street if they're citizens!"
"Well of course we should make them prove they're not the Enemy, how else do we get rid of the Enemy?"
...
"Well of course we have to monitor people's houses, what if they're plotting terrorism in there?"

This is of course a bit alarmist, but it's definitely why it puts a bad taste in people's mouths. Fascist governments don't happen all at once, they happen via small, reasonable-seeming steps that erode your freedoms.

Also, authoritarianism isn't automatically bad, either - if your police, for example, don't have any authority with which to ism, they won't have much to do, and you'll be in anarchy. It's about finding a balance.

You're using the slippery slope fallacy, I see.

Novus America wrote:

Twilight Imperium wrote:
Stopping everyone because they might be drunk is, yes.

We have sobriety checkpoints that do that.
And no it is not. Driving on public roads reduces your expectation of privacy and requires you comply with certain regulations and laws.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not authoritarian. And just because it's authoritarian doesn't mean it's bad.

Nova Cyberia wrote:You're using the slippery slope fallacy, I see.

I'm pointing out that the erosion of civil liberties is often a slippery slope, yes. The vast body of (recent!) historical evidence prevents it from being fallacious, though. Please try again.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Novus America wrote:
We have sobriety checkpoints that do that.
And no it is not. Driving on public roads reduces your expectation of privacy and requires you comply with certain regulations and laws.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not authoritarian. And just because it's authoritarian doesn't mean it's bad.

Well I mean yes if you look at it as spectrum with pure anarchy on one side and Totalitarianism on the other, it is more to the authoritarian side than not requiring it at all.
But yes that does not necessarily make it bad.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Driving's a privilege, not a right.

Same with immigration.

And neither is authoritarianism a binary thing. It happens in stages, usually small, palatable, reasonable ones.

"Well of course we can stop anyone while they're driving, they might be drunk!"
"Well of course we should ask random people off the street if they're citizens!"
"Well of course we should make them prove they're not the Enemy, how else do we get rid of the Enemy?"
...
"Well of course we have to monitor people's houses, what if they're plotting terrorism in there?"

This is of course a bit alarmist, but it's definitely why it puts a bad taste in people's mouths. Fascist governments don't happen all at once, they happen via small, reasonable-seeming steps that erode your freedoms.

Also, authoritarianism isn't automatically bad, either - if your police, for example, don't have any authority with which to ism, they won't have much to do, and you'll be in anarchy. It's about finding a balance.

Actually Fascist governments have historically be implemented quite quickly. Also while Fascism is authoritarian, authoritarianism =/= Fascism.

Anyways having different expectations of privacy in different circumstances is of course reasonable.

There is a vast body of case law and statutory law regarding this.

Novus America wrote:Well I mean yes if you look at it as spectrum with pure anarchy on one side and Totalitarianism on the other, it is more to the authoritarian side than not requiring it at all.
But yes that does not necessarily make it bad.

Agreed. I personally find it more towards the smelly side of eroding civil liberties, but as you say, roads are in the public interest, and keeping drunk morons off of them also definitely is. They also usually announce such checkpoints ahead of time, so people know what they're getting into.

Novus America wrote:Anyways having different expectations of privacy in different circumstances is of course reasonable.

Naturally. What potential civil gain would you say forcing random citizens to prove their citizenship "or else" is balanced out by?

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:You're using the slippery slope fallacy, I see.

I'm pointing out that the erosion of civil liberties is often a slippery slope, yes. The vast body of (recent!) historical evidence prevents it from being fallacious, though. Please try again.

It is fallacious. The argument itself is fallacious.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I'll reiterate, I didn't even have to show my ID when I voted on Friday. And it's the law here that I could have been required to do so. The idea of having to prove your citizenship just to get a bus is mad to me.

We're just not used to American levels of freedom.

More freedom than my body has room for.

---

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I'll reiterate, I didn't even have to show my ID when I voted on Friday. And it's the law here that I could have been required to do so. The idea of having to prove your citizenship just to get a bus is mad to me.

I don't think it should be a requirement just to get on the bus. You're misunderstanding me. I just don't see anything wrong with ICE officers performing random citizenship checks on public buses.

Sure thing, nothing wrong with G-Men going around asking to see your papers.

---

Novus America wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Well, yeah. Trump enacted these policies with goals in mind. I mean, I don't credit the man with much intelligence, but I don't think he's acting randomly.

We're talking about Trump's policies. They didn't start before him.


I'm not saying that Trump's policies exist to oppress Mexicans. I'm saying that even Trump himself thinks that his policies are anti-Mexican. This idea that he's just neutrally enforcing the law is bollocks that even he doesn't believe.


Sure sounds it. When I use public transportation I just have to pay, not identify myself and prove my citizenship.

I've had to show my passport when travelling internationally. I've never had to show it to get a bus or a train or a taxi or the Luas.

Not all government policies are Trump policies.
Again these started before him, and he did not change them much.
Detention of illegal immigrants is not Trump’s policy.
Is enforcement perfectly neutral? Of course not.
Nothing truly is.
That does not mean illegal immigration detention is concentration camps for Mexicans.

I won't bother repeating myself.

Yeah, well maybe you do not.
Everything different from Ireland is not dystopian.
Even on domestic flights you have to show ID though, I guarantee that.

And yes we might have stricter transportation security laws.
That does not equal dystopian.

I don't know why I need to explain why "Ihre Papiern, Bitte" sounds dystopian.

Anyways if the US is dystopian why to so many people want to come here and you want even more to do so?

Probably because where they live is even worse.

---

Luna Amore wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Talk about sleepwalking into authoritarianism.

You and Iferann have the lowest bar for the most boring dystopian future I've ever seen.

Super good feelings from so many people thinking that there's nothing wrong with not having the freedom to go about your business unmolested by the authorities.

---

Luna Amore wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Arrest requires evidence or probable cause. What is the probable cause for going Papers, Please on a random bus?

How is asking for ID the same as arresting someone?

Would I be free to ignore the question and walk away? If no, then that's how it's like being arrested.

Ifreann wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
We're just not used to American levels of freedom.

More freedom than my body has room for.

---

Nova Cyberia wrote:I don't think it should be a requirement just to get on the bus. You're misunderstanding me. I just don't see anything wrong with ICE officers performing random citizenship checks on public buses.

Sure thing, nothing wrong with G-Men going around asking to see your papers.

---

Novus America wrote:
Not all government policies are Trump policies.
Again these started before him, and he did not change them much.
Detention of illegal immigrants is not Trump’s policy.
Is enforcement perfectly neutral? Of course not.
Nothing truly is.
That does not mean illegal immigration detention is concentration camps for Mexicans.

I won't bother repeating myself.

Yeah, well maybe you do not.
Everything different from Ireland is not dystopian.
Even on domestic flights you have to show ID though, I guarantee that.

And yes we might have stricter transportation security laws.
That does not equal dystopian.

I don't know why I need to explain why "Ihre Papiern, Bitte" sounds dystopian.

Anyways if the US is dystopian why to so many people want to come here and you want even more to do so?

Probably because where they live is even worse.

---

Luna Amore wrote:You and Iferann have the lowest bar for the most boring dystopian future I've ever seen.

Super good feelings from so many people thinking that there's nothing wrong with not having the freedom to go about your business unmolested by the authorities.

---

Luna Amore wrote:How is asking for ID the same as arresting someone?

Would I be free to ignore the question and walk away? If no, then that's how it's like being arrested.

Not an argument.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Novus America wrote:Well I mean yes if you look at it as spectrum with pure anarchy on one side and Totalitarianism on the other, it is more to the authoritarian side than not requiring it at all.
But yes that does not necessarily make it bad.

Agreed. I personally find it more towards the smelly side of eroding civil liberties, but as you say, roads are in the public interest, and keeping drunk morons off of them also definitely is. They also usually announce such checkpoints ahead of time, so people know what they're getting into.

Novus America wrote:Anyways having different expectations of privacy in different circumstances is of course reasonable.

Naturally. What potential civil gain would you say forcing random citizens to prove their citizenship "or else" is balanced out by?

The gain from being able to enforce immigration laws. Immigration laws provide gains in allowing us to conduct background checks on who comes int the country and keep immigration to an amount our infrastructure, hospitals, schools, housing, land, resources and electricity can accommodate.

Ifreann wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
We're just not used to American levels of freedom.

More freedom than my body has room for.

---

Nova Cyberia wrote:I don't think it should be a requirement just to get on the bus. You're misunderstanding me. I just don't see anything wrong with ICE officers performing random citizenship checks on public buses.

Sure thing, nothing wrong with G-Men going around asking to see your papers.

---

Novus America wrote:
Not all government policies are Trump policies.
Again these started before him, and he did not change them much.
Detention of illegal immigrants is not Trump’s policy.
Is enforcement perfectly neutral? Of course not.
Nothing truly is.
That does not mean illegal immigration detention is concentration camps for Mexicans.

I won't bother repeating myself.

Yeah, well maybe you do not.
Everything different from Ireland is not dystopian.
Even on domestic flights you have to show ID though, I guarantee that.

And yes we might have stricter transportation security laws.
That does not equal dystopian.

I don't know why I need to explain why "Ihre Papiern, Bitte" sounds dystopian.

Anyways if the US is dystopian why to so many people want to come here and you want even more to do so?

Probably because where they live is even worse.

---

Luna Amore wrote:You and Iferann have the lowest bar for the most boring dystopian future I've ever seen.

Super good feelings from so many people thinking that there's nothing wrong with not having the freedom to go about your business unmolested by the authorities.

---

Luna Amore wrote:How is asking for ID the same as arresting someone?

Would I be free to ignore the question and walk away? If no, then that's how it's like being arrested.

Yes you repeat your fallacious non sequitur argument over an over. It is still not any more convincing.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Twilight Imperium wrote:
I'm pointing out that the erosion of civil liberties is often a slippery slope, yes. The vast body of (recent!) historical evidence prevents it from being fallacious, though. Please try again.

It is fallacious. The argument itself is fallacious.

I thought you might double down on this, so I have prepared a response. According to WIkipedia,

The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience.

If you have significant objections to this definition, please let me know and I'll revise. Otherwise, to wit:

a) Once you remove a civil liberty from a group of people, they generally don't get it back without a huge amount of work. Therefore, tossing them away blithely is a bad idea and must be commensurate with some sort of gain. This is why I used the term "erosion", as the physical process of weathering is similar.

b) With fewer civil liberties, it becomes easier to remove even more of them, since you no longer have the expectation of privacy/expression/armament/whichever one is relevant here. It's okay for the TSA to use their weird x-ray specs on you before you board an airplane these days, when 40 years ago even having your luggage searched would have been an unthinkable imposition, for example. Thus, "erosion begets erosion", or if you like, the slope becomes slipperier.

c) Just because the end result is scary, doesn't mean the entire argument is invalid. If I was standing on a slippery slope, and someone said "hey if you take too many steps that way, you'll fall off!", I wouldn't smugly keep going and say "ha, slippery slope argument lol" and fall to my death. I'd take a look at my footing. Thus, "sometimes the slope actually is slippery".

Any questions?