In other news

In general when you make a wishlist of rights that include positive rights, and you make a bunch of them absolute, "impossibilities" arise whre you have 2 theoretically absolute rights fighting over the same turf, and what happens in practice is whomever is in power decides, completly arbitrarily, which rights prevail and how much and how.

Which is exactly why more and more countries, and institutions, make lists of positive rights (things others are required to provide to you no matter what): that gives power to the people who call the shots, taking it away from the general population.

Lists of rights were invented at the beginning exclusively as a list of things the people with power can't do to those with less power. Negative rights. Protections against violence by those more capable and resourceful to be violent. Guarantees against aggression over certain thresholds, from the people whom we gave the keys of the world.

I reject the concept of positive rights in general, and a "right to citizenship" is one of them. I agree it's less problematic to square it up with other rights, than say the insane "right to health" can be, and that at the end we can somewhat survive with just "ok nevermind, if a person only has 1 citizenship he gets to keep it no matter what".

But the fact that it can be survived doesn't mean it's not problematic. It devalues the symbolism of citizenship, and all it accompanies.

It's a further abandonment of the concept of personal responsibility ("you get to keep this valuable membership of an exclusive club even if you spend your whole life trying to destroy it" is a very bad message imho).

So in practice, you are suggesting we either execute those made stateless or incarcerate them for life as personae non grata anywhere, correct?

The right to citizenship is a really odd one to make this point about, because it is actually clearer if written as a negative right. "A government cannot make a person stateless" fits your criteria perfectly. A government depriving a person of having anywhere in the world that they can legally reside is an incredibly aggressive act of violence.

Why do you keep trolling so substantially? in today's world if leftists are good to their words, if being stateless is a violation of your basic human rights, you will have leftist countries accepting you as a refugee by virtue of the right violation you have been subjected to, a form of persecution (for them).

In practice that would mean that if it was legal in the USA to strip people of their birth citizenship, you could do that and send them all to Canada.

Italy could send them all to France, and so on.

How am I trolling this time? I'm asking how you see this implemented as a pragmatic matter.

Ok, cool, so in this model, the "more civilised", "first world" countries accept refugees from the "less civilised", "third world" countries who keep stripping them of their basic rights. I think that's pretty much how it works now. Guess which category Luciomland would fall into?

Sure refugees exist but there is no guarantee of being allowed anywhere. The whole point of being citizenship is the inalienable right to reside in that country. If a person is stateless there is nowhere they have an automatic legal right to reside, so I guess I should have phrased the bolded as "anywhere in the world they have a guaranteed legal right to reside".

And your argument in the previous post to this one is essentially a tacit admission that the system wouldn't work at all unless other countries do things almost diametrically opposite to what you are arguing for. That is unless you would also argue that your ideal country allow these stateless people into the country with basically no questions asked.

Let's just take stock of where we are with this suggestion. "I want to be able to do horrible things to my subjects, and if you don't agree with the horrible things I'm doing, you're welcome to have them". Is that about the size of it?

Send them to Canada.

lololololololololol

We should deport Luciom to North Korea, because, why not?

Actually, I have a better idea. Let's ban him here and deport him to Unstuck. I'll contact my people there to make sure they give him a warm welcome. He'll probably get banned within one post, so he can wander the internet as a nomad in search of a forum that'll give him refuge.

Oh the system would work anyway because basically , given the severity of the crimes necessary to strip people of their birth citizenship, we would all just use the death penalty to deal with them and the problem wouldn't exist anyway.

It's just about having a different parallel option of exile (which was something that existed in the past , in many historical occasion) instead of the death penalty, if someone is willing for whatever reason to take in the person. But with a one-way ticket.

My ideal country would take in some stateless people, with the same filters applied as for everyone else who isn't a citizen

This is next level stupidity, totally on par with your whole style.
It's like MAGA people saying, if you don't like it here just leave.
Leave where exactly?
Do you say the same to people in yemen or Syria?
What if they don't like it there?
They just leave?
(well they do and they come to italy and see yourwelcoming face and speech)

What about sending to Italy people?

This is beyond wtf here.

Twitter is closing local operations in Brazil over a censorship battle

https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/18248...

Twitter will still be available to brasilians (unless/until the gvmnt manages to block it there, not too easy to do in a not-yet-completly totalitarian country)

Hey, where did the conversation about denaturalisation go? There's one post on a different topic and I've totally lost track of what we're talking about. Oh well, guess we'll just all see a squirrel and quckly forget how Luciom embarrassed himself there, then.

uh? we discussed a topic on which we have different opinions normatively, ie in terms of how we would like things to be, unclear why you think that disagreeing with you about preferences can be "embarassing"

Seemed that as soon as everyone pointed out multiple reasons why your ideas were ridiculous, unworkable and hypocritical, you were quick to change the subject.

I answered all the non-trolling objections in detail. And there is no hypocrisis at all, i don't even understand why you would think there was any. Leftist countries exist willing to take in people who are otherwise incompatible with civil society (because for example they are marxist terrorists) so they go there.

It already happened with France and Italy it isn't an hypothetical, so called "mitterand doctrine", france took in many red italian terrorists. Do you think anything would have been different if we had also stripped them of citizenship, as we should have done (but didn't)?

There is nothing ridicolous nor unworkable.

An idea that only "works" because it relies on a significant number of people/nations/countries vehemently disagreeing with it and subscribing to the exact opposite idea is "unworkable". This is also where the hypocrisy arises.

To be fair, his response to that was technically workable. It was that they should all be killed by the state.

We all know that's what he thinks, but he was trying to dance around it when I originally asked him that question.

Exploiting other people mistakes isn't hypocrisy. Nor is taking advantage of what exists politically even if you disagree with it.

Hypocrisy is claiming something vehemently and then actually showing, by your actions, you never believed that, and so you lied about your claims for nefarious purposes.

If the claim, as it was, is "i want to be able to strip people of their birth right citizenship in some cases, even if they have no other citizenship", the only case that would be hypocritical, is if then i can do it and i don't.

When asked "well then, how would it work pragmatically, where would they go", if you answer "they can go to leftist countries who disagree with my policy", where is the hypocrisy? there is none.

"but it only works if leftist countries exist" was the other objection, to which i answered, well in that case just use the death penalty for those crimes. Where is the hypocrisy?

In general it's utterly absurd to apply the Kantian universalist criteria to judge the workability of a policy. Policies are proposed and exist given a current reality. The "if everyone does it then it doesn't work anymore" objection doesn't apply when dealing with irrational agents, such as leftists and other ideologists.

If you are rationally selfish you can quite well, as an individual or a country, have morals and policies written depending on those morals which couldn't work if all people in the world had them, but do work because other people are irrational and/or not selfish, and you can more, and exploit their (for you) moral weakness to your advantage (which, for a rationally selfish person, is the moral imperative actually).

And in a way all countries relying on immigration for their long term success do the same to be clear: it couldn't do worldwide as a policy. You need countries to be brain drained in order to get your immigrants. And, if at the same time you pose yourself as a pro immigration champion, you also claim you care about those countries you are brain-draining, well then THAT is hypocrisy, as an example for you.

It's hypocritical because in your ideal world (where we are operating, to be clear, since thankfully none of your more extreme hypotheticals will come to pass) there are no leftists, so these countries can't exist. Maybe "contradictory" is a more appropriate term than "hypocritical".

That btw isn't an hypothetical either. It's what the UK did for a while. It was called the bloody code. You got the death penalty for a wide variety of violent crimes, crimes against property included.

After they enacted that for like 100-150 years, Australia became viable as a target place to send exiles to, so they switched those death penalties in good part to exile.

For like 2 centuries the UK purged society of criminals structurally in that way. And it was the beacon of civilization as a country, the most well regarded one until the USA got their freedom perhaps, the most technologically advanced, the most important financial center of the world and so on.

But somehow something that actually happened already in recent history is "unworkable", I really don't understand you guys sometimes

We are well aware that some of the barbaric practices you advocate for were practiced historically. There is a reason they are no longer practiced. This might come as a shock to you, but the consensus on what is and isn't acceptable, civilised behaviour moves with the passage of time.

Think of the Hawk/dove game, you can't really tell the hawks they are "contradictory" if they exist as long as a sufficient number of doves exist.