Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn’t always a good thing.

It’s funny because I’m pretty sure you haven’t lived in a communist country either. So you’re arguing that lack of personal experience invalidates all arguments in favour of communism, but your lack of personal experience living in a communist country somehow doesn’t invalidate your arguments against communism. Yup, perfectly consistent.

Huh, how does the action of one political party dictate what a global movement want?

Do you even know what the terms “Left” and “Right” mean in this context? (No, they are not a synonim of “Democrat” and “Republican” party of this one country)

Also since when was Biden on the left?

I’m far from an expert, but Vanguard is a kernel-level program. If a kernel-level program crashed, the whole system crashes. So yes, any kernel-level program could do the same thing CrowdStrike did, intentionally or not.

Kernel-level programs can do whatever the hell they want.

And who will create the automaton? How do we select people to maintain the automaton that will play the role of government?

That automatic government has to be created by a group of people. How do you plant to select them? The government automaton would also need to be maintained, as it is impossible for the authors of the machine to predict what humanity is going to look like 500 years from now. How do you select those?

The logic of “code is impartial, therefore code should be law” is flawed because code as to be written by someone, and that someone is not impartial.

So you are trying to argue that slavery is a RIGHT? This looks like and argument of guilt by association. Authoritarian is seen as bad, by giving the abolishment of slavery the label of “authoritarian” gives of the idea that you want to associate it with being bad.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society. On that note, morality determines legality, not the other way around.

Slavery means that, if you’re rich enough, you should be allowed to revoke the rights of others. This is refutable at so many levels. If someone were to “willingly” agree to give up their rights, then just you’re just taking advantage of someone who was born in an unfavourable position and have no other choice other than to accept (and maybe not starve) or starve.

I was about the comment a similar thing.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society.