The German government is attempting to use the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to force American companies like Gab to comply with their censorship laws. This is a blatant abuse of power, and the Biden-Harris DOJ is complicit in this attack on our rights.

https://news.gab.com/2024/10/the-biden-harris-doj-is-facilitating-german-government-censorship-of-gab-an-american-company/

@amerika Just give it a week, and then all will be well. =)

@h4890

A lot will have happened by next Wednesday.

Probably civil war.

@amerika @h4890
Nahh. I don't think so.
If such were the case it would have already had happened in 2016.

@TheMadPirate @h4890 @caekislove

2016 was a more innocent time.

@amerika @caekislove @h4890 because the left thought the Trump was a buffoon who will not keep this campaign promises?

@TheMadPirate @caekislove @h4890

I think people still had hope that the system, the media, and their fellow voters were functional.

People still thought diversity might turn out OK, we could survive the socialist state, and so on.

Now we know better.

@amerika @caekislove @h4890 Well....people are more aware than the "diversity" crowd ( BLM, Antifa, LGBTQ+, etc) are violent and dangerous, that's a given.
But, yeah, I think US citizens realize better, because of the Biden-Harris Experience, how nasty unfettered migration is, specially from unassimilated migrants. They are more sensible to that now.
I can only imagine how much a liberal/progressive would have his values conflicted when a Venezuelan gang member rapes and murders his daughter.

@TheMadPirate @amerika @caekislove

This is true. And remember the Trump quote "Last night in sweden". He was correct. I lived in sweden and can confirm that sweden has no-go zones and arabian criminal gangs completely out of control.

This is what uncontrolled and unrestricted immigration gets you.

@h4890 @TheMadPirate @caekislove

Most people do not realize how odd this is, having grown up with places like the USA where whole cities are no-go zones. Sweden used to be a place of vanishingly little crime.

@amerika @caekislove @TheMadPirate

Oh yes... that is true. When my father was young, they never locked the door to the apartment or house, because a neighbour might need something urgently for some emergency.

I wonder when things started to deteriorate? I think probably in the 80s and 90s and around the 00s things went into warp speed with unrestricted immigration from barbarian countries, and that's how we ended up with a trashed, segregated and polarized country.

@h4890 @amerika @caekislove I find interesting how high ingroup trust societies get their own high trust used against them to be undermined by an outgroup from within.

I guess we can call it Paradox of Trust in honor of Popper, LOL.

@TheMadPirate @amerika @caekislove

Amen! Sweden makes a great case study for that paradox.

@h4890 @amerika @caekislove
I found an interesting paper that analyzes the "Paradox of Trust" in terms of psychological game theory. Seems to corroborate what we were discussing.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268118301215#sec0001

@TheMadPirate @amerika @caekislove

In Jan Narvessons book The Libertarian idea, he writes about an experiment in order to determine which "ethic" or set of moral rules does best in the prisoners dilemma.

The result was that the best strategy was tit-for-tat, but with a starting point of cooperation.

From this, he goes on to derive his contractarian ethics, based on non-aggression, but with the right to defend.

This is one of the most convincing ethical theories, and derivations of

@TheMadPirate @amerika @caekislove libertarianism I've seen by any academic philosopher so far.

@h4890 @amerika @caekislove
>based on non-aggression, but with the right to defend.

I like that. I think it's a position many true libertarians ( aka paleolibertarians) should hold.

@TheMadPirate @amerika @caekislove

I agree, and it is also my position and the only consistent one in my opinion. Do you know why other libertarians do not hold this position? What are their arguments?

@h4890 @amerika @caekislove many lolbertarians ( progressives posing as libertarians) believe that defending yourself against an "oppressed" person is "punching down" ( whatever the fuck that means). Other lolbertarians believe that the non aggression principle is an excuse for "pacifism" , that is, they are convinced they can descalate any physical conflict through the means of "reason" alone ( which is patently false).

@TheMadPirate @caekislove @h4890

Pacifism = pluralism = tolerance for individualism. That's the math.

@amerika @caekislove @h4890
Si vis pacem, para bellum

If you want peace, be prepared for war.

The only way to deter someone trying to harm you is to show them you are willing and prepared to treat them accordingly ( i.e. with reciprocity) whenver they even try it.

Thinking there is another way to achieve peace is wishful thinking.

@TheMadPirate @amerika @caekislove This in my opinion is the wonderful point where theory crashes into practice.

In theory, pacifism is great, in practice, socialists and the left, build their entire ideology on violence. So if you're not defending, you'll soon end up with a leftist government.

This is also my favourite argument against libertarianism, even though I am one. It is an unstable system that has not lasted long at any point in history.

It either gets converted into