zorga

That is a living wage in their country.

> If you envision other means of distributing the planet's vast resources

Whether you pay for yourself, or others pay for you, is a binary choice. There are no other options that don't fall into those two categories.

> is predicated on the belief that the current structure is the result of some static law of nature

Nope, just on the nature of boolean logic.

> Its wholly contemporary to invent bullshit jobs and imagine complexity to keep people at desks en masse

I don't believe that's remotely true. That bullshit jobs exist is certainly true, but it's due to inefficiencies in communication and incentives at larger companies. Bullshit jobs eat into profit, companies don't do it on purpose, it's just harder and harder to weed those people out the bigger you get; the more people you have the easier it is for non-productive people to hide and not have it known.

> As a millennial myself, I would like the need for income taken off the table

In other words, I'd like someone else to pay for taking care of me, my shelter, my food.

> so that I can find a recurring source of meaningful work.

So that I can follow my desires rather than being forced to pay my own way.

As a gen-x'er I just have say, you are not entitled to other people's labor, certainly not so you can avoid labor you don't like. The world just doesn't work that way, taking care of your own needs is necessary work, whether you you find it meaningful or not.

Virtually everyone would prefer not "needing income", that's just another way of saying "be rich". Meaningful work is a luxury.

Again, I think you're misreading something.

> You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty for a global sovereign with geographically-bounded subordinate jurisdictions

No I don't, nor did I say or imply that.

> “National sovereignty” is exactly the idea that every state has only the constraints imposed either by it's physical power and behavioral constraints it voluntarily (and revocable) imposes on itself.

Correct and I'm well aware of that, and I used it with exactly that meaning. So your response to that comment simply doesn't make sense. Watch...

> What you claim is demanded by “national sovereignty”

Which is the point I was making, I'm in support of national sovereignty; if you think I've implied otherwise, you've misread something.

> is instead radically opposed to it

You seem to have not understood what I claimed, but I assure you it's not opposed to national soverenty, here I'll add context to my original statement which I think you misread or understood.

>> (OP)What is the mechanism by which step 4 is accomplished

> There isn't one;

I'm telling OP step 4 doesn't exist yet; the US courts don't just accept and execute the judgement of foreign courts. Certainly not in cases where said actions are perfectly legal in the US.

> that's the point these GDPR supporters aren't comprehending, national sovereignty is a thing

I'm saying the people supporting the GDPR don't seem to understand it's a violation of national sovereignty for the EU to be able prosecute non-EU citizens for crimes that are only crimes in the EU when said citizens are not subjects of the EU. I'm subject to the laws of the US only, not the EU's laws. We have treaties that allow such prosecutions in cases where said behavior is a crime in both countries, but that doesn't apply in the case of the GDPR.

> the world cannot function if every country can impose its laws on every citizen in the world.

Saying nations are sovereign, that's how the world works. That's what a nation "is".

There are regions, but they all speak the same language and use the same date formats: you do not have to internationalize or target your app, it is thus a single market. Not remotely so in the EU.

You're very confused. Nothing I said implies anything you said.

> You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty

Uh, no, try reading that again, I implied no such thing.

> If you are a business owner in US, you will probably go to EU at some point in time.

Not remotely true; the vast majority of US citizens never leave the US.

The US will generally not cooperate unless said thing is also illegal in the US. The EU can ask, they cannot enforce, and the US doesn't make a habit of enforcing laws of foreign nations on citizens when said thing is perfectly legal in the US. If what I'm doing is legal under US law, the EU request will be denied. Only when the thing is illegal in both countries are such requests generally conceded to.

> It's not an EU citizen coming to your US website - it's your US website choosing, willingly, to serve EU citizens.

Wrong, they're coming to my site; I have no way to know they're EU citizens or not, there's a thousand reasons I wouldn't know, it's not like IP is a reliable means. People use vpn's, or EU citizens travel. The burden is not and cannot logically be on me to know where my customers come from. It's impossible to know the citizenship of your customers.

Perfect example, according to the GDPR, an EU citizen travelling in the US who uses my site from the US is still protected by the GDPR; that's horseshit and a technical impossibility; I can't know they're an EU citizen. This law was written by technically illiterate morons.

Nor do I want to deal with you, so good riddance.

I was quite clear what I meant by trading block, I wasn't aware that was a specific term of art, but that's not what I meant regardless and that's clear from my response.

I understand it just fine, perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying. No, if an EU citizen comes to my US website, that does not grant the EU authority over me no matter what they claim. I live under US law, not EU law, not Chinese law, not North Korean law. Those countries are free to pass laws claiming they have jurisdiction over me when I do business with their citizens, but claiming it doesn't make it true. No I do not have to comply, the EU has zero authority over me no matter who I do business with _unless_ I'm in the EU where they can do something about it. They can attempt to stop their citizens from using my website, but it is not upon me to do so.

There is no agreement between the US and the EU to respect the GDPR, it's an untested assertion of global authority that cannot stand. The world cannot function if every country can assert every citizen in the world must comply with its laws because their citizens came to my US website. That's a violation of national sovereignty and it will fail when the EU tries to assert that authority and the US courts say, sorry, but no, you don't have jurisdiction over our citizens which is what's going to happen.

The EU can and will enforce the GDPR within its borders, that's expected; outside its borders, it has no jurisdiction and no teeth; I don't have to give a damn about EU law while operating my US business in the US. That a visitor comes from someone outside the US does not change that my business is in the US. I do not have to obey other countries laws.

Wrong, a store is a public place, they have cameras, more to the point I can take a photo of you in a store and you can't stop me nor do you own it.

> take upskirt shots of women walking over. That’s illegal at a federal level in the US

Only since 2004, and that's a specific exception that was made and only applies when there is a clear expectation of privacy, i.e. wearing clothes to cover your privates is a clear indication you expect that to be private. That doesn't stop anyone from taking pictures of you you don't like though and it only makes the area under your clothes a private space, it doesn't make the public space your in a private place.

Hey, that's the price of using all of those things, if you don't want to pay that price; don't. You don't own a photo I take of you nor do you own data I collect about you from the public sphere.

True; but I don't care about that; never been to the EU and likely never will, same as most Americans.

I don't care what the EU agrees to, there's this thing called national sovereignty; I'm not subject to the laws of every country that simply asserts I am. The world cannot function if we're subject to every law every country decides to claim we're subject to.

A hotel room is not a public space.

No, it isn't; the product of my labor belongs to me. Whether it's photographs of public spaces or data logged in public spaces, the data I put in the labor to collect belongs to me. If I write a book about you, it belongs to me, it doesn't matter that it contains data about you: you don't own everything that happens to be about you.

There isn't one; that's the point these GDPR supporters aren't comprehending, national sovereignty is a thing, the world cannot function if every country can impose its laws on every citizen in the world.

From a business standpoint trying to market goods, no, it isn't. That's just a fact. Every culture has to be marketed to differently, they are different markets.

I could give a shit about travelling to the EU, the vast majority of Americans never leave the US, that's not going to change.

> 4. The SA applies to a US court for enforcement of the EU judgment

The US courts says fuck off, you don't have jurisdiction over our citizens. That's what's going to happen; lets stop pretending there's any actual legal right for the EU to impose laws on non EU citizens, there isn't.

The EU is not a single trading block; it's many many individual trading blocks all different cultures and languages; the US is the single largest trading block in the world. And no, the GDPR is awful legislation, the notion that every foreign country can simply declare jurisdiction over other countries citizens violates national sovereignty is and flat out disgusting and will not stand.

I can store anything you give me; that you exposed me to it is consent, it's not your data unless you keep it to yourself. When you walk around a public space, you don't get to control who looks at you and logs it. The products of my labor are mine, and that includes whatever I log in public spaces.

International laws aren't really laws, they're suggestions; the US ignores them all the time when it feels it's in its best interest.

And? That doesn't refute anything I said. And no it wasn't a canned response.

For the same reason a photo take of you in a public place isn't yours, it belongs to the photographer. The Internet is a public space; you don't own the public space and you don't have any right or authority to tell anyone collecting public data that you own it just because you're in it. It's not your data, it's my data, I collected it. You don't want it collected, don't go spewing it out in public spaces.

It's not a market of 512M, it's many small markets of different languages and different cultures that all need to be targeted individually whereas the US is actually a much larger market of a single culture. Focusing on the big mono language mono culture market instead of chasing dozens of smaller markets that require much more effort in internationalization is actually good business advice.

Yes, it is that simple; the GDPR can claim whatever it wants, that doesn't make it true. The EU has no jurisdiction over me in the US period. And referencing the GDPR as a source isn't valid, just because it's written doesn't make it enforceable. China doesn't get to tell me what to do, nor does the EU.

No I don't, I'm not an EU citizen and have no EU physical presence; they can claim whatever they want, they have no jurisdiction over me, I am not subject to EU laws no matter what the GDPR tries to assert. It's toothless, they have no enforcement mechanism on a US citizen in the US. I'm am not subject to the laws of every country that asserts it so; I'm subject to the laws of the US only.

No any authority over sites not hosted/run in the EU. I'm a US citizen running a business in the US; the EU has no legal authority whatsoever over me. If an EU citizens buys something from my site, as far as I'm concerned they came to the US virtually to do it, and US laws apply here, not EU laws. They can shove their GDPR where the sun doesn't shine.