Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
State is a legalized form of violence. Someone's personal views may contradict the other's and that's where the state brings up the law (a formalized set of someone else's personal views) and brings violence upon the one whose personal views contradict the views of the majority. Since the state is a legal entity and it has a law that prohibited Snowden to disclose the information he was entrusted with, Snowden's guilty! Thinking otherwise would question the personal views of the majority which is called law.
This all is schizophrenia, of course, but you insist, that the state is a rational thing.



To serve and protect the people of the United States? Heh, actually his actions endangered some of his colleagues who also happenned to be the citizens of the United States.

I really don't understand how you can defend this disgusting programme!

This is 1984 x 1984 ! The USA has turned into a menace to the freedom of the world, and has to be stopped. (Note to the NSA and GCHQ: Just expressing feelings not stating any intentions.)

Snowden believed that the USA was good initially, it once was, pretty decent and it has some good aspects to it. Then he dawned on him that it's become rather evil, particularly from the perspective of non-Americans or poor Americans.

It's out of control with the invasions, bases everywhere and now spying on everyone! He couldn't live with his conscience and took action. I think he's brave!


If it was discovered that Russia had some evil plans or activities against its own citizens, or the world, I would applaud anyone who disclosed it. I doubt they've got anything that evil though.

Snowden did the decent and moral thing. I don't care if that technically makes him a traitor.

It is MORALLY WRONG to follow the orders of a corrupt and invalid state.

An example which is a bit dubious, but applies: Remember those border guards who shot a few people who tried to cross the border between East/West Germany? It was just regular guys doing their military service. As I understand it, most of them had a half-hearted belief in the ideology and that the state was justified. They may have thought that the people who were shot were a danger, they were spies or something. And some of the border crossers probably were. Either way, they were following orders and they probably didn't even shoot with the intention of killing.

But in united Germany they were prosecuted and sentenced to prison.
The relevance is that they WERE held responsible for their actions during a (supposedly) corrupt regime.

In retrospect, the expectation on them was that they should have refused top shoot and taken the consequences, or they should have refused military service in the first place. I never heard anyone complain that the trials against these people were wrong.

As for what you said about states: States are good if they are not fascist and not oppressive, imo....