So winters in a filed as a solider is somehow safer then under a bridge in a city?

So it is ok to let people die because of a chance they will illegally cross to other countries?

Great, then Estonia should accept more refugees and there is no reason to worry about EU having a problem with it.

So they can’t stop Estonia from accepting more refugees?

And Estonia could accept people that have their own finances or people that are allowed passage in other countires and etc. There are many ways to work on this if you actually care about these people to help and solve a problem. If all countries acted this way, I won’t help because aren’t helping enough, we are going to be in a big trouble. I would complain to US and China if this was a post about that and someone was defending their positions, we can turn this discussion as well into, ask others to help as well, instead of just defending this wrong decision by Estonia. Estonian government, if they really care, could put pressure on EU, China or US. You seem to be more focused on China and US, but reallisticly it is the EU that has funds as well and is closer. We should focus on pressure to EU to help house these people, or allow them passage or something.

Besides, I think it is morally unjustifiable to be dependent on EU support so much to help you with these things in order to keep stuff comfortable for already rich people in Estonia, instead of sharing with those less fortunate and help as much as you can. It is better to fight for wellbeing of all people and help what you can, instead of being afraid that you will be kicked out from a selfish EU (if they refuse to help and share this isssue, they are selfish).

I agree, it would be. But instead of passing regulations to make Europe (just as rich and more populous that US) take refugees from countries they are in war with. Instead we are focusing on closing borders of other countries, not only so they can’t take refugees themselves, but to stop them from actually getting assylim in places they can, like EU. There is a difference in not fighting for right regulation to make a World more just, but to fight for new regulation that is making it less so, is definitely immoral.

Then let them pass through to the rest of the EU. In Europe there is a billion people. As for the wealth, I have no idea why you are comparing it to US. We are talking about whether they should be forced to stay in Russia and it is clear that per capita Estonia is richer then Russia.

I am not saying it is the norm. I am saying it is right-wing, natonallistic and racist. Which is unfortuenately the norm. I am saying it is unethical and morally inexsusable, not that it is not normal.

That makes no sense. If you let people in and give them your citiznship then they are your citizens as well. It is nationalism, ethinic background, not some organisational problem of a country. Estonia can easly handle the influx, that is the point, it is ridiculous to claim otherwise and it is highly immoral and racist to prioritize people of one nationality over other. Resources are fine, it is one of the richest countries in the World. It is dishonest and maniplative when all right-wing policies (such as this) talk about lack of resources when we are talking about helping the working class, but when you need to give tax cuts to the rich or spend money on military, then all of a sudden money flows.

Everybody’s opinion matters, especially of EU citizens and even more of Estonian regarding this issue. Estonia can obviously deal with more migrants, it is just not convenient. Estonain goverment doesnt care about its citizens, but about getting reelected. They will do what is most in their interest.

Placing convienice of people from your country over others lives is obviously morally wrong. And unless you are a nationalist (right-wing) you can not believe that people from certain country have lives worth less than from another, even yours. So there is no difference between russian and estonian, and their interest should be placed at the same value. To disagree is by definition nationalism and if we are talking about ethnicity, racism.

If my country was at war, I would rather cross 4 countries then die in a war. It makes no sense to not give them a choice, claiming that you care too much about them to let them be inconvineced by the act of saving their lives.

And of course there are always security concerns when we are trying to help people save their lives. What about security concerns of Russians that are trying to flee? Are Estonian lives more valuable then Russian lives? Is it safer for everyone to forcefully keep as many people in region of war as possible? To let them forcfuly become soliders that will shoot at other people and arm people they are attacking so that someone has to die. Is it better to let all Russian citizens become soliders and either kill Ukranian soliders or die themselves in a war, then risk to let unarmed people in another country, because some of them, somehow, could be the bad guys, simply because they are from Russia. As if they are more likely to be dangeous than people from any other country.

So the solution is to decide in their name to keep them in country of war, where you claim they will be safer, without even hearing their opinion.

Any law that prohibits people that are fleeing a war from entering a country is a pro-war inhumane law that shouldn’t exist. It is only moral to break any law that stops you from saving someone’s life. A lot of people like to imagine that during ethnic cleansing in their countries they would be heroes that shelter people in secret, but it is obvious that even people who consider themselves left-wing, value law (the will of the state) more than human life.

This is how Trump won in the first place, wikileaks published emails of Hilary’s campaign doing this. Instead of critisizing her for being responsible for Trump, democrats blamed Russia and attecked Wikileaks as Russian spies, literally called for shooting the messenger.

This is a prime example of why voting for lesser evil is not a tactic in politics and the whole liberal ideology as whole that we just need to vote for right people, instead of removing powerful positions in government in the first place.

How can I make an argument against if I agree with you? Did you even read my previous reply? This is exactly what I said, you just pick a battle where no one is disagreeing with you, just so you can feel smart to win an argument no one is arguing against you. What is your next comment going to be, asking again for an counter argument to the same point we are agreeing on?

I preferred watching the video, it is linked in the description of the video and in my comment above, just in case you like that format more.

Spain was run without government during anarchist revolution in 20th century and their production and technological advancement increased, since there was no one on the top taking all the profits that otherwise would be used for investing in the community and industry. Quality of life is always better in free societies, then when you have to listen to your boss, work long hours and struggle to pay the bills. As far as I know, once Europen children were raised in native amercian egalitarian societies, they would never want to go back to cities and work long hours under someone else’s rule.

I don’t know much about Amish, but I got the feeling that they are patriarchal society, which is exactly the opposite of a free anarchist society where no one rules over anyone else.

I tried posting a transcript of this video to politics@lemmy.world community, but the mod banned me.

It is not my video, I just saw it and liked it.

I have nothing against doing temporary solutions, but I am generally don’t really see anyone giving proportional fight for that third real solution, but I see many people spending a decent part of their day reading, talking and getting angry over these incomplete solutions and getting often confused on what is right and what is wrong.

My understanding is that every option where you vote for any party is pretty fascistic choice, and only some parties are better at hiding it then others. All parties generally disguise their ideas as fight for the working class, both racist and “progressive” parties, while both do exactly the same thing in terms of worker rights and interests. I think that pretending to fight for “progressive” ideas while doing exactly the opposite for the conditions that cause that hatred and domination of one group over another, is just as harmful, if not more so.

There is a good video I just watched today about it, I highly recommend it. And I highly recommend spending more time building actual co-operatives, (direct democratic) unions and other horizontal structures opposed to getting caught up in these games rich people play with us. Educating people and yourself of current and past anarchistic movement should be a priority over criticizing and legitimizing these forms of hierarchical systems.