231–240 of 386 posts
Its just me that thinks there is something really wrong with the way politicians try to pass such controversial laws? Politicians bring up something controversial. Most of the time influenced by some lobby with very little interest in public benefit. To combat this lots of people need to do activism. Those people need to devote your time and energy to prevent such thing. So far it sounds good but after the dust settl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wonder what would happen if there were not politicians, if the parliament of Europe were the sum of all its citizens voting for laws in some sort of mega-stack-overflow consensus system There's another way to achieve something similar less chaotically: demarchy, which was used for some things in ancient Greece. This involves electing people at random for a limited time period; if the selection is truly random, the…
It's nice in theory but politicians will never allow themselves to be replaced by random people, so good luck getting this implemented.
Language confusion question: aren’t democracy (people voting?) and surveillance conflating different topics? What correlation is implied?
Its just me that thinks there is something really wrong with the way politicians try to pass such controversial laws? Politicians bring up something controversial. Most of the time influenced by some lobby with very little interest in public benefit. To combat this lots of people need to do activism. Those people need to devote your time and energy to prevent such thing. So far it sounds good but after the dust settl…
It's a lot easier to do something than it is to stop people from doing something. Usually to prevent actions you need total control or strong incentives. This is the same dynamic as browser feature development. Adding things is easy. Preventing additions is hard. We end up saying yes to things that disadvantage most people.
And with this new law, we won't have to worry about Meta selling our data, the governments will take care of that.
It's looks like history seems to repeat itself. It's a just a matter of time. Social credit, the Ministry of Truth and whatever else they can think of, that's just around the corner.
But it's for the children ammaright?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commission has a member of each EU country and those members come from the elected governments. It‘s just like the government is not elected in many countries but instead the parliament is elected and that votes for a prime minister who chooses his ministers.
If the EU worked like a normal parliamentary government then parliament would have the right to initiate legislation. And it would be able to nominate whoever it wished for president of the commission as long as there was a parliamentary majority. The EU has confederal aspects that don't really work in the ways normal modern democracies work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's a major difference with the EU system is is not possible for the parliament to modify or remove previously passed legislation, once you have a bad law it's essentially permanent this is not true of the UK system (see what happened to the Identity Cards Act 2006)
That’s total gibberish. It’s not easy but it’s absolutely possible to amend EU legislation. It works in exactly the same way as the UK: by enacting new legislation.
okay, so how can the parliament do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you define “number of laws”? Laws usually consist of many individual rules, and one can just make the law “bigger” to reduce the nominal number of laws without actually reducing the contents. In addition, I don’t see how this would cause the laws to become more in the interest of the citizens than of the legislators.
>How do you define “number of laws” It's not an easy thing to do but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Maybe something like defining it as a limit on the total sum amount of text in all laws? A limit on the amount of new laws that could be passed would make it much easier for citizens to keep up with the proposed changes and oppose any they disagreed with; they couldn't be ddossed by the legislators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take the money out of politics as much as possible and there will be less incentive for politicians to sell out their people
What do you mean by that? There’s already anti-corruption laws, and corruption is actually being prosecuted. To have less incentives, you’d actually have to pay politicians more, which would constitute putting more money into politics.
This theory presumes that when people have more money, their desire to have even more money diminishes. This presumption is not true.
(It might be somewhat true for common sorts of people who find pleasure in simple things and only want enough money to satisfy their basic material needs (food, shelter, medical care). But it's definitely not true when you're talking about people with high levels of ambition, which includes virtually all politicians.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU is a shit show of corruption and oppression. If people would riot for every atrocious thing EU does there would not be time for anything else.
Where or how are people oppressed in the EU?