Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

dannymekic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 386 posts

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#361

Post by fhackenberger »

Tagbert wrote: post #185
dsign wrote: post #78

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. A part of me wants to believe this madness would end. Another part fears that we would try, at least for a few months, total surveillance and bisections as a form of capital punishment. But on the bright side, we would be able to c…

People also become tired of engaging in the constant need to decide on various issues and disconnect. Legislator have to vote on hundreds of issues over the course of a year. Do you want to have to do a public vote every week? How do the people stay informed enough to understand the issues and options? How many times will they vote before it becomes too onerous and they stop participating? Then you just get the speci…

Have a look at 'liquid democracy' it would solve these issues. You basically choose someone to delegate your vote to, but can change that at any time, or vote yourself for specific decisions.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#362

Post by _a_a_a_ »

irusensei wrote: post #23

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…

> To combat this lots of people need to do activism. Those people need to devote your time and energy to prevent such thing.

I did the activism. I did the walk so I'm going to talk the talk here.

The problem is only an utterly microscopic number of people will actually do anything. A larger proportion will, to some degree inform themselves of the issue but still do nothing. An even larger number will simply complain on a forum and call for other people to get stuff done but do nothing (looking at you@irusensei).

It takes a remarkably small number of people to make a difference, but IRL the number who will do something is even smaller so nothing happens. Those that do, like me, end up exhausted and despairing, feeling we've wasted a fair chunk of our lives, and had there been just a few other people willing to involve themselves things might be different, but that didn't happen.

If you want change it's there for the taking. But you won't.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#363

Post by nec4b »

mdekkers wrote: post #342
tpmoney wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banning any form of paid lobbying, sponsorship, etc. The problem with this is then the only people that are able to meet with / influence your representatives are the people that are independently wealthy enough to travel to them and take the time off from work to do so. If you can't pay someone to speak on your behalf, and you can't afford to take the time to speak for yourself, how do you get heard? Are you perso…

So, banning lobbying is bad because it stops lobbying?

No, because you can't really ban lobbying. If you tried it would just move behind the curtains instead of being transparent and in public. I don't know about you, but I rather know who pushes for what.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#364

Post by madacol »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #362
irusensei wrote: post #23

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…

> To combat this lots of people need to do activism. Those people need to devote your time and energy to prevent such thing. I did the activism. I did the walk so I'm going to talk the talk here. The problem is only an utterly microscopic number of people will actually do anything. A larger proportion will, to some degree inform themselves of the issue but still do nothing. An even larger number will simply complain…

when you "do something" what are you talking about?, can you give me a couple of examples please?

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#365

Post by madacol »

logicchains wrote: post #83
layer8 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What alternative do you propose? The politicians are elected representatives of and by the people.

Something like "There are only X laws allowed. Every time you want to add a new law and already have X laws, you must remove one existing law". Then we'd get laws covering the most important things without a bunch of bureaucracy on top of that.

Elon once mentioned an interesting idea, just make removing laws easier than approving them. For example, if you require something like 2/3 of the votes to approve a law, then require only 1/2 to remove a law

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#366

Post by _a_a_a_ »

madacol wrote: post #364
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To combat this lots of people need to do activism. Those people need to devote your time and energy to prevent such thing. I did the activism. I did the walk so I'm going to talk the talk here. The problem is only an utterly microscopic number of people will actually do anything. A larger proportion will, to some degree inform themselves of the issue but still do nothing. An even larger number will simply complain…

when you "do something" what are you talking about?, can you give me a couple of examples please?

Join an organisation and work actively with them (just joining is doing nothing). Contact MPs or other representatives[1]. Contact relevant bodies and pressure them. Give cash (making sure it gets used wisely). Offering your skills as a professional, where relevant.

[1] Despite what people say, this works, if slowly.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#367

Post by AlbertCory »

ryandrake wrote: post #311
AlbertCory wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and this is why the people in the thread saying, "don't worry, it won't pass" are not serious. In a year or two, they'll raise it again, except then they'll know what the opposition thinks and what arguments resonated with the public, so they'll be smarter. "They can't bring it up again for five years!" -- also not serious. They can resurrect the least controversial parts and call it something else. The only…

It’s hopeless. The “anti” team has to fight and win an infinite number of times. The “pro” team only has to win once, and that’s that. The deck is stacked.

The only answers are

(1) massive retaliation, i.e. everyone connected with it is fired and can never work for EU again

(2) a Constitutional amendment, forcing a supermajority referendum result for any such laws in the future.

(1) unlikely. But imagine that the EC put out a proposal mandating a swastika underneath the EU flag, everywhere. Most likely those people would all be blacklisted permanently. So it's not inconceivable.

(2) probably doesn't exist in the EU, but maybe it's in a bylaw somewhere.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#368

Post by EMCymatics »

tgv wrote: post #196
EMCymatics wrote: post #100

I would love it for Europeans to end Lèse-majesté laws but I have little faith of that happening.

You really want to insult the monarch (who -BTW- is rather powerless in the member states of the EU)? Those kind of antics rarely have any influence.

There are Lèse-majesté laws that protect the head of state as well (France ect)

There is a fine line between criticism and insult that is entirely up to the discretion that enforces laws.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#369

Post by hn_acker »

logicchains wrote: post #105
dsign wrote: post #78

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. A part of me wants to believe this madness would end. Another part fears that we would try, at least for a few months, total surveillance and bisections as a form of capital punishment. But on the bright side, we would be able to c…

>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…

Some states in the US permanently ban felons from voting [1]. I want the eligible voting population to be all citizens over the age of 18 with no regard to history and conduct, because I favor universal suffrage and don't want governments to have leeway over who is "worthy" to vote in a democracy (yes, the US is a representative democracy). My population of eligible representative candidates in a demarchy would be the same. However, other people might not want current criminals or even former criminals to be eligible. Separately, some people might want candidates to pass an intelligence test.

How could the US collectively decide the eligible population of representative candidates for a demarchy?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_t...

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#370

Post by peoplefromibiza »

concordDance wrote: post #252
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every citizen is free to express his opinion. you are, but if you commit a crime in doing it you go to trial. which is fair. edit: libel is a crime punishable by the law, everywhere in the west. Doesn't mean you are forbidden to say what you want. democracy without a justice system as a counter power is not democracy as we intend them in modern era.

> Doesn't mean you are forbidden to say what you want. This confuses me. Saying someone is "free to do X" normally means that X is allowed by law. Or else what could it possibly mean?

it simply means that you are free to do it, but not overdo it because there are rules.

it's the basis of every modern society.

many things allowed by the law are not really "free". police forces are allowed to use weapons, that doesn't mean they can shoot randomly whenever they feel like it.

Post reply on HN