Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling • Hacker News Board

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#81

Post by Rochus » Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 2:36 PM UTC

hnbad wrote: post #79

Rochus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a representational democracy Switzerland is a direct democracy, not just a representative (i.e. indirect) democracy. In the present case the ECHR is obviously misused with very dubious arguments. The fact that the ECHR does not put a stop to such abuse will not exactly improve its acceptance among the Swiss voters.

Semantics aside, this is a red herring. Whether you call it a "direct" democracy or a "representative" democracy, it's a governance system based on majority votes, not consent. Going through the courts is the correct approach in this case if they believed there was a criminal injustice that could not be remedied through electoral means. As the legal basis in this case is the ECHR, not Swiss law, taking this to the EC…

> it's a governance system based on majority votes, not consent. ... Going through the courts is the correct approach in this case

This is undemocratic nonsense. The ECHR has well defined concerns. Even the ECHR recognizes the separation of powers, and the court has clear jurisdiction in this system. It is not the court's task to expand the scope of the EHCR. At least that's how it was when I was studying law.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#82

Post by yareal » Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 3:12 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #71

yareal wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, apathy, disenfranchisement, and multiple concerns that compete for head space. It's also slow, and the legal system exists specifically to address concerns like this. If a cop is busting heads, you don't wait to elect a new sheriff, you bring a lawsuit to fix the acute problem. If a department is systematically harming a group, you can try to elect someone…

> Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority Democracy is about the majority; and in Switzerland - in contrast to most other democracies - it's the majority of the real population, not just an elite class, and the people directly decide about real problems, not just who should represent them. And there are even provisions which assure that local concerns are sufficiently considered. You should inform…

Go google Tyranny of the Majority. Then respond after educating yourself. Unless you genuinely believe that the majority always makes the correct decision. In which case I can't help you.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#83

Post by Rochus » Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 3:47 PM UTC

yareal wrote: post #82

Rochus wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority Democracy is about the majority; and in Switzerland - in contrast to most other democracies - it's the majority of the real population, not just an elite class, and the people directly decide about real problems, not just who should represent them. And there are even provisions which assure that local concerns are sufficiently considered. You should inform…

Go google Tyranny of the Majority. Then respond after educating yourself. Unless you genuinely believe that the majority always makes the correct decision. In which case I can't help you.

Then take the chance and make a name for yourself by proposing a better state system than the one in Switzerland. I hope you are not suggesting the tyranny of minorities, on which various works also exist.

It is in the nature of human beings that a few will always be dissatisfied, no matter how well off they are or what form of society is applied.

The sovereignty of the Swiss people is a compromise that came about on a voluntary basis through the coming together of people from different regions and languages. No one is forced to live in Switzerland, and yet a considerable part of the world seems to want to do so.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#84

Post by Rochus » Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 8:49 PM UTC

Y-bar wrote: post #3

Rochus wrote: post #2

> https://www.klimaseniorinnen.ch/uber-uns/ Apparently not a single physicist or medical doctor on the board, but many politicians and lawyers. EDIT: this is an easily verifiable fact, but apparently there are people here for whom even that is too much.

Why is that a relevant take-away? Are you saying that not a singe physicist agrees that "[…] the current climate targets and measures are not sufficient to limit global warming to a safe level."?

> Are you saying that not a singe physicist agrees that "[…] the current climate targets and measures are not sufficient to limit global warming to a safe level."?

Ironically, since the present court case is essentially driven and funded by Greanpeace, even the co-founder of Greenpeace publicly states that there is no climate emergency. See e.g https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20220208/114392/HHRG....

Here is a very interesting new documentary which covers relevant facts presented by renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners, everyone interested in this topic should have a look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#85

Post by yareal » Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 9:20 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #83

yareal wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go google Tyranny of the Majority. Then respond after educating yourself. Unless you genuinely believe that the majority always makes the correct decision. In which case I can't help you.

Then take the chance and make a name for yourself by proposing a better state system than the one in Switzerland. I hope you are not suggesting the tyranny of minorities, on which various works also exist. It is in the nature of human beings that a few will always be dissatisfied, no matter how well off they are or what form of society is applied. The sovereignty of the Swiss people is a compromise that came about on…

Switzerland didn't allow all women to vote until 1990, and didn't allow any women to vote until 1971.

You might say, will they did eventually and recently fix that, but what systemic inequalities allowed that to last so long?

For what it's worth, I do think direct democracy is good, but I don't think direct democracy always solves the most urgent problems or ensures that nonmajority people can survive.

Let me be extra clear, Swiss voting system sounds pretty good. But it's not flawless. It can even be the best system in widespread use and not be flawless. The will of the majority can be wrong, and it needs to be acceptable to challenge it.

Here in the USA the will of the majority was to segregate schools and prevent Black kids from attending them. That's what the majority wanted. It was wrong, and the minority using the courts to overturn the will of the majority is correct. Waiting to convince a new generation to integrate would do irreparable harm.

Challenges to the majority viewpoint are crucial and healthy and normal in a democracy. Whether that majority is conservative or progressive, we need to test the results regularly.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#86

Post by Rochus » Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

yareal wrote: post #85

Rochus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then take the chance and make a name for yourself by proposing a better state system than the one in Switzerland. I hope you are not suggesting the tyranny of minorities, on which various works also exist. It is in the nature of human beings that a few will always be dissatisfied, no matter how well off they are or what form of society is applied. The sovereignty of the Swiss people is a compromise that came about on…

Switzerland didn't allow all women to vote until 1990, and didn't allow any women to vote until 1971. You might say, will they did eventually and recently fix that, but what systemic inequalities allowed that to last so long? For what it's worth, I do think direct democracy is good, but I don't think direct democracy always solves the most urgent problems or ensures that nonmajority people can survive. Let me be extr…

> You might say, will they did eventually and recently fix that

The values and legal system of a democracy essentially reflect the will of the people, and fifty years ago people had a different attitude to these values than they do today. And we cannot expect each country to come to the same conclusions. The question is: do we know a better system than (direct) democracy to improve society in the long term? Likely not.

An ever-growing danger that is damaging society and democracy is the ever-increasing polarization and thus the reduction of pluralism of opinion and discussion culture, fuelled, for example, by lobby organizations that have very large financial resources at their disposal, or by the corruption of science through tendentious funding systems such as we have today. It is becoming increasingly difficult to form a sufficiently objective opinion on factual issues and to isolate the relevant facts from the many fake news and paid bogus experts. In Germany in the 1930s, for example, we saw how systematic misinformation and indoctrination can affect the will of voters. In relation to the present discussion, see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39995558.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#87

Post by yareal » Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 12:34 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #86

yareal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland didn't allow all women to vote until 1990, and didn't allow any women to vote until 1971. You might say, will they did eventually and recently fix that, but what systemic inequalities allowed that to last so long? For what it's worth, I do think direct democracy is good, but I don't think direct democracy always solves the most urgent problems or ensures that nonmajority people can survive. Let me be extr…

> You might say, will they did eventually and recently fix that The values and legal system of a democracy essentially reflect the will of the people, and fifty years ago people had a different attitude to these values than they do today. And we cannot expect each country to come to the same conclusions. The question is: do we know a better system than (direct) democracy to improve society in the long term? Likely no…

We're clearly talking past each other at this point. Let's just move on and go our separate ways.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#88

Post by hnbad » Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #80

hnbad wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call it what you want but even Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between a "direct democracy" without representatives and "instruments for direct democracy in an other representative system": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direkte_Demokratie Of course your "Staatskunde" lesson in school may have handwaved that distinction because the former by definition is stateless and the purpose is to distinguish between…

It's a well defined and established terminology, regardless of opinions.

Yeah, the definition is one of several and I explained why it's not a good one, regardless of how widely it is used. That you prefer this definition over others does not invalidate them - that's literally just your own opinion.

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#89

Post by Rochus » Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 11:01 PM UTC

hnbad wrote: post #88

Rochus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a well defined and established terminology, regardless of opinions.

Yeah, the definition is one of several and I explained why it's not a good one, regardless of how widely it is used. That you prefer this definition over others does not invalidate them - that's literally just your own opinion.

See https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik-ge...

Re: Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling

#90

Post by hnbad » Fri, Apr 12, 2024, 10:19 AM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #89

hnbad wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the definition is one of several and I explained why it's not a good one, regardless of how widely it is used. That you prefer this definition over others does not invalidate them - that's literally just your own opinion.

See https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik-ge...

That's a website of the Swiss government calling its system of governance a direct democracy. I'm talking about political theory, not the Swiss government's publications about itself nor the Swiss curriculum for "Staatskunde" lessons in schools.

I understand that Switzerland calls itself a direct democracy. I understand that many other representative democracies refer to the Swiss form of governance that way. I understand that this language may even have ended up in laws and legal interpretations, but that doesn't change that "direct democracy" means something very specific (i.e. literally everyone voting on every issue, often in the form of proxy voting or delegation) in political theory. I'm not saying Switzerland does not offer more voter participation than other representative democracies. It is a lot closer to direct democracy than any of its neighbors or fellow European democracies. But it's not a direct democracy.

Think of direct democracy like functional programming: there are plenty of programming languages that were originally conceived of as procedural or object-oriented or class-based that claim to support "functional programming" and some are actually very good at it but that does not make them functional programming languages in the same way as languages designed as functional programming languages from the start. Switzerland started out as a representative democracy and introduced and strengthened its participatory instruments over time to behave more like a direct democracy (check out the PDF at the end of the page you linked, it even uses the same narrative of Athens and the French revolution used by other representative democracies to explain their origins). That does not make it a direct democracy, it just makes it a representative democracy with exceptionally good participatory instruments.

It makes perfect sense for Switzerland to describe itself as a direct democracy when it wants to contrast itself with all the other representative democracies because those instruments borrowed from direct democracy set it apart. But that's like Ruby bragging about being a functional programming language by comparing itself to Python and Java because Haskell and Lisp are not part of the conversation.