71–80 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.
This seems to be more about political power and government overreach than money. The narrative seems to be focused solely on concentration of the later, lately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.
This seems to be more about political power and government overreach than money. The narrative seems to be focused solely on concentration of the later, lately.
TLDR: Billionaires hold political power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have to win every time. They only have to win once and it's game over.
Why can't we put up legislation to repeal over and over until it is repealed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.
What happens when you get what you want, and rather than magically solving every problem confronting society, it doesn't solve anything at all, and in fact creates several more problems, as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice? What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars?
This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.
By choosing "people-vs-individual-politician" fight over "people-vs-government-system". Like, literally, make politicians personally responsible for this bs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.
This seems to be more about political power and government overreach than money. The narrative seems to be focused solely on concentration of the later, lately.
This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.
We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.
I'm not sure it can be solved without everybody writing down their vote, but this would be one way that would make pushing through unpopular policies, whether because of changing opinions, mismatches where politicians misrepresent their plans or corruption, much more difficult.
This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.
as in: not possible
the EU parliament can't legislate to remove it, at least not without permission from the two organs (commission, council) that keep pushing this
EU parliament is the only legislature in the world that needs permission to legislate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true and yet we managed to kick SOPA to the curb (one of Aaron Swartz's finest hours)
That was more than a decade ago. Think how many normies have come online since then that have only ever used a smartphone. Sadly the average computer literacy of those times are gone.
I remember a few years ago, being shocked to see that over 50% of applicants for a software engineering role applied directly from their smartphones. So it's not even just normies who see their phone as "the computer".