The problem is, that we (as in, "not the rich and powerful") are not playing the game of democracy correctly.
Protesting to stop a bill passing is the "you f-ed up, so you're panicking, and maybe you'll stop it" move.
If it keeps happening, it just means you did not learn your lesson.
What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set rules the way you want them. Both by electing the right people and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts.
Democracy is when the people in general have power. Not when they are allowed (perhaps, begrudgingly) to demonstrate with placards outside of the buildings that house/employ people with power.
Cite any reputable social science that says that democracy is an actual thing implemented in liberal democracies. Then we can take it from there.
> actually, funding lobbying efforts.
Billionaires and multi-millionaires will outspend your gofundme lobbying. It’s simple economics.
No, that's not what democracy is. That's what you want it to be.
And no, the rich can't outspend the population, if the population realized what's happening.
Not only is 10USD/EUR per month times the entire population just an incredible amount of money ... it's way more effective.
Most damage from lobby happens because corporate lobbyist are the only ones there. Just one publicly funded lobbyist there to remind the decisions makers of what is right and prevent their ability to rationalize would make an incredible difference.
> No, that's not what democracy is. That's what you want it to be.
I don’t even know what that means.
Seems that you have no answers.
> Not only is 10USD/EUR per month times the entire population just an incredible amount of money ... it's way more effective.
That’s about 3B USD a month for the entire US population. Not a small amount but the political system is absolutely flush with money.
Plus you need to organize hundreds of millions of people and convince them to spend it towards one cause/pool. Which is orders of magnitude (as we like to say) harder than the billionaire class loosely organizing togheter.
(Not to mention that you have to keep out grifters etc...)
Not to mention many people can’t afford those kinds of “just two starbucks a month” recurring expenses that HN readers scoff at.
> Most damage from lobby happens because corporate lobbyist are the only ones there. Just one publicly funded lobbyist there to remind the decisions makers of what is right and prevent their ability to rationalize would make an incredible difference.
The keywords “right” and “rationalize” tells me that you are idealizing. The decision-makers don’t care about what’s right; they care about money and power. And if they do start to care about what is “right” then they will be replaced with someone else.
The decision makers need money to stay in power. In turn they turn to the biggest pockets. Predictable outcomes.
What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set rules the way you want them.Both by electing the right people and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts.
Maybe we should actively fight against the existence of lobby groups. The lobby groups in most cases push for legislation that is good for them (companies) and not for the people.
I hear what you are saying, but sadly that's like fighting against democracy. Lobbying is a natural party of a democratic system, just like political parties. You can try and outlaw it, but you'll only make the problem way worse.
And it's not inherently a problem. It's not even slanted against the interests of the population. The only reason we have a problem is because "the rich and powerful" understand that this is how democracy works and everyone else ... wishes it was different.
The solution to just about all our problems is simple: stop wanting democracy to be something it isn't and start "using" it correctly - namely, realize that to HAVE power you need to SPEND money. And no, taxes ain't it.
The great thing is that "the people's" money is way more effective (i.e. it's more expansive to get politicians to do immoral acts than it is for them to do moral acts).
Plus, we have more of it (10EUR/USD per month times the entire population is ... a lot of money).
Not so simple since you only have one vote and politicians have thousands of choices to make during their time in office.
I strongly oppose domestic spying laws like this, AND I oppose uneducated immigration too. There is no party that shares both of these views.
In other words the current system will always boil down to choosing between bad options that will screw you over some way or another. I wish there was an alternative...
Judging by how low the vaccination rate is for rich and developed Switzerland in comparison to poorer countries like Spain or Portugal, I stopped assuming that most of the population there is "highly educated" as you put it. No offense to the Swiss.
Maybe some Swiss can clarify why their population is so anti-vax, as it boggles my mind.
My point is not to say that such a direct democratic system wouldn't be effective, I'm just saying that correlation != causation, as in the case of Switzerland, I attribute its success as a country more to it being a neutral banking heaven for the world elite for decades and being in a very fortunate geo-political location that was spared the destruction of war which helped it attract tons of foreign talent and capital, rather than to its direct democratic system and domestic educated population. I could also be wrong of course.
I'm sorry but you are spreading misinformation. The Swiss are not anti-vax in general and they are not against the Covid vaccine. Switzerland is 63.7% vaccinated.
In any case not getting the vaccine doesn't make someone uneducated. Switzerland has some of the best schools and universities in the world. In 2018, 44% of 25-64 year-olds had completed a tertiary qualification in Switzerland, compared to 39% on average across OECD countries. [1]
Which I said I find it to be very low in comparison to countries like Spain and Portugal where the rate is nearly 100% so having only 64% points to a large number of anti-vaxers similar to Eastern Europe.
>In any case not getting the vaccine doesn't make someone uneducated.
No? Then what does it make the other 36% who refuse to get vaccinated? En-masse refusal of a potentially life saving vaccine that will help end the pandemic doesn't really scream intelligence and education, does it?
creating your own definitions or metrics as to what would qualify someone as educated isn't helpful in a discussion.
you are also making assumptions that those who aren't yet vaccinated are anti-vax, which again isn't always the case they may have their own reasons for delaying or perhaps are perfectly fine with vaccines in general but distrust this particular one for whatever reason.
A person can be educated person can still be an unreasonable one.
>they may have their own reasons for delaying or perhaps are perfectly fine with vaccines in general but distrust this particular one for whatever reason.
So what does the swiss population know that the scientific and medical communities don't?
Switzerland has 64% of its population vaccinated [1]. It's not that low compared to other Western countries. It's as much as the United States [2]. What makes you say that?
> I strongly oppose domestic spying laws like this, AND I oppose uneducated immigration too. There is no party that shares both of these views.
Democracy requires compromise. There will never be a party that perfectly matches your views. You prioritize the ones you care about, find common ground and help those who will advance your interests.
The election to the EU Parliament is a farce. The parliament has no power. It cannot propose laws. It only votes on the laws of the Commission. In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission. The person elected did not get the office. They simply put von der Leyen in that position while she was investigated in the German parliament.
Having done a lot of work in politics, I see the same things frequently: how easy it is for even a few people to accomplish things with a little effort (and that's with a level of organization and management that is shockingly low - as in, if you have competent business skills, you'll walk in and think 'this can't possibly be as bad as it looks'), and then on the outside there are a lot of people calling it a 'farce', saying it's hopeless, etc. etc. It's just kind of silly, like people telling me heavier-than-air flight is impossible. OK, if that's what you obviously want to think.
It's like the naysayers for anything, such as startups. 'It doesn't work', 'it can't be done', 'nobody will let you', blah blah blah. And all the time you are doing it. What can you say to them?
> In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission.
What are you basing this on? The President of the Commission is, by law, proposed by the European Council and validated or not by the European Parliament. Since there was no single majority party after the election, it's not completely surprising that backroom deals led to a different president than the desire of the party holding the most seats.
> The Spitzenkandidat of the largest party would then have a mandate to assume the Commission Presidency
While this is not de jure, German-speaking media did report on the 2019 election as if the above were consensus.
It is my understanding that this was not the case in all EU countries.
it doesn't depend on time. the parliament can reject it every single time without it ever getting tired.
and since the MEPs represent the same people who elect governments who then delegate to the commission, it's strange if the commission continues to propose regulations that are unpopular.
the commission does what the member states want. obviously it has its own agency in the matters, but members don't send someone who would totally disregard their wishes.
the whole problem with these security-privacy ideas is that the member governments want to reign in the Internet, just as they did with every other phenomena for the past hundreds of years. (with varying degrees of "success".)
CSAM is especially a big red cloth that catches the eye of governments. It's not like there was less child abuse before the Internet, and if there were absolutely no CSAM on it from tomorrow ther wouldn't be less actual abuse... :/
Sometimes it's too late. The best dictator in the western world isn't the one who sends the army down the streets to shoot protesters, but the one who controls information so that people after years of being dazed by the same propaganda will vote him in power without any coercion. Sadly bad rulers sometimes have more resources than good ones, which turns out in more online/tv/radio/newspaper presence used to spread their propaganda.
If we could force somehow politicians to count on the same exact public exposure, from rallies to apparently trivial things such as tweets, that would possibly change something, but to me a similar scenario in this universe is near science fiction.
