14 ms·

Am I the only one who kinda feels like I'm not living in a democratic system anymore? Not saying this is the first such thing that happens, but it's probably t

Am I the only one who kinda feels like I'm not living in a democratic system anymore? Not saying this is the first such thing that happens, but it's probably the one that will make me stop using the word to refer to the society I live in.

cbg0 8y ago
Which part of this was not democratic?
- pmlnr 8y ago
  The oil lobby in the background part?
- rvense 8y ago
  I think there is a feeling that this law was largely authored by/for narrow (commercial) interests in the entertainment industry, with little to no regard for its consequences for other parts of the web like open discussion forums and projects such as Wikipedia.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    The tech industry are also major lobbyists, who often spend more on influencing politicians in their favor than the entertainment industry does. Commercial interests were on both sides, as much as they'd like you to believe it was a valiant fight of the little guys to save the Internet.
    - black_puppydog 8y ago
      hard to argue that, given the actual in-person turnout at protests, and the role that EDRI and other NGOs played. Those involved there have been very active, and very public, for a long time. Julia Reda is one of them, but maybe also google Thomas Lohninger. Of course google/fb etc had a stake in this and were lobbying. They're not the ones who stand to lose from this outcome though, even if that's what the Axel Voss & team would like to believe.
- DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
  When you have massive parts of the population telling you they're not going to vote for you again if you support a piece of legislation, I'd say it's reasonable to say you are betraying your voters when you don't even reconsider your position.
  - Jommi 8y ago
    Who have you seen not reconsider their position?
  - Tomte 8y ago
    "Massive parts of the population"? You mean a handful activists? The people at large do not care one bit. You can claim that you're acting in their best interest, so they should be counted as "on your side", but that's obviously false.
- swebs 8y ago
  The part where the parliament voted against the wishes of the majority.
pmlnr 8y ago
You're not alone. Hungarian elections, Brexit, this - it all feels like what people actually want, is ignored.
- LeonM 8y ago
  Well... in case of Brexit it is because people voted to leave the EU.
  - pmlnr 8y ago
    No, they voted for lies.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Ah, so when you disagree, people voted for lies? But when you agree then it’s the will of the people?
      - calcifer 8y ago
        The lies told by the leave campaign has been extensively documented, including by courts. It's all a google search away.
        antipropaganda 8y ago
        So are the lies of the remain campaign ?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        tasuki 8y ago
        Yes, and it's completely beside the point. The point being that this was how the people voted. Democracy right there.
        8y ago
sprash 8y ago
The EU is not democratic at all. Especially because the unelected European Commission has executive and legislative power. The parliament only has veto rights and even at that it spectacularly fails as Art. 17 shows. The whole thing was a backroom deal between Germany (which wants gas from Russia) and France (which apparently really likes ultra restrictive Copyright). We would have the same result without this fake theater of the simulated democracy facade. Time to abolish the EU.
- antientropic 8y ago
  These are pretty weak arguments to get rid of the EU. In many democracies, the government has the power to propose legislation. And what democracy doesn't have backroom deals?
  - sprash 8y ago
    The problem here is that the backroom deal of two countries (Germany and France) now has influence over countries that are totally unrelated like e.g. Finland. This turns the EU into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Germans have a say about how the internet should work in Finland? The EU is also already dying. Brexit will come soon and Italy is on it's way out. What the remnants will be is unclear but the EU as a whole has already failed. The settlement process to unwind it will be lengthy and painful.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      The problem here is that the backroom deal of two states (California and New York) now has influence over states that are totally unrelated like e.g. Wyoming. This turns the US into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Californians have a say about how the internet should work in Wyoming? (The reality of course is that the US has had not only a say, but often the only say in how the internet should work in the rest of the world for decades, and when it comes to copyright law we have an undemocratic international treaty dating back generations that keeps pushing expiry dates back and back globally)
rmoriz 8y ago
It's purely democratic. Median age of Germans is 48 and most old people just want cheap gas to heat their houses. They are still offline and don't care about the pyramid scheme /dba/ welfare state.
- I_am_tiberius 8y ago
  You mean "It's poorly democratic" and not "It's purely democratic", right?
  - skrebbel 8y ago
    I'm seriously baffled about the amount of HN commenters, who I'd assume are highly educated, who think that democracy doesn't work if they don't agree with every law produced by it.
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      Education and intelligence don’t imply any particular insight into our motivations or feelings. It’s also true that an education focused on programming and tech in general is an extremely limited focus unrelated to politics. Then there’s just the reality that people understand on some level that “undemocrstic” is more emotive than “I don’t like this outcome and wish it hadn’t happened.” Finally a lot of people seem to hav a very warped idea about how the systems they live in really work, and when they find themselves on the wrong side of that system they assume the system isn’t working as intended. Now I hate this new law, I think it needs to die, but I recognize that a democratic process created it. I also recognize that “democratic process” includes cronyism, special interests, ignorant and venal politicians, and the rule of a minority of powerful people. What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. In short, people here should be given a free copy of The Dictator’s Handbook when they sign up, and s quiz on the contents before they’re allowed to comment on political threads.
      - anoncake 8y ago
antientropic 8y ago
Democracy does not mean that you always get what you want. A majority in parliament and the council were in favor of this law, so you can't say it's undemocratic.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Democracy does not mean that the parliament and council is in favor, but that "the people" (translation of "demos") have "power" (translation of "kratos").
  - antientropic 8y ago
    But the parliament and (more indirectly) the council were chosen by the people to exercise power on their behalf in democratic elections.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      I am sick of people using this as some kind of an universal argument. The communist party in 1946 was also elected lawfully in my country, and Hitler also was (and yes, I'm fully aware that he lied to the German people - that's the point). And the fact that someone elected these people does not change anything about the possibility of them lying to the people that elected them, and it also changes nothing about the lawful and moral obligation these people have to their people (people they represent - all citizens of their country, not "people that voted for them"!) that they should act in their best interests - which they can just not do at any time, such as now, which makes this argument irrelevant.
      - gpderetta 8y ago
        That's why it is important that the 'will of the people' is bounded by a strong, hard to modify, constitution.
        anoncake 8y ago
piokoch 8y ago
Yup, for me EU democracy looks like Roman Republic democracy at the turn of eras. People living at the times of First Triumvirate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate) also thought that they live in democracy, they could vote and choose their representatives. Yet, as we know today, no decision could have been made without agreement of Julius Caesar, Gnaeus Magnus and Marcus Crassus.
- LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
  The whole eu-institutions look like a benevolent dictator would like to have a democratic fassade. Lots of talk, and big halls to have a speakers corner in. And at the end of day, the important decisions are mady by people who are not actually part of the process. Écrasez l’infâme
isostatic 8y ago
The EU Parliament, who we vote for every 5 years (and have elections coming up), vote for a law. You don't like said law, therefore it's undemocratic? The way the parliament is elected is quite fair - it gives a little more power to people in smaller countries, but that's not unusual (UK westminster constituencies vary from 22k to 120k. U.S. congress areas are more even, ranging from 500k to 1 million). There's an argument that it should be more even than the current 11:1 ratio, but we call the U.S. senate democratic and that's a 69:1 ratio. The actual choice of MEP comes down to a proportionate election, meaning that if you get 15% of the votes, you get 15% of the MEPs. This beats fptp systems where MPs in the house of commons are elected with as few as 30% of the votes cast. Voting for a representative is the very essence of representative democracy. Perhaps we should have direct democracy. As it happens I watched an episode of The Orville[0] last night which covered this scenario. Personally I'm a fan of representative democracy. It's the worst system except for all the others. I expect my representitive to work full time in understanding proposals and voting on my behalf, but they are a representitive, not a delegate. This is where direct PR falls down (who gets the seats is down to the party, not to the voter. I can't vote for Candidate B rather than candidate A if they are part of the same party. STV works better in this case, although 90% of voters don't really care and in the UK 80% don't even know who their MP is! [0] https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Majority_Rule https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Majority_Rule
- sprash 8y ago
  Parliamentary democracy is a type of fake democracy that legitimizes tyranny. If people were able to vote directly Art. 17 would have never passed.
  - marcodave 8y ago
    > If people were able to vote directly Art. 17 The cynical in me would complete the sentence with "...a vast majority would not even understand what the article is about"
    - isostatic 8y ago
      Quite, I haven't got a clue on all the ins and outs, and I'm relatively clued up compared with most people I know. I've seen a lot of lobbying from google and co saying it shouldn't pass. That's why I vote for people who can spend a lot of time looking at it and voting for or against it in parliament. As it happens my preferred grouping were pretty much split evenly, there's certainly pros and cons.
amelius 8y ago
I want to see who voted yes, plus I want to read for each MEP a short statement explaining why they think it is a good idea. Better yet, a short video fragment with their statement, so the media can use that to make them look stupid when this legislation turns out to be a total failure.
- DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
  You mean like this? [0] What does it matter. Too many people seem to be too dumb to even understand how silly those politicians are and how uninformed this decision was. And honestly, they don't look like they care either way. As long as netflix works and someone will sell them beer, why would they care about silly concepts like "democracy" or "freedom"? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6EQooiAjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6EQooiAjo
  - Jommi 8y ago
    Why are you giving an extremist as an example representing the majority? Extremists don't decide the vote.
- lagadu 8y ago
  I'm curious why you're not making the same demands out of the ones who voted no.
  - amelius 8y ago
    There's no reason I wouldn't want this. In fact I think it should be standard procedure for every poll. Making MEPs publicly state the reason for their vote makes them more accountable and this at least makes them think (hopefully).
gryzzly 8y ago
There is a whole movement, called "Democracy in Europe Movement 2025" aimed at restoring democracy in Europe. European Parliament is definitely NOT a democratic institution. It became a sad lobbying haven. https://diem25.org/ https://diem25.org/
paganel 8y ago
I've also said it in the other thread about this, Macron is basically a crook, he has just sent the military to guard against some of France's citizens street protests [1], that's not at all democratic. Unfortunately, with the Brexit situation, with Angela Merkel who's on her way out and with Italy which is partly run by a comedian's party France has gained an unrivaled influence over EU affairs and in one way or another we (meaning us, EU citizens) are all under Macron's rule right now. Btw, this initiative is heavily supported by Macron, from here[2]: > France’s current batch of national politicians have consistently advocated for the worst parts of the Directive, and the Macron administration may seek to grab an early win for the country’s media establishment. [1] http://en.rfi.fr/france/20190320-military-be-deployed-saturdays-french-yellow-vests-protests http://en.rfi.fr/france/20190320-military-be-deployed-saturd... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-d...
- raverbashing 8y ago
  You're right about his influence in the EU and on the directive. However he's completely in his right to have the army against disorderly protests that cause damage (including fire to historical buildings the last time).
  - paganel 8y ago
    Armies are supposed to fight against foreign troops, at worst, they are supposed to take sides in the event of a civil war, in no way are they supposed to be sent against their own citizenry. At least not in a democratic country. What's worst is that the crooks that run things around my part of the continent (I live in Eastern Europe) have given Macron's recent actions as an example, as in: "if France's rulers are happy to tear-gas their own citizenry why are we blamed for doing the same thing"?
    - Juliate 8y ago
      Militaries were not sent against anyone, they were placed to protect more of the institutions (that were not on the paths of protests), so that police forces could be relieved there to be concentrated on hot protest areas.
raubtier 8y ago
The built-in error with democracy is that the politicians have the incentive to be re-elected. Therefore, they will use all available resources to try to satisfy enough before the next election. This makes the decisions they make become extremely short-term, often a time horizon of less than 4 years. A pretty good indication of this is to check on the sovereign debt in all democratic countries. You borrow money to finance reforms, the purpose of which is to get yourself re-elected. Likewise, the political class has strong incentives for the public part of society to grow. Then they secure their own and the sin's survival. A good indication that it is to look at the development of taxes and regulations that over time only increases. There is no currently relevant opposition to this. Every problem discussed has basically all the same solution; some type of public effort. If you allow yourself to think about this logically, you realize that it is not a viable way, a country needs a long-term perspective. Every decision made in one country must be beneficial for that country in the long term. You have to manage something that your children and grandchildren should live in and it should be in better condition than when you took over it yourself. This is actually obvious. Making decisions at the expense of one's children and grandchildren is unreasonable. Right now, the whole Western world is actually living on what our ancestors have created, and they lived in times where it was obvious that they did better for future generations. Today we burn it at both ends. Of course, a system that prizes laziness and short-sightedness and punishes fitness and diligence cannot be long-lived. The future will look at the present as a very strange parenthesis in the history of the West. That is, f we do not go under.

cbg0 8y ago

Which part of this was not democratic?

pmlnr 8y ago
The oil lobby in the background part?
rvense 8y ago
I think there is a feeling that this law was largely authored by/for narrow (commercial) interests in the entertainment industry, with little to no regard for its consequences for other parts of the web like open discussion forums and projects such as Wikipedia.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  The tech industry are also major lobbyists, who often spend more on influencing politicians in their favor than the entertainment industry does. Commercial interests were on both sides, as much as they'd like you to believe it was a valiant fight of the little guys to save the Internet.
  - black_puppydog 8y ago
    hard to argue that, given the actual in-person turnout at protests, and the role that EDRI and other NGOs played. Those involved there have been very active, and very public, for a long time. Julia Reda is one of them, but maybe also google Thomas Lohninger. Of course google/fb etc had a stake in this and were lobbying. They're not the ones who stand to lose from this outcome though, even if that's what the Axel Voss & team would like to believe.
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
When you have massive parts of the population telling you they're not going to vote for you again if you support a piece of legislation, I'd say it's reasonable to say you are betraying your voters when you don't even reconsider your position.
- Jommi 8y ago
  Who have you seen not reconsider their position?
- Tomte 8y ago
  "Massive parts of the population"? You mean a handful activists? The people at large do not care one bit. You can claim that you're acting in their best interest, so they should be counted as "on your side", but that's obviously false.
swebs 8y ago
The part where the parliament voted against the wishes of the majority.

pmlnr 8y ago

You're not alone. Hungarian elections, Brexit, this - it all feels like what people actually want, is ignored.

LeonM 8y ago
Well... in case of Brexit it is because people voted to leave the EU.
- pmlnr 8y ago
  No, they voted for lies.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Ah, so when you disagree, people voted for lies? But when you agree then it’s the will of the people?
    - calcifer 8y ago
      The lies told by the leave campaign has been extensively documented, including by courts. It's all a google search away.
      - antipropaganda 8y ago
        So are the lies of the remain campaign ?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - tasuki 8y ago
        Yes, and it's completely beside the point. The point being that this was how the people voted. Democracy right there.
      - 8y ago

sprash 8y ago

The EU is not democratic at all. Especially because the unelected European Commission has executive and legislative power. The parliament only has veto rights and even at that it spectacularly fails as Art. 17 shows. The whole thing was a backroom deal between Germany (which wants gas from Russia) and France (which apparently really likes ultra restrictive Copyright). We would have the same result without this fake theater of the simulated democracy facade. Time to abolish the EU.

antientropic 8y ago
These are pretty weak arguments to get rid of the EU. In many democracies, the government has the power to propose legislation. And what democracy doesn't have backroom deals?
- sprash 8y ago
  The problem here is that the backroom deal of two countries (Germany and France) now has influence over countries that are totally unrelated like e.g. Finland. This turns the EU into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Germans have a say about how the internet should work in Finland? The EU is also already dying. Brexit will come soon and Italy is on it's way out. What the remnants will be is unclear but the EU as a whole has already failed. The settlement process to unwind it will be lengthy and painful.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    The problem here is that the backroom deal of two states (California and New York) now has influence over states that are totally unrelated like e.g. Wyoming. This turns the US into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Californians have a say about how the internet should work in Wyoming? (The reality of course is that the US has had not only a say, but often the only say in how the internet should work in the rest of the world for decades, and when it comes to copyright law we have an undemocratic international treaty dating back generations that keeps pushing expiry dates back and back globally)

rmoriz 8y ago

It's purely democratic. Median age of Germans is 48 and most old people just want cheap gas to heat their houses. They are still offline and don't care about the pyramid scheme /dba/ welfare state.

I_am_tiberius 8y ago
You mean "It's poorly democratic" and not "It's purely democratic", right?
- skrebbel 8y ago
  I'm seriously baffled about the amount of HN commenters, who I'd assume are highly educated, who think that democracy doesn't work if they don't agree with every law produced by it.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    Education and intelligence don’t imply any particular insight into our motivations or feelings. It’s also true that an education focused on programming and tech in general is an extremely limited focus unrelated to politics. Then there’s just the reality that people understand on some level that “undemocrstic” is more emotive than “I don’t like this outcome and wish it hadn’t happened.” Finally a lot of people seem to hav a very warped idea about how the systems they live in really work, and when they find themselves on the wrong side of that system they assume the system isn’t working as intended. Now I hate this new law, I think it needs to die, but I recognize that a democratic process created it. I also recognize that “democratic process” includes cronyism, special interests, ignorant and venal politicians, and the rule of a minority of powerful people. What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. In short, people here should be given a free copy of The Dictator’s Handbook when they sign up, and s quiz on the contents before they’re allowed to comment on political threads.
    - anoncake 8y ago

antientropic 8y ago

Democracy does not mean that you always get what you want. A majority in parliament and the council were in favor of this law, so you can't say it's undemocratic.

TomMarius 8y ago
Democracy does not mean that the parliament and council is in favor, but that "the people" (translation of "demos") have "power" (translation of "kratos").
- antientropic 8y ago
  But the parliament and (more indirectly) the council were chosen by the people to exercise power on their behalf in democratic elections.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    I am sick of people using this as some kind of an universal argument. The communist party in 1946 was also elected lawfully in my country, and Hitler also was (and yes, I'm fully aware that he lied to the German people - that's the point). And the fact that someone elected these people does not change anything about the possibility of them lying to the people that elected them, and it also changes nothing about the lawful and moral obligation these people have to their people (people they represent - all citizens of their country, not "people that voted for them"!) that they should act in their best interests - which they can just not do at any time, such as now, which makes this argument irrelevant.
    - gpderetta 8y ago
      That's why it is important that the 'will of the people' is bounded by a strong, hard to modify, constitution.
      - anoncake 8y ago

piokoch 8y ago

Yup, for me EU democracy looks like Roman Republic democracy at the turn of eras. People living at the times of First Triumvirate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate) also thought that they live in democracy, they could vote and choose their representatives. Yet, as we know today, no decision could have been made without agreement of Julius Caesar, Gnaeus Magnus and Marcus Crassus.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
The whole eu-institutions look like a benevolent dictator would like to have a democratic fassade. Lots of talk, and big halls to have a speakers corner in. And at the end of day, the important decisions are mady by people who are not actually part of the process. Écrasez l’infâme

isostatic 8y ago

The EU Parliament, who we vote for every 5 years (and have elections coming up), vote for a law. You don't like said law, therefore it's undemocratic? The way the parliament is elected is quite fair - it gives a little more power to people in smaller countries, but that's not unusual (UK westminster constituencies vary from 22k to 120k. U.S. congress areas are more even, ranging from 500k to 1 million). There's an argument that it should be more even than the current 11:1 ratio, but we call the U.S. senate democratic and that's a 69:1 ratio. The actual choice of MEP comes down to a proportionate election, meaning that if you get 15% of the votes, you get 15% of the MEPs. This beats fptp systems where MPs in the house of commons are elected with as few as 30% of the votes cast. Voting for a representative is the very essence of representative democracy. Perhaps we should have direct democracy. As it happens I watched an episode of The Orville[0] last night which covered this scenario. Personally I'm a fan of representative democracy. It's the worst system except for all the others. I expect my representitive to work full time in understanding proposals and voting on my behalf, but they are a representitive, not a delegate. This is where direct PR falls down (who gets the seats is down to the party, not to the voter. I can't vote for Candidate B rather than candidate A if they are part of the same party. STV works better in this case, although 90% of voters don't really care and in the UK 80% don't even know who their MP is! [0] https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Majority_Rule https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Majority_Rule

sprash 8y ago
Parliamentary democracy is a type of fake democracy that legitimizes tyranny. If people were able to vote directly Art. 17 would have never passed.
- marcodave 8y ago
  > If people were able to vote directly Art. 17 The cynical in me would complete the sentence with "...a vast majority would not even understand what the article is about"
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Quite, I haven't got a clue on all the ins and outs, and I'm relatively clued up compared with most people I know. I've seen a lot of lobbying from google and co saying it shouldn't pass. That's why I vote for people who can spend a lot of time looking at it and voting for or against it in parliament. As it happens my preferred grouping were pretty much split evenly, there's certainly pros and cons.

amelius 8y ago

I want to see who voted yes, plus I want to read for each MEP a short statement explaining why they think it is a good idea. Better yet, a short video fragment with their statement, so the media can use that to make them look stupid when this legislation turns out to be a total failure.

DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
You mean like this? [0] What does it matter. Too many people seem to be too dumb to even understand how silly those politicians are and how uninformed this decision was. And honestly, they don't look like they care either way. As long as netflix works and someone will sell them beer, why would they care about silly concepts like "democracy" or "freedom"? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6EQooiAjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6EQooiAjo
- Jommi 8y ago
  Why are you giving an extremist as an example representing the majority? Extremists don't decide the vote.
lagadu 8y ago
I'm curious why you're not making the same demands out of the ones who voted no.
- amelius 8y ago
  There's no reason I wouldn't want this. In fact I think it should be standard procedure for every poll. Making MEPs publicly state the reason for their vote makes them more accountable and this at least makes them think (hopefully).

gryzzly 8y ago

There is a whole movement, called "Democracy in Europe Movement 2025" aimed at restoring democracy in Europe. European Parliament is definitely NOT a democratic institution. It became a sad lobbying haven. https://diem25.org/ https://diem25.org/

paganel 8y ago

I've also said it in the other thread about this, Macron is basically a crook, he has just sent the military to guard against some of France's citizens street protests [1], that's not at all democratic. Unfortunately, with the Brexit situation, with Angela Merkel who's on her way out and with Italy which is partly run by a comedian's party France has gained an unrivaled influence over EU affairs and in one way or another we (meaning us, EU citizens) are all under Macron's rule right now. Btw, this initiative is heavily supported by Macron, from here[2]: > France’s current batch of national politicians have consistently advocated for the worst parts of the Directive, and the Macron administration may seek to grab an early win for the country’s media establishment. [1] http://en.rfi.fr/france/20190320-military-be-deployed-saturdays-french-yellow-vests-protests http://en.rfi.fr/france/20190320-military-be-deployed-saturd... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-d...

raverbashing 8y ago
You're right about his influence in the EU and on the directive. However he's completely in his right to have the army against disorderly protests that cause damage (including fire to historical buildings the last time).
- paganel 8y ago
  Armies are supposed to fight against foreign troops, at worst, they are supposed to take sides in the event of a civil war, in no way are they supposed to be sent against their own citizenry. At least not in a democratic country. What's worst is that the crooks that run things around my part of the continent (I live in Eastern Europe) have given Macron's recent actions as an example, as in: "if France's rulers are happy to tear-gas their own citizenry why are we blamed for doing the same thing"?
  - Juliate 8y ago
    Militaries were not sent against anyone, they were placed to protect more of the institutions (that were not on the paths of protests), so that police forces could be relieved there to be concentrated on hot protest areas.

raubtier 8y ago

The built-in error with democracy is that the politicians have the incentive to be re-elected. Therefore, they will use all available resources to try to satisfy enough before the next election. This makes the decisions they make become extremely short-term, often a time horizon of less than 4 years. A pretty good indication of this is to check on the sovereign debt in all democratic countries. You borrow money to finance reforms, the purpose of which is to get yourself re-elected. Likewise, the political class has strong incentives for the public part of society to grow. Then they secure their own and the sin's survival. A good indication that it is to look at the development of taxes and regulations that over time only increases. There is no currently relevant opposition to this. Every problem discussed has basically all the same solution; some type of public effort. If you allow yourself to think about this logically, you realize that it is not a viable way, a country needs a long-term perspective. Every decision made in one country must be beneficial for that country in the long term. You have to manage something that your children and grandchildren should live in and it should be in better condition than when you took over it yourself. This is actually obvious. Making decisions at the expense of one's children and grandchildren is unreasonable. Right now, the whole Western world is actually living on what our ancestors have created, and they lived in times where it was obvious that they did better for future generations. Today we burn it at both ends. Of course, a system that prizes laziness and short-sightedness and punishes fitness and diligence cannot be long-lived. The future will look at the present as a very strange parenthesis in the history of the West. That is, f we do not go under.