3 ms·

Where is the totalitarianism in the article? I get the feeling you think that totalitarianism is when the government does something you don't like, when actuall

Where is the totalitarianism in the article? I get the feeling you think that totalitarianism is when the government does something you don't like, when actually it's when a dictator removes all power from the people. Until the Queen of England black bags you for driving your Hummer, we're a ways off. All this article is talking about is a government making laws to (hopefully) make everything better long-term. That's the entire point of governments.

giantg2 5y ago
"That's the entire point of governments." In theory, maybe. It seems most governments are full of people just wanting to hold onto power for themselves. They do what they want and don't truly care about the people or rule of law (ie nobody holds them accountable because the system looks out for itself).
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  And when the goals of the system occasionally align with the good of the people, then somebody comes out of the woodwork to cry "totalitarianism!". Or, even more silly, "this will entrench the incumbent companies, would somebody think of the upstarts?", like if market competition was the be-all, end-all of social development. It's a catch-22.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    If the existing company or companies are involved in antitrust activity, then they need to apply the antitrust laws. When the law is vague in its definitions, then I can see why someone might claim the government is totalitarian on that subject. The enforcement of ambiguous laws also goes against the principle of Lenity. The discretion for punishment and infractions are left solely to the government and is not based on explicit definitions of infractions created through the people or their elected representatives. This is especially important in this scenario since the representatives in the UN/international court are not elected by the people, removing power from the people. Definition from DDG. "the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government"
ceilingcorner 5y ago
The International Criminal Court is not “a government” and isn’t really representative of the people of a particular country in any direct way.

giantg2 5y ago

"That's the entire point of governments." In theory, maybe. It seems most governments are full of people just wanting to hold onto power for themselves. They do what they want and don't truly care about the people or rule of law (ie nobody holds them accountable because the system looks out for itself).

TeMPOraL 5y ago
And when the goals of the system occasionally align with the good of the people, then somebody comes out of the woodwork to cry "totalitarianism!". Or, even more silly, "this will entrench the incumbent companies, would somebody think of the upstarts?", like if market competition was the be-all, end-all of social development. It's a catch-22.
- giantg2 5y ago
  If the existing company or companies are involved in antitrust activity, then they need to apply the antitrust laws. When the law is vague in its definitions, then I can see why someone might claim the government is totalitarian on that subject. The enforcement of ambiguous laws also goes against the principle of Lenity. The discretion for punishment and infractions are left solely to the government and is not based on explicit definitions of infractions created through the people or their elected representatives. This is especially important in this scenario since the representatives in the UN/international court are not elected by the people, removing power from the people. Definition from DDG. "the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government"

ceilingcorner 5y ago

The International Criminal Court is not “a government” and isn’t really representative of the people of a particular country in any direct way.