4 ms·

Yes - because the public has a very, very short-term working memory. The public pressure and ad campaigns _against_ these things have to be constant. All it t

Yes - because the public has a very, very short-term working memory. The public pressure and ad campaigns _against_ these things have to be constant. All it takes is 1 domino to fall then it becomes "well, if it is good enough for <other country>, its good enough for us!"

sgath92 3y ago
I am not sure that the American public cares much about what has become the norm in other countries so that line doesn't really carry any weight here. I'd argue that instead, its more that the public is so apathetic about bad-turns of law that they'll just shrug with a sigh and begrudgingly tolerate the new paradigm.
lillecarl 3y ago
I don't get how the political system can work like this, we keep denying laws that are absolute dogshit. The politicians give them a makeover and try again. They only need a yes once and we need a no every time. Makes me question democracy really, it seems fundamentally broken when the peoples voice is supressed over and over. Same stuff happens in Sweden, but with other kinds of laws.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Democracy makes a lot more sense if you see it as an emergency escape valve to prevent violent revolution (because you assume anyone willing to violently revolt would be willing to vote).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- armchairhacker 3y ago
  "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance. Maybe one day we'll something better than Democracy, like an AI-controlled government, but nobody's come up with anything so far.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Why would an I-controlled system be better? How do we guarantee the alignment problem never rears it's head?
  - Gud 3y ago
    This is not an inherent problem with democracy but with representative democracy. These problems go away when the populace have actual power, in a direct democracy. And why on earth e we liked i want to be ruled by a machine? Come on dude
    - immibis 3y ago
      Does it really? you think the average man won't vote for the Everyone Gets A Free House Also Encryption Is Illegal Because Only Criminals Use It bill?
      - Gud 3y ago
        Switzerland has direct democracy and it works great. Your concerns are invalid!
        rpdillon 3y ago
        This may be the wrong conclusion to draw. Larger populations present different governance challenges than small ones do, since decisions that affect fewer are easier to make. Switzerland has about the same population as NYC.
        Gud 3y ago
        Yes, I believe these massive superstates(U.S., China, India, E.U.) need to be dismantled into smaller components - move the power closer to the people. You can still have interstate trade, regulations etc.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- mkatx 3y ago
  I've always felt like laws should be reviewed every so often, maybe even re-passed, to be sure they are still relevant, make sense, and to see if they worked as intended. There are at least some laws that don't make sense anymore or just flat out failed, but have big implications. Like blue laws, adultery laws, inheritance/intestacy laws, mandatory minimum sentences, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc.. But I do see problems in revisiting laws, it's expensive and time consuming. It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done.
  - immibis 3y ago
    It would be an incentive to write laws succinctly and drop redundant ones so there's less to review.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    In the current political climate in the US, I'd also be concerned that laws that we obviously need and agree on would be held hostage for negotiation purposes just like the budget. I also wonder if laws would just get bundled together for a single vote and then bullshit/pork gets attached.
  - sneak 3y ago
    Automatic expiration timers for all laws. A bicameral legislature where one half needs 2/3rds majority to pass laws, but the other half only repeals laws and needs only 50%. (The latter is not my idea, it comes from Heinlein.)
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done. Heh, are you a Congressperson? Who is this "we"? The whole thread is people pointing out that "we" and the people doing the things are different. Congress has been on a quiet crusade against encryption since before Pretty Good Privacy in the 90s. I remain confused about what people fundamentally see when they look at Congress. It would be a huge win for them to get nothing done and have nearly no laws, most of what they've passed for the last 30 years has been disastrous and encouraged the US in steadily unwinding financially and as a united political body. If the power isn't in Congress it'll get picked up by state and local governments where much more ordinary people will get a say on how they are governed. And do much less damage when they screw up.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Suppressing the people's voice isn't democracy at all. At best you could partially attribute that to a representative system based on fear of the mob.
- bratbag 3y ago
  Dropping democracy means they win the first time.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  That's because liberal democracy is indeed broken. The capitalist class use state power to advance their own material interests. Why wouldn't they pay for laws that give them an immediate advantage or at least divide the working class?
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Many of these "dogshit" laws make sense, when viewed with narrow enough lens. The problem is twofold... Politicians have limited capacity to research/understand potential side-effects of these laws. So they rely on lobbyists from the interested parties. Or their own staff, who have their own biases. Additionally, politicians face re-election. So, they have to balance the whims of their electorate with what might be a better long-term view. "Think of the children" syndrome, if you will.
lost_tourist 3y ago
it's why I donate annually to EFF and ACL . I wish I could afford to donate more.

sgath92 3y ago

I am not sure that the American public cares much about what has become the norm in other countries so that line doesn't really carry any weight here. I'd argue that instead, its more that the public is so apathetic about bad-turns of law that they'll just shrug with a sigh and begrudgingly tolerate the new paradigm.

lillecarl 3y ago

I don't get how the political system can work like this, we keep denying laws that are absolute dogshit. The politicians give them a makeover and try again. They only need a yes once and we need a no every time. Makes me question democracy really, it seems fundamentally broken when the peoples voice is supressed over and over. Same stuff happens in Sweden, but with other kinds of laws.

bombcar 3y ago
Democracy makes a lot more sense if you see it as an emergency escape valve to prevent violent revolution (because you assume anyone willing to violently revolt would be willing to vote).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
armchairhacker 3y ago
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance. Maybe one day we'll something better than Democracy, like an AI-controlled government, but nobody's come up with anything so far.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Why would an I-controlled system be better? How do we guarantee the alignment problem never rears it's head?
- Gud 3y ago
  This is not an inherent problem with democracy but with representative democracy. These problems go away when the populace have actual power, in a direct democracy. And why on earth e we liked i want to be ruled by a machine? Come on dude
  - immibis 3y ago
    Does it really? you think the average man won't vote for the Everyone Gets A Free House Also Encryption Is Illegal Because Only Criminals Use It bill?
    - Gud 3y ago
      Switzerland has direct democracy and it works great. Your concerns are invalid!
      - rpdillon 3y ago
        This may be the wrong conclusion to draw. Larger populations present different governance challenges than small ones do, since decisions that affect fewer are easier to make. Switzerland has about the same population as NYC.
        Gud 3y ago
        Yes, I believe these massive superstates(U.S., China, India, E.U.) need to be dismantled into smaller components - move the power closer to the people. You can still have interstate trade, regulations etc.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
mkatx 3y ago
I've always felt like laws should be reviewed every so often, maybe even re-passed, to be sure they are still relevant, make sense, and to see if they worked as intended. There are at least some laws that don't make sense anymore or just flat out failed, but have big implications. Like blue laws, adultery laws, inheritance/intestacy laws, mandatory minimum sentences, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc.. But I do see problems in revisiting laws, it's expensive and time consuming. It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done.
- immibis 3y ago
  It would be an incentive to write laws succinctly and drop redundant ones so there's less to review.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  In the current political climate in the US, I'd also be concerned that laws that we obviously need and agree on would be held hostage for negotiation purposes just like the budget. I also wonder if laws would just get bundled together for a single vote and then bullshit/pork gets attached.
- sneak 3y ago
  Automatic expiration timers for all laws. A bicameral legislature where one half needs 2/3rds majority to pass laws, but the other half only repeals laws and needs only 50%. (The latter is not my idea, it comes from Heinlein.)
- roenxi 3y ago
  > It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done. Heh, are you a Congressperson? Who is this "we"? The whole thread is people pointing out that "we" and the people doing the things are different. Congress has been on a quiet crusade against encryption since before Pretty Good Privacy in the 90s. I remain confused about what people fundamentally see when they look at Congress. It would be a huge win for them to get nothing done and have nearly no laws, most of what they've passed for the last 30 years has been disastrous and encouraged the US in steadily unwinding financially and as a united political body. If the power isn't in Congress it'll get picked up by state and local governments where much more ordinary people will get a say on how they are governed. And do much less damage when they screw up.
flagrant_taco 3y ago
Suppressing the people's voice isn't democracy at all. At best you could partially attribute that to a representative system based on fear of the mob.
bratbag 3y ago
Dropping democracy means they win the first time.
dontlaugh 3y ago
That's because liberal democracy is indeed broken. The capitalist class use state power to advance their own material interests. Why wouldn't they pay for laws that give them an immediate advantage or at least divide the working class?
alistairSH 3y ago
Many of these "dogshit" laws make sense, when viewed with narrow enough lens. The problem is twofold... Politicians have limited capacity to research/understand potential side-effects of these laws. So they rely on lobbyists from the interested parties. Or their own staff, who have their own biases. Additionally, politicians face re-election. So, they have to balance the whims of their electorate with what might be a better long-term view. "Think of the children" syndrome, if you will.

lost_tourist 3y ago

it's why I donate annually to EFF and ACL . I wish I could afford to donate more.