8 ms·

I would love to see some bus posters put up around Brussels naming the idiots most responsible for this. I'm tired of public servants (elected or otherwise) pus

by tjpnz 3y ago

I would love to see some bus posters put up around Brussels naming the idiots most responsible for this. I'm tired of public servants (elected or otherwise) pushing bullshit and then getting to disown it later on.

logicchains 3y ago
>public servants This term should be reserved for people who actually serve the public, not spy agencies and lobbyists.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I now have a mental image of all the world's spy agencies doxxing and demonising each other's agents in the eyes of the electorate of the governments that those agents work under.
  - literalAardvark 3y ago
    So you're getting closer to the truth then. Great!
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>public servants I doubt the likes of Ursula, who come form extremely privilege backgrounds and have been groomed since childhood for high ranking leadership positions, see themselves as being any kind of "servants". The term come from the days when public servants were elected from the general public, but those days are long gone and now we're bickering which members of the wealthy elite do we elect to screw us over for 4+ years without any accountability or repercussions.
- maxwell 3y ago
  Are you referring to a particular era when public officials (in Europe?) were elected from the general public or just thinking of halcyon days? In the U.S., the main issue is that the House has had 435 members since 1929. It's become so obscene that representation was better, on paper, for colonial Americans in the British Parliament than today.
  - thmsths 3y ago
    I keep hearing this, and I think a charitable explanation is that scaling government becomes really hard past a certain point. I would argue that 435 Representatives is already too much. Humans can only keep track of around 100 people. With so many representatives there is barely enough time for each of them to speak and engage with each other. Increasing the number for "better representation" will just worsen the problem. A more cynical take is that since they just vote along party lines anyway, the number does not matter too much.
    - maxwell 3y ago
      Are you saying the country has too many people, or that Americans don't deserve representation (population per seat) in line with, say, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, or Australia because it's "really hard" for some reason? Are you advocating for dividing the country into smaller legislative districts? Remember when we used to do things because they were hard instead of falling back on lazy cynicism and convenience of status quo? The U.S. seems stuck with the two party system primarily due to the mathematics of the Electoral College and lack of ranked choice voting. These require changes at the state level, not federal. 16 states and DC have now opted out of the Electoral College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...). RCV is now in place for state-wide elections in Maine and Alaska, but recently banned (seemingly as a partisan protectionist measure) in Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. Gerrymandering and lack of a mixed electoral system also seem major factors for the political duopoly, with less clear solutions to me.
      - Wytwwww 3y ago
        Japan and South Korea are not federations. US already has multiple levels of representation increasing the number on the federal level wouldn't be that useful. The electoral system and gerrymandering seem like much, much bigger issue than the number of people per representative.
        3y ago
- barbazoo 3y ago
  > I doubt the likes of Ursula, who come form extremely privilege backgrounds and have been groomed since childhood for high ranking leadership positions Not sure that she's the perfect example for what you're trying to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen
- Aerroon 3y ago
  Ursula von der Leyen isn't elected anyway, she's appointed.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Well, you got that wrong, especially for her. I know some of these people and in fact they do see themselves holding high office as a public service. Their reasoning is something like this: I'm already wealthy, don't have to work for a living. But I can make myself useful by running for public office or by taking a crappy paycheck (by their standards) for some high level bureaucratic position and so make myself useful. And here are some helpful connections that will help me achieve that goal. And so they convince themselves that they are not in it for the money but merely for the public good, as wealthy people they are hard to bribe (somewhat true) and better this than loafing around doing nothing all day. Whether it is the best for society is another matter, but this is a fair representation of some of the people in those circles that I know. They would rather see it as a sacrifice than as them holding power for power's sake because that's not what you're supposed to do. It's loosely connected to Noblesse Oblige (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noblesse%20oblige https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noblesse%20oblige ), as in that you should strive to do good deeds and to use your station in life wisely if you are wealthy or in a position of power (but then you first have to obtain a position of power...).
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >And so they convince themselves that they are not in it for the money but merely for the public good, as wealthy people they are hard to bribe (somewhat true) and better this than loafing around doing nothing all day. Here's where you blew it. Wealthy people aren't immune to greed. The wealthier you are, the more wealth you wan to amass because that's what everyone else around you is doing. I doubt Donald Trump got into politics because he got bored of being rich and became soooo interested in helping the common man. Wealthy people go into politics because politics means more power, more connections and networking, and ultimately more wealth. Also, people born in opulent wealth have no idea of the struggles of the common man you're claiming they want to help. I doubt Ursula knows how much is the price of groceries, gas, electricity, plus the average wage of the common folk.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > Here's where you blew it. Wealthy people aren't immune to greed. The wealthier you are, the more wealth you wan to amass because that's what everyone else around you is doing. No, you didn't get what I wrote, the sentence you quoted starts with 'And so they convince themselves'. Whether it is true or not has no bearing on it.
andrepd 3y ago
I think the crux of the problem is really the undemocratic nature of the EU. For any member-state, the decisions and laws at the EU level are almost as important—and in some things even more—than the ones at the national level. Yet the institutions are largely non-democratic. It is unacceptable.
- omginternets 3y ago
  I like to remind people that the French (and I believe a few other nations) voted against the current EU constitution in a referendum before their governments went ahead and ratified it anyway.
  - varispeed 3y ago
    Is it allowed to be said publicly now? Just a year or two ago such comment would have been downvoted to oblivion, perhaps even risking a ban from whatever platform it was posted on. I wonder where does it come from, treating EU as some sort of divine deity not capable of any wrong doing and such an effort to sweep its flaws under the rug while chanting "EU is great!". It's probably the most corrupt and undemocratic organisation on this side of the planet.
    - rdm_blackhole 3y ago
      You can say it but nobody listens. For years now, the people who tried to say that the EU in its current form is not working have been silenced by the media or labelled as conspiracy nuts.
      - g-b-r 3y ago
        The problem is that the wide majority of them were (and still are) conspiracy nuts
        petre 3y ago
        Or Russia's useful idiots.
omginternets 3y ago
>public servants Careful, you're touching on the core of Euroskepticism within the EU itself. These are not elected officials, nor are they public servants in the usual sense.
petre 3y ago
This, meaning chat control? Ylva Johansson is primarily responsible and also the head of the Comossion. Basically the whole EU executive is responsible for this. The Balkan Insight article has named several people and orgs. https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...
barbazoo 3y ago
> up around Brussels That's not how it works though, they represent people in their EU member states, posters should go up in every capital because those clowns were elected by people everywhere.

by tjpnz 3y ago

logicchains 3y ago

>public servants This term should be reserved for people who actually serve the public, not spy agencies and lobbyists.

ben_w 3y ago
I now have a mental image of all the world's spy agencies doxxing and demonising each other's agents in the eyes of the electorate of the governments that those agents work under.
- literalAardvark 3y ago
  So you're getting closer to the truth then. Great!

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>public servants I doubt the likes of Ursula, who come form extremely privilege backgrounds and have been groomed since childhood for high ranking leadership positions, see themselves as being any kind of "servants". The term come from the days when public servants were elected from the general public, but those days are long gone and now we're bickering which members of the wealthy elite do we elect to screw us over for 4+ years without any accountability or repercussions.

maxwell 3y ago
Are you referring to a particular era when public officials (in Europe?) were elected from the general public or just thinking of halcyon days? In the U.S., the main issue is that the House has had 435 members since 1929. It's become so obscene that representation was better, on paper, for colonial Americans in the British Parliament than today.
- thmsths 3y ago
  I keep hearing this, and I think a charitable explanation is that scaling government becomes really hard past a certain point. I would argue that 435 Representatives is already too much. Humans can only keep track of around 100 people. With so many representatives there is barely enough time for each of them to speak and engage with each other. Increasing the number for "better representation" will just worsen the problem. A more cynical take is that since they just vote along party lines anyway, the number does not matter too much.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Are you saying the country has too many people, or that Americans don't deserve representation (population per seat) in line with, say, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, or Australia because it's "really hard" for some reason? Are you advocating for dividing the country into smaller legislative districts? Remember when we used to do things because they were hard instead of falling back on lazy cynicism and convenience of status quo? The U.S. seems stuck with the two party system primarily due to the mathematics of the Electoral College and lack of ranked choice voting. These require changes at the state level, not federal. 16 states and DC have now opted out of the Electoral College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...). RCV is now in place for state-wide elections in Maine and Alaska, but recently banned (seemingly as a partisan protectionist measure) in Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. Gerrymandering and lack of a mixed electoral system also seem major factors for the political duopoly, with less clear solutions to me.
    - Wytwwww 3y ago
      Japan and South Korea are not federations. US already has multiple levels of representation increasing the number on the federal level wouldn't be that useful. The electoral system and gerrymandering seem like much, much bigger issue than the number of people per representative.
      - 3y ago
barbazoo 3y ago
> I doubt the likes of Ursula, who come form extremely privilege backgrounds and have been groomed since childhood for high ranking leadership positions Not sure that she's the perfect example for what you're trying to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen
Aerroon 3y ago
Ursula von der Leyen isn't elected anyway, she's appointed.
jacquesm 3y ago
Well, you got that wrong, especially for her. I know some of these people and in fact they do see themselves holding high office as a public service. Their reasoning is something like this: I'm already wealthy, don't have to work for a living. But I can make myself useful by running for public office or by taking a crappy paycheck (by their standards) for some high level bureaucratic position and so make myself useful. And here are some helpful connections that will help me achieve that goal. And so they convince themselves that they are not in it for the money but merely for the public good, as wealthy people they are hard to bribe (somewhat true) and better this than loafing around doing nothing all day. Whether it is the best for society is another matter, but this is a fair representation of some of the people in those circles that I know. They would rather see it as a sacrifice than as them holding power for power's sake because that's not what you're supposed to do. It's loosely connected to Noblesse Oblige (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noblesse%20oblige https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noblesse%20oblige ), as in that you should strive to do good deeds and to use your station in life wisely if you are wealthy or in a position of power (but then you first have to obtain a position of power...).
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >And so they convince themselves that they are not in it for the money but merely for the public good, as wealthy people they are hard to bribe (somewhat true) and better this than loafing around doing nothing all day. Here's where you blew it. Wealthy people aren't immune to greed. The wealthier you are, the more wealth you wan to amass because that's what everyone else around you is doing. I doubt Donald Trump got into politics because he got bored of being rich and became soooo interested in helping the common man. Wealthy people go into politics because politics means more power, more connections and networking, and ultimately more wealth. Also, people born in opulent wealth have no idea of the struggles of the common man you're claiming they want to help. I doubt Ursula knows how much is the price of groceries, gas, electricity, plus the average wage of the common folk.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > Here's where you blew it. Wealthy people aren't immune to greed. The wealthier you are, the more wealth you wan to amass because that's what everyone else around you is doing. No, you didn't get what I wrote, the sentence you quoted starts with 'And so they convince themselves'. Whether it is true or not has no bearing on it.

andrepd 3y ago

I think the crux of the problem is really the undemocratic nature of the EU. For any member-state, the decisions and laws at the EU level are almost as important—and in some things even more—than the ones at the national level. Yet the institutions are largely non-democratic. It is unacceptable.

omginternets 3y ago
I like to remind people that the French (and I believe a few other nations) voted against the current EU constitution in a referendum before their governments went ahead and ratified it anyway.
- varispeed 3y ago
  Is it allowed to be said publicly now? Just a year or two ago such comment would have been downvoted to oblivion, perhaps even risking a ban from whatever platform it was posted on. I wonder where does it come from, treating EU as some sort of divine deity not capable of any wrong doing and such an effort to sweep its flaws under the rug while chanting "EU is great!". It's probably the most corrupt and undemocratic organisation on this side of the planet.
  - rdm_blackhole 3y ago
    You can say it but nobody listens. For years now, the people who tried to say that the EU in its current form is not working have been silenced by the media or labelled as conspiracy nuts.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      The problem is that the wide majority of them were (and still are) conspiracy nuts
      - petre 3y ago
        Or Russia's useful idiots.

omginternets 3y ago

>public servants Careful, you're touching on the core of Euroskepticism within the EU itself. These are not elected officials, nor are they public servants in the usual sense.

petre 3y ago

This, meaning chat control? Ylva Johansson is primarily responsible and also the head of the Comossion. Basically the whole EU executive is responsible for this. The Balkan Insight article has named several people and orgs. https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...

barbazoo 3y ago

> up around Brussels That's not how it works though, they represent people in their EU member states, posters should go up in every capital because those clowns were elected by people everywhere.