8 ms·

I suggest people read the full decision from the ombudsman: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en

• seanw444 3y ago
  The bureaucratic evolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • pphysch 3y ago
    We would never reach 8B population and successful space programs without huge bureaucracies. Unless of course by "human race" you or Uncle Ted mean "my personal fulfillment".
    • nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > would never reach 8B population You make it sound like that's a positive achievement. There are "Limits To Growth" [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
      • TeMPOraL 3y ago
        Which we won't overcome without huge bureaucracies either. Also, while the population growth itself may not be a positive achievement directly, it's kind of necessary for all the scientific, technological and cultural achievements. Unless you don't see those as positive either - in which case I don't think there's anything left to discuss.
        • naasking 3y ago
          That's just more of what the OP was pointing out: why are you assuming overcoming those limits is good? This is just natural selection in action: only people who are good at slotting into bureaucracy and being well-behaved cogs in the wheel will thrive in this environment, and other types of humans will die out. This exact same argument suggests we should not tolerate indigenous people who live separate from civilization. Adapt or die right? But this conclusion is typically quite abhorrent to the same type of people who advocate for your position. Can't have it both ways.
          • dvdkon 3y ago
            I think both viewpoints (contemporary civilisation is good and we should let "uncivilised" people live without interference) are reconcilable: I can believe that modern bureaucratic liberal democracy is the best system we have, partly because it allows for dissenting views, partly because of other reasons. At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views. This runs into problems for global matters (global climate change and pollution) and conflicts with an overriding belief in a global morality (depending on how much you are willing to entertain the idea that your idea of morality isn't the "correct" one), but some compromise variation of this idea is certainly self-consistent.
            • naasking 3y ago
              Define "uncivilized". If I choose to occupy a national park and live off grid and disconnected from society, do I qualify? Or is some kind of ancestry on a land required? If so, why? Isn't such a requirement kind of arbitrary? Why does my accidental birth into this society necessitate that I must slot into this bureaucracy? > At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views. What if they want to home school all of their children, do they have to abide by some kind education standard? The bureaucracy will come for you for any choice it finds unpalatable. I don't see a way to reconcile these without a lot of special pleading. In the end, a form of natural selection will dominate and only the type of people who can fit well into the most optimal bureaucracies will thrive. Maintaining indigenous rights and the rights of "uncivilized" humans will be simply a curiosity, like how we keep animals in a zoo, rather than some coherent recognition of an inherent right to exist and live apart. I'm not taking a particular side on this question here, I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty.
    • gunapologist99 3y ago
      > ... and successful space programs Elon Musk is the opposite of a huge bureaucracy.
      • mcmcmc 3y ago
        Has Elon put a man on the moon yet?
        • gunapologist99 3y ago
          Meanwhile we wait to go to Mars while that same bloated bureaucracy slow walks the Super Heavy.
      • pphysch 3y ago
        This is bait, right? SpaceX is almost as big as NASA, and relies a lot on things NASA invented as well as direct USG funding.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
• jokethrowaway 3y ago
  The EU is just too large and infringes on the natural rights of too many people. Your typical country government is already too much but somehow they get away with it with a pinch of nationalism and tribe mentality, the EU is so over board that I think people will actually rebel / or people with a brain will migrate away eventually.
  • bojan 3y ago
    I still trust the EU way more than my national government. The EU has apparently enough checks and balances that it gets caught when there is an attempt like this. My national government does have them as well, but they are mostly not being acted upon even when they clearly detect misbehavior.
    • Saline9515 3y ago
      You can't repell an EU law.
  • cultureswitch 3y ago
    And yet the UK which left the EU is by leaps and bounds way ahead in the race to become even more of a surveillance state than any one in the EU.
    • FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      That's why they left. They can move faster in that directions without outside influences.
• hulitu 3y ago
  No. It shows the level of corruption.