2 ms·
I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Because here, we have a series of people who d
by rvnx 2y ago
I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents.
Because here, we have a series of people who don't like the law (potentially for good reasons).
If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things (additional control during plane boarding, to have border guards, to allow spying on private messages, etc).
The "majority" defended their right; the right to feel safe.
A bit like someone who does Open Carry in a state who doesn't want you to show weapons.
It may be not dangerous if you openly have a weapon, but other people still voted against that for their own reasons.
- gouggoug 2y ago> I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Opting-out isn't "making a scandal". You can both opt-out and "talk with the people who make the laws", one doesn't preclude the other. > If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things That is an idealistic view not grounded in reality at all.
- chimpanzee 2y ago> it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things > other people still voted against that for their own reasons You are describing a direct democracy, not the representative democracy that actually exists. There are plenty of examples of laws, existent and nonexistent, whose status has little to do with the preferences of the general public. One need only look where there is a conflict between the general public’s interest and that of the government. Surveillance is prime territory.