4 ms·

> France used constitutional processes for the Lisbon Treaty - or should we never adapt treaties as circumstances change? The answer was no, and then it was ov

> France used constitutional processes for the Lisbon Treaty - or should we never adapt treaties as circumstances change? The answer was no, and then it was overridden without consultation. The people had spoken and were ignored. > Chat Control is being debated, modified, opposed - that's democracy in action. Try publicly opposing surveillance laws in China. The fact that Chat Control is on the table at all is the problem. You can't claim you want to protect privacy and democracy and demand access without cause to all your citizens data. The fact that "liberal" countries are willing to debate if we should end all privacy for every citizen is not the greatest definition of democracy. Should we also have a debate about bringing back slavery as well or maybe talk about installing cameras in every home in the EU? Where does this stop? > Refusing to coalition with anti-democratic parties IS protecting democracy. Just like we don't let parties run on platforms of abolishing elections. The fact that you refer to right wing parties as anti-democratic parties when people have voted for them fair and square is very telling in terms of your biases. Anything we do not agree with is anti-democratic , anything we support is pro democracy. How convenient! > Democracy isn't just counting votes - it's sustaining a system where we can keep voting freely. That's why we have guardrails. Exactly and ignoring the votes of your constituents because you don't like how people vote is exactly what's killing democracy and why a lot of people are turning away from the mainstream parties. Instead of listening and trying to find solutions which means finding compromises, it's much simpler to label everyone you disagree with as anti democratic and label the voters as extremists. > Or would you prefer we just have one final vote to end all voting? I am not sure where this suggestion comes from.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
Your Lisbon Treaty argument ignores that France later approved it through constitutional processes. Should one referendum permanently bind a nation against any adaptation? That's not democracy - that's fossilization. On Chat Control - you're using classic slippery slope fallacy. Debating specific measures against CSAM isn't equivalent to "ending all privacy" or "bringing back slavery." This kind of hyperbole reveals bad faith argumentation. About right-wing coalitions: When parties openly advocate undermining democratic institutions, refusing to empower them IS protecting democracy. Not all electoral success deserves governing power - see 1933 German Elections for why. Your "ignoring votes" argument confuses: - Right to be voted for; - Right to automatic coalition inclusion; - Right to implement anti-democratic agenda; No one's votes are "ignored" - but winning some votes doesn't grant right to dismantle democratic safeguards. You're basically arguing that protecting democracy from its enemies is somehow undemocratic. That's both logically and historically wrong.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  > Your Lisbon Treaty argument ignores that France later approved it through constitutional processes. Should one referendum permanently bind a nation against any adaptation? That's not democracy - that's fossilization. The referendum is the government asking for the people's choice which means that if you simply ignore it and wait for a year before bypassing said choice, you clearly never really cared about the outcome of the vote. > On Chat Control - you're using classic slippery slope fallacy. Debating specific measures against CSAM isn't equivalent to "ending all privacy" or "bringing back slavery." This kind of hyperbole reveals bad faith argumentation. The slippery slope is you asserting that giving up my right to privacy in order to fight CSAM is not an overreach by any government. The fact that you don't realize what this proposal entails tells me you haven't probably looked at it in details. Anybody who thinks that this proposal is reasonable or should be debated is not a friend of privacy nor democracy. > About right-wing coalitions: When parties openly advocate undermining democratic institutions, refusing to empower them IS protecting democracy. Not all electoral success deserves governing power - see 1933 German Elections for why. Refusing to listen to your people when your people tell you that things are not going well is how you get revolutions and blood baths. Refusing to work with them to find potential solutions to issues because you do not agree with then is what leads to things like the Syrian war. > Your "ignoring votes" argument confuses: - Right to be voted for - Right to automatic coalition inclusion - Right to implement anti-democratic agenda Your response to ignoring and refusing to work with parties that are supported by 1/5th to 1/3rd of a given population is simply to hide behind the "protect the democracy" mantra. It does nothing and it solves nothing. But it makes the anger and frustration of these people stew and then at some point it will blow up. > No one's votes are "ignored" - but winning some votes doesn't grant right to dismantle democratic safeguards. Again with the "saving the democracy" rhetoric. This is an empty argument devoid of substance. When you refuse to work with parties that represent a good chunk of your constituents just because you do not agree with them, that is not democracy, when you label them as extremists without listening to their concerns, that is not democracy, when you attempt to ban parties because they are starting to gain traction , that is not democracy. > You're basically arguing that protecting democracy from its enemies is somehow undemocratic. That's both logically and historically wrong. You are arguing that not listening to people and refusing to find compromises with all the representatives of a country's population is saving democracy. I am arguing that listening to the people is what democracy is about. if that means that a far right or a far left government is elected, so what? That is the will of the people. Anyway I can see that you and I don't agree on this topic and that this discussion will lead to nowhere. It's best to leave at that.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

Your Lisbon Treaty argument ignores that France later approved it through constitutional processes. Should one referendum permanently bind a nation against any adaptation? That's not democracy - that's fossilization. On Chat Control - you're using classic slippery slope fallacy. Debating specific measures against CSAM isn't equivalent to "ending all privacy" or "bringing back slavery." This kind of hyperbole reveals bad faith argumentation. About right-wing coalitions: When parties openly advocate undermining democratic institutions, refusing to empower them IS protecting democracy. Not all electoral success deserves governing power - see 1933 German Elections for why. Your "ignoring votes" argument confuses: - Right to be voted for; - Right to automatic coalition inclusion; - Right to implement anti-democratic agenda; No one's votes are "ignored" - but winning some votes doesn't grant right to dismantle democratic safeguards. You're basically arguing that protecting democracy from its enemies is somehow undemocratic. That's both logically and historically wrong.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago
> Your Lisbon Treaty argument ignores that France later approved it through constitutional processes. Should one referendum permanently bind a nation against any adaptation? That's not democracy - that's fossilization. The referendum is the government asking for the people's choice which means that if you simply ignore it and wait for a year before bypassing said choice, you clearly never really cared about the outcome of the vote. > On Chat Control - you're using classic slippery slope fallacy. Debating specific measures against CSAM isn't equivalent to "ending all privacy" or "bringing back slavery." This kind of hyperbole reveals bad faith argumentation. The slippery slope is you asserting that giving up my right to privacy in order to fight CSAM is not an overreach by any government. The fact that you don't realize what this proposal entails tells me you haven't probably looked at it in details. Anybody who thinks that this proposal is reasonable or should be debated is not a friend of privacy nor democracy. > About right-wing coalitions: When parties openly advocate undermining democratic institutions, refusing to empower them IS protecting democracy. Not all electoral success deserves governing power - see 1933 German Elections for why. Refusing to listen to your people when your people tell you that things are not going well is how you get revolutions and blood baths. Refusing to work with them to find potential solutions to issues because you do not agree with then is what leads to things like the Syrian war. > Your "ignoring votes" argument confuses: - Right to be voted for - Right to automatic coalition inclusion - Right to implement anti-democratic agenda Your response to ignoring and refusing to work with parties that are supported by 1/5th to 1/3rd of a given population is simply to hide behind the "protect the democracy" mantra. It does nothing and it solves nothing. But it makes the anger and frustration of these people stew and then at some point it will blow up. > No one's votes are "ignored" - but winning some votes doesn't grant right to dismantle democratic safeguards. Again with the "saving the democracy" rhetoric. This is an empty argument devoid of substance. When you refuse to work with parties that represent a good chunk of your constituents just because you do not agree with them, that is not democracy, when you label them as extremists without listening to their concerns, that is not democracy, when you attempt to ban parties because they are starting to gain traction , that is not democracy. > You're basically arguing that protecting democracy from its enemies is somehow undemocratic. That's both logically and historically wrong. You are arguing that not listening to people and refusing to find compromises with all the representatives of a country's population is saving democracy. I am arguing that listening to the people is what democracy is about. if that means that a far right or a far left government is elected, so what? That is the will of the people. Anyway I can see that you and I don't agree on this topic and that this discussion will lead to nowhere. It's best to leave at that.