4 ms·

You can have a system of governance where even though an individual cannot be trusted by themselves, it is more likely to trust the system given that a larger g

You can have a system of governance where even though an individual cannot be trusted by themselves, it is more likely to trust the system given that a larger group of people have to make the decision together. (in fact most governments are setup like that, which is why the US government for example is more trustworthy than a dictatorship). In the case of copyright law, the individuals voting might truly think they are doing the right thing for the economy, as not all politicians are corrupt (or so I'd like to think).

pi18n 14y ago
When you look at a bill like SOPA, there's no reasonable conclusion other than the majority is corrupt or the majority is willing to vote on something they do not understand. Both situations are fairly disturbing.
- Retric 14y ago
  SOPA did not get passed, so it's reasonable to argue it's a sign that the system works.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    The fact that a massive Internet backlash was required is a sign that the system is broken.
    - pi18n 14y ago
      Yes, this is exactly how I feel. The law was horrible, but it had a majority. The only explanation is that the legislators are voting about something they don't understand or are flat-out corrupt. The fact that SOPA wasn't passed after Wikipedia closed down in protest doesn't comfort me, because they'll still attempt to and be able to pass increasingly restrictive laws. The entire internet won't rally against every one.