5 ms·

This is incredibly stupid, but don't laugh at Spaniards: your (and my) lawmakers are equally likely to enact similarly stupid laws. It's mind-boggling how stupi

by jwr 6mo ago

This is incredibly stupid, but don't laugh at Spaniards: your (and my) lawmakers are equally likely to enact similarly stupid laws. It's mind-boggling how stupid the world can be sometimes.

abirch 6mo ago
They pass stupid laws with impunity here in America. Sadly, an alien viewing our behavior would deduce a rule such as: as long as the voter is the same tribe as the candidate, the voter must vote for candidate no matter how corrupt.
- keybored 6mo ago
  If they pass laws “with impunity” you can’t blame the voters that hard.
  - tl 6mo ago
    This is America. We gerrymander the vote and blame the victim. Sorry you got downvoted.
  - b65e8bee43c2ed0 6mo ago
    the voters don't vote on issues, and there are no consequences for breaking campaign promises. and direct democracy is le bad, of course (since Brexit).
    - tialaramex 6mo ago
      Direct Democracy is bad because even if people were capable of doing the hard work to actually decide on coherent trade-offs, for which there is precious little evidence, they do not have time which means we should hire a few people to do that hard work, and that's what an Indirect Democracy is.
      - AlBugdy 6mo ago
        I think direct democracy is bad for a couple of reasons (some are probably rephrased versions of another reason): * not everyone can be an expert on everything; * people can't know what they're not sufficiently knowledgeable about; * people would like to vote (if it was quick and easy) for anything they have even the slightest opinion on; * people could be manipulated much easier than an expert or than an educated representative influenced by experts would; * people value their voice and opinion and themselves too much; * only a minority of people would vote on lots of things, skewing the results; a majority would vote on just a few issues; * education fucking sucks everywhere - people don't have enough information about different topics, they don't know how to get said info, how to analyze it or how to filter trash or spam; * people passionate enough about something will vote on it much more than people not passionate enough about it - with the caveat that someone can be passionate "for X" but not that passionate "against X" - which can lead to the phrasing of the question deciding who will vote; * it would be easier to bribe someone to vote on something they don't care about (or don't realize they care about) - you wouldn't vote for a new supreme leader but might vote for a specific change in laws about metallurgical unions (gave it as an example as I know nothing about the topic so I "don't care" about it). If people were educated, had critical thinking, knew how to spot manipulation, weren't greedy and were able to think about abstract things, direct democracy might work. But people aren't, don't, don't, aren't and aren't.
      - amarant 6mo ago
        I've always wondered if a hybrid system could work. You'd need a lot of voting infrastructure, and you need online voting, which means you need a reliable and quick method of online identification. Scandinavian countries fill those prerequisites, perhaps other places do too. The idea is basically that you give a politician a mandate to use your vote. Whatever your chosen politician votes for will count as their and your vote. If you happen to disagree with your chosen politician on a given question, you can manually vote in that question. Your chosen representatives vote in that question will then be worth one vote less, since you've effectively used it yourself. In the end we get the best of both worlds: voters don't have to vote in every single issue, but they can should they choose to. When they don't vote themselves, a politician they've chosen gets to use their vote, in a representative-like manner.
    - mr_00ff00 6mo ago
      I don’t know if just one instance means direct democracy is bad. For example, in the US referendums have been used a lot for issues that are popular for voters, but politicians won’t touch. (Weed legalization in many states, Abortion protection in Missouri I believe) You could also argue Brexit. Ultimately, most of the UK was okay with shooting themselves in the foot to feel more independent like the good olds days. Maybe was wrong long-term, but if it’s what the people wanted, then maybe it’s good. Politicians never would have done it despite the people wanting it.
      - wat10000 6mo ago
        I'm anti-Brexit (not that it matters, not British) but also pro-referendum in general. One modification I'd like to see is higher thresholds for more significant actions, especially ones that are difficult to reverse like this was. I don't think something as huge as Brexit should be decided on the basis of 50%+1. There should be a bias towards the status quo, and this should require maybe 60% or 2/3rds to overcome.
        AlBugdy 6mo ago
        I'm afraid that could lead to political instability. Maybe not, but I imagine if 59% of people vote "X" but 60% were needed, people could revolt or at least drastic and unpredictable changes in voting in the next elections could happen - "how can this political regime ignore the voice of the majority?!". You'd need most of the people to understand why 60 or 66.(6)% of people are needed to decide something and really believe in this threshold. And Y% of the populace is different psychologically than Y% of elected officials (in cases where a supermajority of officials are needed to pass Z in a forum like parliament/house/senate).
    - wat10000 6mo ago
      Even if you accept that party affiliation determines the vote, there are primaries. Which see horribly low turnout, which is 100% the voters' fault.
    - epistasis 6mo ago
      Long before Brexit, I was bemoaning the bad effects of direct democracy in California for constitutional amendments that pass with a simple majority. A good amount of the dysfunction in California is from these sorts of propositions that can not be overruled or modified by the legislature. And the public debate about them is largely divorced from their actual content, quite frequently. You still encounter people that think that Prop 13 is a about letting grandmas stay in their homes in retirement by sheltering them from any increase in property taxes, but it is a much much larger handout to commercial real estate and investment properties than it is to grandmas, for example! Even a slightly higher threshold than majority vote would be good for direct democracy. And constitutional amendments should either have a higher bar, or should automatically expire after X years unless there's a second vote to verify that the change should actually stay in effect. I tend to vote no on all ballot propositions automatically due to the bad effects of permanent changes being far too easy with too little substantive information provide to voters.
- kristianp 6mo ago
  However laws that stop large corporations' websites being accessible would never be passed in the US. Government for the corporation.
- wredcoll 6mo ago
  [flagged]
wahnfrieden 6mo ago
It describes hierarchy and power more than it does intelligence
themafia 6mo ago
> how stupid the world can be This isn't stupidity. It's corruption.
- TacticalCoder 6mo ago
  > This isn't stupidity. It's corruption. Those two go hands in hands.
  - TeMPOraL 6mo ago
    Only if you're all playing the same game. Corruption usually happens because some players have higher priorities.
- gib444 6mo ago
  Speaking of which, the PM is surrounded by people a judge is currently indicting for various forms of corruption His wife, right hand man, etc What's that saying about the company you keep...
josu 6mo ago
>enact similarly stupid laws. No new law was enacted. The ISPs are enforcing a court order.
tossandthrow 6mo ago
This has not so much to do with the law, but the execution of it. It seems vastly inproportionate. And is likely severe overstepping. The issue is that spain does not have a backstop. It is a completely institutional failure. That's why you can laugh at them. Because this level of instutional failure should not happen where I come from.
wartywhoa23 6mo ago
The epitaph on the tombstone of this civilization shall read: Zealously mistook malice for stupidity.
wyan 6mo ago
Not lawmakers in this case, but judges having no understanding of what they're ruling on.
- betaby 6mo ago
  That's why one company should not be allowed being an ISPs and a media company.
- wolvoleo 6mo ago
  Last year a judge almost blocked all of telegram for everyone :( also because of a complaint of some large telco. Luckily they realised the extreme impact of this decision and reverted it.
dminvs 6mo ago
Hopefully, reaction is read as to the action, not some categorization of the actor "hate the sin, love the sinner", or something

by jwr 6mo ago

This is incredibly stupid, but don't laugh at Spaniards: your (and my) lawmakers are equally likely to enact similarly stupid laws. It's mind-boggling how stupid the world can be sometimes.

abirch 6mo ago

They pass stupid laws with impunity here in America. Sadly, an alien viewing our behavior would deduce a rule such as: as long as the voter is the same tribe as the candidate, the voter must vote for candidate no matter how corrupt.

keybored 6mo ago
If they pass laws “with impunity” you can’t blame the voters that hard.
- tl 6mo ago
  This is America. We gerrymander the vote and blame the victim. Sorry you got downvoted.
- b65e8bee43c2ed0 6mo ago
  the voters don't vote on issues, and there are no consequences for breaking campaign promises. and direct democracy is le bad, of course (since Brexit).
  - tialaramex 6mo ago
    Direct Democracy is bad because even if people were capable of doing the hard work to actually decide on coherent trade-offs, for which there is precious little evidence, they do not have time which means we should hire a few people to do that hard work, and that's what an Indirect Democracy is.
    - AlBugdy 6mo ago
      I think direct democracy is bad for a couple of reasons (some are probably rephrased versions of another reason): * not everyone can be an expert on everything; * people can't know what they're not sufficiently knowledgeable about; * people would like to vote (if it was quick and easy) for anything they have even the slightest opinion on; * people could be manipulated much easier than an expert or than an educated representative influenced by experts would; * people value their voice and opinion and themselves too much; * only a minority of people would vote on lots of things, skewing the results; a majority would vote on just a few issues; * education fucking sucks everywhere - people don't have enough information about different topics, they don't know how to get said info, how to analyze it or how to filter trash or spam; * people passionate enough about something will vote on it much more than people not passionate enough about it - with the caveat that someone can be passionate "for X" but not that passionate "against X" - which can lead to the phrasing of the question deciding who will vote; * it would be easier to bribe someone to vote on something they don't care about (or don't realize they care about) - you wouldn't vote for a new supreme leader but might vote for a specific change in laws about metallurgical unions (gave it as an example as I know nothing about the topic so I "don't care" about it). If people were educated, had critical thinking, knew how to spot manipulation, weren't greedy and were able to think about abstract things, direct democracy might work. But people aren't, don't, don't, aren't and aren't.
    - amarant 6mo ago
      I've always wondered if a hybrid system could work. You'd need a lot of voting infrastructure, and you need online voting, which means you need a reliable and quick method of online identification. Scandinavian countries fill those prerequisites, perhaps other places do too. The idea is basically that you give a politician a mandate to use your vote. Whatever your chosen politician votes for will count as their and your vote. If you happen to disagree with your chosen politician on a given question, you can manually vote in that question. Your chosen representatives vote in that question will then be worth one vote less, since you've effectively used it yourself. In the end we get the best of both worlds: voters don't have to vote in every single issue, but they can should they choose to. When they don't vote themselves, a politician they've chosen gets to use their vote, in a representative-like manner.
  - mr_00ff00 6mo ago
    I don’t know if just one instance means direct democracy is bad. For example, in the US referendums have been used a lot for issues that are popular for voters, but politicians won’t touch. (Weed legalization in many states, Abortion protection in Missouri I believe) You could also argue Brexit. Ultimately, most of the UK was okay with shooting themselves in the foot to feel more independent like the good olds days. Maybe was wrong long-term, but if it’s what the people wanted, then maybe it’s good. Politicians never would have done it despite the people wanting it.
    - wat10000 6mo ago
      I'm anti-Brexit (not that it matters, not British) but also pro-referendum in general. One modification I'd like to see is higher thresholds for more significant actions, especially ones that are difficult to reverse like this was. I don't think something as huge as Brexit should be decided on the basis of 50%+1. There should be a bias towards the status quo, and this should require maybe 60% or 2/3rds to overcome.
      - AlBugdy 6mo ago
        I'm afraid that could lead to political instability. Maybe not, but I imagine if 59% of people vote "X" but 60% were needed, people could revolt or at least drastic and unpredictable changes in voting in the next elections could happen - "how can this political regime ignore the voice of the majority?!". You'd need most of the people to understand why 60 or 66.(6)% of people are needed to decide something and really believe in this threshold. And Y% of the populace is different psychologically than Y% of elected officials (in cases where a supermajority of officials are needed to pass Z in a forum like parliament/house/senate).
  - wat10000 6mo ago
    Even if you accept that party affiliation determines the vote, there are primaries. Which see horribly low turnout, which is 100% the voters' fault.
  - epistasis 6mo ago
    Long before Brexit, I was bemoaning the bad effects of direct democracy in California for constitutional amendments that pass with a simple majority. A good amount of the dysfunction in California is from these sorts of propositions that can not be overruled or modified by the legislature. And the public debate about them is largely divorced from their actual content, quite frequently. You still encounter people that think that Prop 13 is a about letting grandmas stay in their homes in retirement by sheltering them from any increase in property taxes, but it is a much much larger handout to commercial real estate and investment properties than it is to grandmas, for example! Even a slightly higher threshold than majority vote would be good for direct democracy. And constitutional amendments should either have a higher bar, or should automatically expire after X years unless there's a second vote to verify that the change should actually stay in effect. I tend to vote no on all ballot propositions automatically due to the bad effects of permanent changes being far too easy with too little substantive information provide to voters.
kristianp 6mo ago
However laws that stop large corporations' websites being accessible would never be passed in the US. Government for the corporation.
wredcoll 6mo ago
[flagged]

wahnfrieden 6mo ago

It describes hierarchy and power more than it does intelligence

themafia 6mo ago

> how stupid the world can be This isn't stupidity. It's corruption.

TacticalCoder 6mo ago
> This isn't stupidity. It's corruption. Those two go hands in hands.
- TeMPOraL 6mo ago
  Only if you're all playing the same game. Corruption usually happens because some players have higher priorities.
gib444 6mo ago
Speaking of which, the PM is surrounded by people a judge is currently indicting for various forms of corruption His wife, right hand man, etc What's that saying about the company you keep...

josu 6mo ago

>enact similarly stupid laws. No new law was enacted. The ISPs are enforcing a court order.

tossandthrow 6mo ago

This has not so much to do with the law, but the execution of it. It seems vastly inproportionate. And is likely severe overstepping. The issue is that spain does not have a backstop. It is a completely institutional failure. That's why you can laugh at them. Because this level of instutional failure should not happen where I come from.

wartywhoa23 6mo ago

The epitaph on the tombstone of this civilization shall read: Zealously mistook malice for stupidity.

wyan 6mo ago

Not lawmakers in this case, but judges having no understanding of what they're ruling on.

betaby 6mo ago
That's why one company should not be allowed being an ISPs and a media company.
wolvoleo 6mo ago
Last year a judge almost blocked all of telegram for everyone :( also because of a complaint of some large telco. Luckily they realised the extreme impact of this decision and reverted it.

dminvs 6mo ago

Hopefully, reaction is read as to the action, not some categorization of the actor "hate the sin, love the sinner", or something