Zompist Bboard Again

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 3:17 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:21 pm Hmm… I’m used to people regularly misspelling my name, but that’s one I hadn’t seen before! (Usually it ends up as bradm.)

I think they're confusing you with brandrinn, a poster who disappeared around the same time you showed up.

OK then, just to be clear: I’m not brandrinn! In fact, I’d never heard of them before now.

(And while I’m at it, let me also address the other confusion I see now and again: it’s bradrn, not bradm. Yes, my name gets misspelt regularly.)

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:45 pm Having just checked up, the main problem with Jadot's announcement is that it is rather different to what Michèle Rivasi (figure from the same party) is saying. https://actu.orange.fr/france/vaccins-q ... dHuu6.html On the other hand, it's as likely, if not more likely, to attract people supporting the use of one of the most important medical inventions in history than ward off those opposing it. So it's not just a vote-loser really as far as I can tell.

*fingers crossed* I hope you're right!

On another note, I would say, while I am of course glad of the left’s recent electoral victories (in New Zealand, Bolivia and the US), that I disagree with some other ideas common among the left these days. For example, the subject of recent referenda in New Zealand and in the US was marijuana. I would prefer not to change the legal status of this, even less consider these priorities.

The marijuana ban is an enfrigement on freedom, and, in my opinion, you need some pretty compelling reason to do that.
Now the thing is, it doesn't look like there was a very good reason for banning it in the first place (AFAIK it just got banned along with opioids in a single legislative package.) There certainly aren't any good arguments for banning it now.
Honestly, the only reason the ban is kept is that it allows some cheap posturing on the part of politicians: harassing pot users is cheap, and it makes you look like you fight crime without doing any actual work (Which is exactly what's going on in France right now.)

Also, I think the appropriate move would be to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol more, although not necessarily through an outright ban, which has proven itself ineffectual in the United States.

Again, I disagree. The problme with banning alcohol isn't that it's ineffectual! It's just that it's an horrendous violation of personal freedom that is completely out of proportion with its stated objectives.

This measure does appear popular however, because all these recent referenda (in the United States and in New Zealand) passed. And the fact that they were referenda is a plus as well as far as I am concerned: at least they took into account the will of the people.

There's something counterintuitive about referenda and direct democracy. They look nice on paper, but anytime they're implemented, the results sometimes leave much to be desired.
There's Brexit, of course, which is typical of decisions you shouldn't hold referenda about: that one left the British government with a clear mandate to do the impossible. But I'm also thinking of Switzerlans, where referenda have sometimes led to somewhat regressive decisions, to say the least.

I can see how you might see it in terms of personal freedom, and there is that argument, but the consequences on the health and the environment should be taken into consideration as well. While it is certainly important to have rights (and I am among the first to say we should fight to keep them), rights are far from the only way of conceiving issues, even including those issues for which a rights-based interpretation is easily available. There are also responsibilities, to other members of society and to the planet we need to survive. Obviously the ideal solution, if there is one, would take into account all the arguments and positions.

I have heard these oppositions to referenda before, most notably saying 'Switzerland banned minarets after a referendum therefore we shouldn't have referenda' but I think it is about as appropriate as saying the same thing after any decision taken in a more representative or authoritarian way:

There were specific problems involved in the Brexit referendum, involving lies (e.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 03646.html) and campagin financing, with 5 major businessmen financing most of the pro-Brexit campaign (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 99046.html) including US billionaires (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ack-brexit) and Steve Bannon (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... -in-brexit). Also, the new Brexit Tory Party reinterpreting the slim Brexit vote to mean necessarily a hard Brexit. Those are the actual problems. They can be solved by transparent campaign financing, strict limits on campaign financing and important roles for fact checkers.

As for the Swiss ban on minarets, we could have referenda subject to constitutional restraints, whereby referenda not in accord with constituional values can not be put to a vote. I say that but that solution has its own problems: in Catalonia, a referendum vote was blocked by Spain, partly citing the constitution, which resulted in voters getting beaten for voting in a supposed democracy. And most recent polls still give a independentist majority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Cata ... nion_polls. A democracy indeed any country, should allow the right of self-determination.

Now I wonder whether bradrn's nickname has to do with someone shouting "Brad! Come here! Right now!" in some context.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:56 am I can see how you might see it in terms of personal freedom, and there is that argument, but the consequences on the health and the environment should be taken into consideration as well. While it is certainly important to have rights (and I am among the first to say we should fight to keep them), rights are far from the only way of conceiving issues, even including those issues for which a rights-based interpretation is easily available. There are also responsibilities, to other members of society and to the planet we need to survive. Obviously the ideal solution, if there is one, would take into account all the arguments and positions.

I have no disagreements here. I'd just add two things:
- If some people wish for something to be banned, the burden of proof should be on those proposing a ban. If weed is in some way dangerous to society, sure, by all means, let's ban it, but those in favor of a ban should offer a coherent argument on why it should be banned. (I haven't heard much of a convincing argument on that side).
- Measures taken should be appropriate. Banning alcohol altogether, for instance, is an incredibly restrictive measure. Some people can't drink responsibly: why should responsible drinkers be, in effect, punished for them?
(I don't object to more moderate measures of course. Though I believe that we're going to far these days. We know alcohol should be drunk in moderation, that tobacco kills you and that the human body can't survive on an exclusive diet of butter and chocolate; we don't need to be reminded of that at each commercial break. There is a point where individual responsability has to take over...)

I have heard these oppositions to referenda before, most notably saying 'Switzerland banned minarets after a referendum therefore we shouldn't have referenda' but I think it is about as appropriate as saying the same thing after any decision taken in a more representative or authoritarian way:

It's really more of a trend. A look at the latest popular initiatives is particularly enlightening, with such gems as 'Deportation of criminal foreigners', the rejection of a proposal on gun control, 'An end to mass immigration' (wasn't aware there was any in Switzerland, but whatever). At the canton level, it's hardly better. The canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden granted women the right to vote in 1991 at the order of the Swiss Federal Court.
There's also the matter of nationality, granted at the communal level if I'm not mistaken. Suppose you've lived in Switzerland for 50 years, paid taxes, learned Swiss German but you live in the wrong kind of place and the neighbors are racist shits that don't like your face... well, tough luck.

Let's face it, Switzerland is basically a far-right fantasyland, where foreigners know their place and everyone has a gun. And it's all right, really. The Swiss can certainly live in the way they chose.
But I'm very suspicious of following the model of a far-right fantasyland, especially these days...

Or, to put it another way, what has Switzerland to show for its direct democracy? I mean, sure, putting the right-wing populists in the driving seat is one solution to the current crisis of democracy...

we could have referenda subject to constitutional restraints, whereby referenda not in accord with constituional values can not be put to a vote

That wouldn't work: how do you decide on the constitutional values in the first place?

There were specific problems involved in the Brexit referendum

The thing is, all of the dubious stuff around Brexit were facilitated by the referendum format.
Basically a referendum reduces a complex issue to a simple question with a 'yes' and 'no' answer. That's 90% of a propagandist's work right there! It's hardly surprising it was so easy to spread disinformation.
And, of course, since the issues are complex, once you get your 'yes' or your 'no' it's really easy to interpret it as you like.
In France, for instance, the 'no' to the 2005 referendum on the European constitution was interpreted in different ways. Sarkozy took it to mean that we said 'no' to that specific treaty, but that a slightly different wording was OK. The FN took it to mean that the French clearly rejected the EU and everything to do with it.


There is finally, the matter of what opinion polls tells us of what the results might turn out to be.
For instance, in France, 52% are in favor of the death penalty. Should we bring out the guillotine?

I'm all for legalizing weed, but I get a bit annoyed by people who go on and on about how great and beneficial it is. Folks, it's still an addictive drug, and one that's consumed by smoking. It's probably at least as harmful as tobacco.

Oh, it probably has some health benefits (even tobacco has some) and vaping probably takes care of the health hazard part.

But that said I don't care for the stuff myself. I'm one of these people for whom the effects are unpleasant.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:02 am Now I wonder whether bradrn's nickname has to do with someone shouting "Brad! Come here! Right now!" in some context.

No, not at all. It’s simply my initials, because I’m too boring to think of anything else to use as my username. Full points for creativity though!

EDIT: Oh, and it looks like this is my 2000^th post. Should I be getting worried yet about how many posts I’m making here?

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:39 pm EDIT: Oh, and it looks like this is my 2000^th post. Should I be getting worried yet about how many posts I’m making here?

Dunno, but thank you for making me less worried about that.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:15 am

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:56 am I can see how you might see it in terms of personal freedom, and there is that argument, but the consequences on the health and the environment should be taken into consideration as well. While it is certainly important to have rights (and I am among the first to say we should fight to keep them), rights are far from the only way of conceiving issues, even including those issues for which a rights-based interpretation is easily available. There are also responsibilities, to other members of society and to the planet we need to survive. Obviously the ideal solution, if there is one, would take into account all the arguments and positions.

I have no disagreements here. I'd just add two things:
- If some people wish for something to be banned, the burden of proof should be on those proposing a ban. If weed is in some way dangerous to society, sure, by all means, let's ban it, but those in favor of a ban should offer a coherent argument on why it should be banned. (I haven't heard much of a convincing argument on that side).
- Measures taken should be appropriate. Banning alcohol altogether, for instance, is an incredibly restrictive measure. Some people can't drink responsibly: why should responsible drinkers be, in effect, punished for them?
(I don't object to more moderate measures of course. Though I believe that we're going to far these days. We know alcohol should be drunk in moderation, that tobacco kills you and that the human body can't survive on an exclusive diet of butter and chocolate; we don't need to be reminded of that at each commercial break. There is a point where individual responsability has to take over...)

I understand your comments about the burden of proof and not punishing responsible drinkers. However, for commercials, as far as I can tell, for every commercial against fatty and sugary foods, there is another for it. I remember seeing the other day one massive billboard against alcoholism and another right next to it, a promotional offer for alcohol at a supermarket. Health campaigns would be more effective and less necessary if unscrupulous corporations weren’t looking for prey all the time. Which brings us on to Switzerland, where mass advertising has been banned. (cite?)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:15 am

I have heard these oppositions to referenda before, most notably saying 'Switzerland banned minarets after a referendum therefore we shouldn't have referenda' but I think it is about as appropriate as saying the same thing after any decision taken in a more representative or authoritarian way:

It's really more of a trend. A look at the latest popular initiatives is particularly enlightening, with such gems as 'Deportation of criminal foreigners', the rejection of a proposal on gun control, 'An end to mass immigration' (wasn't aware there was any in Switzerland, but whatever). At the canton level, it's hardly better. The canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden granted women the right to vote in 1991 at the order of the Swiss Federal Court.
There's also the matter of nationality, granted at the communal level if I'm not mistaken. Suppose you've lived in Switzerland for 50 years, paid taxes, learned Swiss German but you live in the wrong kind of place and the neighbors are racist shits that don't like your face... well, tough luck.

Let's face it, Switzerland is basically a far-right fantasyland, where foreigners know their place and everyone has a gun. And it's all right, really. The Swiss can certainly live in the way they chose.
But I'm very suspicious of following the model of a far-right fantasyland, especially these days...

Or, to put it another way, what has Switzerland to show for its direct democracy? I mean, sure, putting the right-wing populists in the driving seat is one solution to the current crisis of democracy...

OK so it does not boil down to one example, but far-right fantasy land is a bit of a stretch. ‘Mass immigration’ is of course no greater in Switzerland than elsewhere in Western Europe, but fairly significant compared to what people might be aware of (24% foreign nationals). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/ ... explained/

Also, the Swiss model of direct democracy has been around for centuries before the far-right took over a liberal party and rose in Swiss politics. The rise came at the same time as the rise in other far-right movements, in the 1990s under Christoph Blocher. Earlier far-right parties in the country, like Freedom Party of Switzerland and Swiss Democrats never got more than 4% of the vote each or 8% combined. So the problem is not with the referenda, but with the far-right itself and the even more general trend of the rise in the far-right across Europe, and elsewhere.

We ought to distinguish clearly between mode of expression and what is being expressed.

we could have referenda subject to constitutional restraints, whereby referenda not in accord with constitutional values can not be put to a vote

That wouldn't work: how do you decide on the constitutional values in the first place? [/quote] It has worked with the creation of constitutions since the French and Americans adopted them at the end of the 18th century. The idea of striking down laws or referenda is not novel. Constitutional Councils and Supreme Courts have been at it for centuries or decades. One example is a referendum that a miscellaneous right wing mayor running a French commune wanted to put in place (banning immigrants). That was struck down by the justice system. https://www.la-croix.com/France/Politiq ... 1200793105 So basically I would find it an improvement for referenda to be easier and more frequent like in Switzerland, but with the constitutional principles like in France.

There were specific problems involved in the Brexit referendum

The thing is, all of the dubious stuff around Brexit were facilitated by the referendum format.
Basically a referendum reduces a complex issue to a simple question with a 'yes' and 'no' answer.[/quote]Is that any more of a reduction than a second round of a presidential election?
With only two candidates left, Macron and Le Pen, people voted at roughly 2/3rds majority for Macron, expressing most likely their preference for centrism over the far-right. In the end, Macron moved further to the right, when sticking with centrism, or even moving further left, would have better corresponded to what people expressed at the polls. So this potential problem of offering a one-or-another option is not specific to referenda.

Also, we can see that some of the most dubious stuff has also been used in the American presidential election, which is less democratic than a simple popular vote, rather than more democratic, which is the case with referenda.

That's 90% of a propagandist's work right there! It's hardly surprising it was so easy to spread disinformation.
And, of course, since the issues are complex, once you get your 'yes' or your 'no' it's really easy to interpret it as you like.

As with the intervention, the disinformation tactics resemble the 2016 US presidential election and is therefore not specific to referenda.

In any case, it’s certainly a lot easier when there is a clear and detailed plan of what would happen under the proposed change before the referendum takes place. And this is what happened under the first Scottish independence referendum in 2014, with a hundred-odd page document detailing how Scotland would be run as an independent country.

In France, for instance, the 'no' to the 2005 referendum on the European constitution was interpreted in different ways. Sarkozy took it to mean that we said 'no' to that specific treaty, but that a slightly different wording was OK.

Ah so that was his excuse! I have never met anyone who discussed that without feeling distrust and betrayal, that the vote had been discarded.

Nobody, as far as I can tell, says “we reject your first draft, so tweak it a little and we’ll accept without questioning your second draft”. Even if that was the idea, a second referendum on the modified treaty would have been in order.

The FN took it to mean that the French clearly rejected the EU and everything to do with it.

Their position on the EU is inconsistent, sometimes even in the same interview or debate.

There is finally, the matter of what opinion polls tells us of what the results might turn out to be.
For instance, in France, 52% are in favor of the death penalty. Should we bring out the guillotine?

The percentages have varied, even in recent years.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peine_de_ ... 'abolition The majority for one side or another is not assured.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:19 pm Is that any more of a reduction than a second round of a presidential election?
With only two candidates left, Macron and Le Pen, people voted at roughly 2/3rds majority for Macron, expressing most likely their preference for centrism over the far-right. In the end, Macron moved further to the right, when sticking with centrism, or even moving further left, would have better corresponded to what people expressed at the polls. So this potential problem of offering a one-or-another option is not specific to referenda.

I'm not very fond of the French system. I'd much rather have the president be more or less a figurehead, elected every seven years in congress, as initially planned.
As it stands, the system is designed for once-a-century, father-of-the-nation types like De Gaulle with wide popular support, and the system turned less and less satisfactory as time went on.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think Macron is a narcissistic weasel and I wouldn't trust him to run a used car dealership... But I think the whole idea of conservative under a veneer of progressivism accurately reflects popular opinion, and I don't doubt he'll be reelected.

Oh certainly, you're probably right on both counts, mostly on the first: returning to a less president-oriented system is of course a major plank of the France Insoumise.

On the second part, it's likely, but less sure: this time last cycle, people were expecting either François Hollande or Alain Juppé to be President.

I secretly hope they somehow convince Taubira to run in 2022.

It looks like new elections will be announced within months in Israel. Gantz is really unpopular right now; he's seen as a vote stealer who gave Likud most of what they wanted. Naftali Bennett, who is the leader of the right-wing opposition to Bibi, looks like he'll be the leader of the second largest party - which really scares me. Bibi is corrupt and authoritarian, whereas Bennett is democratic but also much more extreme in right wing positions.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:37 am I secretly hope they somehow convince Taubira to run in 2022.

She certainly was one of the most left-wing members of the Hollande government, that was disappointingly right-wing, compared to what people expected (especially with the inclusion of Macron and Valls). But she did not get a high score the last/other time she presented herself, in 2002. But I suppose that was before she was justice minister so her popularity (and, more importantly, knowledge of her very existence and importance) will have increased.

I secretly hope for Hulot. He's been the most popular politician in France for more or less consistently for a few years, according to several surveys. He could unite more or less everyone from at least Lutte Ouvrière and NPA to MoDem and En Marche in favour of ecological policies, I think.

In Israel, Gideon Sa'ar is finally leaving Likud to found a new party. The two MKs from Derech Eretz are joining, which is an odd match: Derech Eretz is to the left of Bibi and Sa'ar is to his right (all of them are centre-right to right-wing in Israeli politics).
This could possibly eat into Bennett and Netanyahu's votes
The best part is the name of the party: "Tikvah Hadasha" or New Hope. Bet next they will be announcing that Bibi is Darth Vader.

Meanwhile, over in the US politics thread, MacAnDàil has noted that some of the biggest dangers to democracy right now are the developments in Hungary and Poland, and has claimed that the EU is already pressuring them to change course. I completely agree about the damage to democracy - Hungary is basically a dictatorship by now, and Poland seems to be following on the same path - but I'm a lot less hopeful that anything the EU does will amount to much in that context. If the EU would be willing and able to do anything substantial about protecting democracy in those countries, it would have done that by now.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:11 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:37 am I secretly hope they somehow convince Taubira to run in 2022.

She certainly was one of the most left-wing members of the Hollande government, that was disappointingly right-wing, compared to what people expected (especially with the inclusion of Macron and Valls). But she did not get a high score the last/other time she presented herself, in 2002. But I suppose that was before she was justice minister so her popularity (and, more importantly, knowledge of her very existence and importance) will have increased.

I secretly hope for Hulot. He's been the most popular politician in France for more or less consistently for a few years, according to several surveys. He could unite more or less everyone from at least Lutte Ouvrière and NPA to MoDem and En Marche in favour of ecological policies, I think.

I don't I'd ever heard of Taubira before her presidential bid in 2002. I honestly didn't see the point of her presidential bid back then (I do understand it a lot more now!)

As it happens, she's pretty close to my own political ideas, and she certainly has the personal charisma necessary for the weird ideas some people get about what a president should be.
Plus, she would annoy the hell out of the reactionaries.

I'd forgotten about Hulot. Honestly he seems to be more of a media personality than a stateman.
But if push came to shove, I could vote for him.

Meanwhile, over in the US politics thread, MacAnDàil has noted that some of the biggest dangers to democracy right now are the developments in Hungary and Poland, and has claimed that the EU is already pressuring them to change course. I completely agree about the damage to democracy - Hungary is basically a dictatorship by now, and Poland seems to be following on the same path - but I'm a lot less hopeful that anything the EU does will amount to much in that context. If the EU would be willing and able to do anything substantial about protecting democracy in those countries, it would have done that by now.

There's been a wrestling match over the European COVID recovery plan, between Poland and Hungary. Basically the stimulus package was continioned on respect for 'the rule of law'. Poland and Hungary objected to that, which doesn't look suspicious at all for countries that claim to be democracies, but whatever.
It seems the crisis is about to be resolved. (The Polish and Hungarian government like fascism, but the other 25 countries correctly guessed they liked money even more.)
The Hungarian had to make a few adjustments to its latest constitutional reform too.

To be honest, it's not terribly substantial. But it may help things getting worse.

Basically there isn't much more the EU can do: despite what conspiracy theorists and Brexiteers might say, member states are sovereign.
Somewhat cynically, I suspect many other member states don't want to give the EU more teeth on this matter anyway. They don't really want anyone to take a good look at their own human rights track record...

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:00 am Basically there isn't much more the EU can do: despite what conspiracy theorists and Brexiteers might say, member states are sovereign.
Somewhat cynically, I suspect many other member states don't want to give the EU more teeth on this matter anyway. They don't really want anyone to take a good look at their own human rights track record...

Somewhat more cynically, I suspect that another factor might be that the EU, at this point in history, can't really do anything without the at least tacit approval of the EPP*, and large parts of the EPP probably don't have much of a problem with what the Hungarian and Polish governments are doing. They might not want to actively turn their own countries into right-wing dictatorships, but they don't really mind it if someone else does that.

*Ares Land probably already knows this, but for those of you who don't: "EPP" is the English acronym for the European People's Party, an alliance of mostly moderately center-right parties from different countries in the EU Parliament.

@Ares Land: Cool, but stairway thoughts on cigarettes, though:
Asbestos was banned because it caused cancer. Plastic bags have been banned because of the waste and litter they cause. Among other things. At least they had a use.

If cigarettes were just invented now, would people imagine it being a good for them to be sold in so many shops, smoked (especially next to so many children and asthmatics) and littered on so many streets?

Sure, it wouldn't be a vote winner and I doubt it's in anyone's manifesto, but it sure seems like a good idea. Blame should go to the producers of course.