Trick Used To Pass French "Three Strikes"
Glyn Moody writes "France's 'Loi Hadopi' — better known as 'three strikes and you're out' — was passed by the National Assembly late last night when only 16 deputies were present (the vote was 12 in favor, 4 against). Most politicians had left because it was expected that the vote would take place next week. In this way, President Sarkozy has sneaked his controversial legislation through the French parliament — and shown his contempt for the democratic process. So now what?"
What can an independent citizen do, other than vote for their representation? What politician has ever shown they wouldn't do their best to try to implement and than take advantage of such a system?
the most important freedom of a democracy or a republic is not the freedom to vote for the candidate (though that is important) -- it the freedom the freedom to run for the office.
that is easier said than getting elected (especially in my most-money-means-most-likely-elected nation-state), but without it, you live in a place where the leadership decides the candidate. and, that is just a rigged game.
At least in the US, the house and senate typically assume the presence of a quorum unless someone calls for quorum and demonstrates that there isn't a quorum. However, any one congressman can do that
Yeah, but that doesn't always happen. The Hughes Amendment was passed on a late night voice vote when the House Chamber was virtually empty and everybody who would have opposed it was gone for the night. Isn't Democracy grand?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Ok, but let's focus on the situation at hand. Why should a legislative body not require a quorum of some sort to act?
Sure, sometimes you have to rely on people to act honorably. Sometimes your system can't be "good enough" to prevent abuse if someone's clever enough to abuse it. This doesn't look like one of those times; this looks like a case where the system is inexplicably broken.
Unpopular legislation is almost always passed in such ways. And now the blame for its passing is limited to a select few. I have to wonder if these loopholes and subversive means aren't there to protect lawmakers from having to make decisions that would get them booted from office? That is to say, while they support the legislation, they wouldn't want to be on record as having voted for it... so they "look the other way" while a team of patsies come in to do the dirty work for them.
If it's a three strikes law, use it to your advantage. Keep reporting all the incidents everywehere - Sarkozy hums a copyrighted tune? Report it. Flood the government or whatever bodies with reports on all potential copyright infringement by the members. After all, don't we already have proof that they do this? It should be trivial to just report that their children have broken the law as well. Keep reporting them and get their internet connections cut off.
Sort of like "work to rule" campaigns - you make the rulemakers suffer under their own rules as well.
Heck, bonus points for those who can get the Internet cut off at no only their personal residences, but also to government buildings also.
That's not what happened. When a vote on an issue like is needed, and everyone agrees with the new law but don't want to be on record saying so, an after-hours party like this is arranged. Everyone who agrees goes home with a wink, a nod, and plausible deniability.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Sarkozy has been using MGMT's wonderful song kids without permission. He did offer one euro to settle.
Which leads to the question "Why does a vote have to be an immediate thing at all?" I think that votes should remain open until everyone has voted. This would make it so that sneaky politicians who want to vote yes but can't because their constituents would not vote them back into the office can't get away with that crap anymore.
Somalia is just about the only country which is truly free. You can do just about anything you want there.
But I doubt most people would want to live there.
The problem is, most people don't want true freedom. True freedom is truly dangerous. Realistically all these pseudo-anarchists want rules for everyone else, just not for themselves.
I wonder what they would do if someone came and busted out their windows and torched their cars?
I wonder if they would call the "police state" they are protesting?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The one right that a US citizen has that is often neglected, is the right to revolt. We've even had a few minor revolutions - the IRS was curbed when they got to carried away with taking people's homes and property. (Not that it really stuck) California had a taxpayer revolt some years back. Maybe it's time for a few more revolutions? It's certainly time for one in Frnace.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Why can't the reasonable law makers come back and just pass a rescind to this legislation?
He has 1) put up a shed on a .2 acre property,
And this affects you how? Mind your own business.
2) parked his camper alongside his garage,
And this affects you how? Mind your own business.
3) erected a 6 foot fence around his 4) above ground pool
And this affects you how? Mind your own business.
5) strung up a clothesline.
And this affects you how? Mind your own business.
It is in my best interest, and those of my other neighbors, to ask the HOA to sue him and get him to resolve these issues if he doesn't do so after asking politely because it has a detrimental effect on the value/selling prices of our homes.
What are you all, a bunch of Donald Trumps, "flipping" your houses for profit every month? A home is not an investment. It's thinking like that that got this country into the economic shitter that it is in. A home is a place to live, and unless your neighbor is doing something to prevent you from living in your home, you need to STFU and let live.
I moved away from my HOA controlled "neighborhood" because of nosy ninnies like you.