I think you're saying the reforms must be good because the crusty old HOL has no democratic mandate. But I think this is a distraction from the main issue:
The issue is not that the HOL is good, but that the replacement shouldn't concentrate govt power. The UK govt is only a 1.5-cameral system. The HOL existed for so long because it was almost powerless (it only had the ability to review legislation and propose amendments), and it was independent-ish of government
Checks on government power is the legitimate issue here. Elections are only good if they force the government to be more responsive to the public. Tou don't get that much of a choice at election time. An elected chamber that just gridlocked the govt to score points or pandered to lobbyists, or to the government of the day, or any other narrow group wouldn't be a democratic improvement even with an elected or nominated chamber.
Personally I think the second chamber should be scrapped & replaced with public juries to review laws.
> There is a real noble cause here, that is saving the masses from *other* peoples stupidity. I don't think people commiting suicide in their own cars would raise the same objections as roadkilling pedestrians! All governments pass laws banning their citizens from doing things. It's only tyrranical if the laws don't reflect the values of the public. To deny this is to say that traffic lights are Orwellian (which I suppose some people do!). I don't think speed controls are more creepy or unjust than speed limits. If there are laws they should be policed. Police speed traps are worse because they only catch a minority and there is nothing worse than arbitrary justice. If speeding is OK then speed limits should be scrapped. The potentaily creepy thing here is the ability of the government to abuse the information it collects about peoples whereabouts. US citizens are definately better protected than we are (in UK), and most people in UK admire US constitutional protection of citizens. BUT treating freedom as an absolute doesn't lead to justice or security. It allows people to keep, use and sell misleading information which can harm a persons chances of getting a home or job, for instance. Protection from misuse of personal information is the BIG issue here. Democratic control is the *really* important thing (i.e. laws that really reflect the best balance of the values of the public) and that's the hardest to thing to achieve. It's something we could all use more of. (thanks for reading my overlong rant!)
Maybe the real problem is that under linux you have: Kernel/Shell/X11/Window Manager/Desktop Environment (All variations) and under windows you have... windows
Slashdot Mirror
.
.
It's not doublethink at all.
I think you're saying the reforms must be good because the crusty old HOL has no democratic mandate. But I think this is a distraction from the main issue:
The issue is not that the HOL is good, but that the replacement shouldn't concentrate govt power. The UK govt is only a 1.5-cameral system. The HOL existed for so long because it was almost powerless (it only had the ability to review legislation and propose amendments), and it was independent-ish of government
Checks on government power is the legitimate issue here. Elections are only good if they force the government to be more responsive to the public. Tou don't get that much of a choice at election time. An elected chamber that just gridlocked the govt to score points or pandered to lobbyists, or to the government of the day, or any other narrow group wouldn't be a democratic improvement even with an elected or nominated chamber.
Personally I think the second chamber should be scrapped & replaced with public juries to review laws.
Oops forgot to mention car monitoring. Sorry!
With all the talk of self driving cars, would you feel safer or less safe driving such a car if the control software was an open source project ?
> There is a real noble cause here, that is saving the masses from *other* peoples stupidity. I don't think people commiting suicide in their own cars would raise the same objections as roadkilling pedestrians! All governments pass laws banning their citizens from doing things. It's only tyrranical if the laws don't reflect the values of the public. To deny this is to say that traffic lights are Orwellian (which I suppose some people do!). I don't think speed controls are more creepy or unjust than speed limits. If there are laws they should be policed. Police speed traps are worse because they only catch a minority and there is nothing worse than arbitrary justice. If speeding is OK then speed limits should be scrapped. The potentaily creepy thing here is the ability of the government to abuse the information it collects about peoples whereabouts. US citizens are definately better protected than we are (in UK), and most people in UK admire US constitutional protection of citizens. BUT treating freedom as an absolute doesn't lead to justice or security. It allows people to keep, use and sell misleading information which can harm a persons chances of getting a home or job, for instance. Protection from misuse of personal information is the BIG issue here. Democratic control is the *really* important thing (i.e. laws that really reflect the best balance of the values of the public) and that's the hardest to thing to achieve. It's something we could all use more of. (thanks for reading my overlong rant!)
Don't worry, it will!
Maybe the real problem is that under linux you have: Kernel/Shell/X11/Window Manager/Desktop Environment (All variations) and under windows you have... windows