Yes, and most of this measures result in decisions being made by the most irresponsible people.
Prisoners voting is madness. They are in too dependent a position to believe that their vote will reflect their votes.
On the contrary, voting should be banned not only for prisoners but also for people working for the government in any capacity. People who live off taxpayers should not be able to decide how to spend their taxes.
Registration procedures should be more complex and strict, not simpler. If someone is irresponsible, disorganized, or illiterate enough to fail to fill the form on time, then why should we consider their vote meaningful? If someone believes they have more important things to do than vote, why force them to vote?
> Registration procedures should be more complex and strict, not simpler. If someone is irresponsible, disorganized, or illiterate enough to fail to fill the form on time, then why should we consider their vote meaningful?
The US tried to do this kind of "literacy test" before, remember? It's where the expression "grandfathered in" comes from: you had to do an impossible-to-pass test to gain the right to vote - except if your grandfather had the right to vote.
This was of course used to ban black people from voting without explicitly banning them for being black.
> Prisoners voting is madness
If prisoners can't vote, what's stopping the party in power from preventing them from ever losing an election by just jailing everyone expected to vote against them?
> People who live off taxpayers should not be able to decide how to spend their taxes
This should obviously includes everyone working for government contractors. Which is obviously going to include everyone working for any kind of tech company with any government contract. Which, considering HN demographics, means you likely shouldn't e allowed to vote.
Heck, why not extend this even further? Anyone living in a state which receives more money than it contributes in taxes should be banned from voting. Anyone using government resources should be banned from voting. Everyone driving their car on government-maintained roads should be banned from voting!
Where did I mention a "literacy test"? I'm against such tests for exactly the same reasons I'm against prisoner voting.
> If prisoners can't vote, what's stopping the party in power from preventing them from ever losing an election by just jailing everyone expected to vote against them?
Prisons, by definition, are built on the principle that prisoners are under the full control of prison administrations. If everyone who will vote against could be imprisoned, there would be no problem allowing prisoners to vote: prisoners would still vote in the manner desired by the prison administration. That's how prisons work. And I don't think there's a need to increase incentives for authorities to imprison more people to achieve the desired election results through prisoners' voting.
> any kind of tech company with any government contract.
Obviously, this shouldn't apply to "any" government contracts. But if the majority of a contractor's income comes from government contracts, then yes, employees shouldn't vote.
> Anyone living in a state which receives more money than it contributes in taxes should be banned from voting. Anyone using government resources should be banned from voting.
I don't understand why you're trying to reduce this argument to absurdity. The goal is to preserve democracy by reducing the government's ability to build a totalitarian dictatorship through its ability to control taxes. And yet you're proposing measures that would proclaim such a dictatorship.
> And I don't think there's a need to increase incentives for authorities to imprison more people to achieve the desired election results through prisoners' voting.
Because what happens in the ballot box is private, it should be possible to let prisoners vote without interference as long as poll workers are allowed inside to do their job, but it's not just people currently in prison you have to worry about. There are places where convicted felons can lose their right to vote even after they've served their time and laws like that have already been used to suppress votes.
> The goal is to preserve democracy by reducing the government's ability to build a totalitarian dictatorship
Freedom means having enough rope to hang yourself with. By strictly limiting who is allowed to vote and taking that right away from millions of Americans you'd be destroying the country, not saving it.
How come the US has a higher rate of struggling with groceries (12.2% US vs 8.5% EU), healthcare (44% US vs. 18.6% for costs) EU, education costs, etc.?
> they would also buy more expensive cars.
Price != quality. European cars have better safety standards, as well as being cheaper to own and run. American cars… the vibe I got from them on trips was the expectation for them to serve as an additional air-conditioned entertainment room that just happened to be on wheels, whereas the European ones are mostly a mode of transport unless you're specifically into luxury brands.
> How come the US has a higher rate of struggling with groceries (12.2% US vs 8.5% EU), healthcare (44% US vs. 18.6% for costs) EU, education costs, etc.?
Reliability of statistical data. The more totalitarian a state is, the more out of touch with reality it can be in its statistics. If we look at the statistics provided by North Korea, they have zero on all the points mentioned. Europe isn't there yet, but it's moving at full speed. Their cars even safer and cheaper to own and run than European ones.
> The more totalitarian a state is, the more out of touch with reality it can be in its statistics.
That's more of an American problem than an EU one at the moment.
We're not the ones shooting unarmed protesters in the head ten times after removing their legally owned gun, nor faking arrest photos, etc.
Even before that, our leaders have not* called for the death penalty to be used against politicians reminding troops of their existing obligations to not follow illegal orders.
Even before that, the US government shutdown at end of last year means some economic data was never collected at all.
Even before that, DOGE having Musk at the helm had obvious conflicts of interest with regards to e.g. ongoing investigations against Tesla.
* to my knowledge, but TBH wouldn't be surprised if Orban has, but also Hungary is to the EU as, IDK Wyoming perhaps, is to the USA.
I believe kitchen knives, without good reason (being a chef is a good reason, have just bought it ditto), are already banned in public in UK.
Still, UK does have a firearms licensing process; I doubt anyone at any protest would be allowed one, but the response of UK police only escalates to "pin to ground then shoot in head" when they've mistaken you for a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest and expect you to blow yourself up in a crowded subway train (which has happened! I don't excuse this! But this is still less stupid than claiming someone is armed after removing their weapon).
This is all terrible. But how does this change the fact that Europe has a more totalitarian government, committing more political assassinations and persecuting political opponents, while Europe is mired in poverty?
I mean, compare the median wages of factory workers in Europe and in the US and the amount of taxes they pay to support gangs of alien rapists.
Because while Russia is indeed within the continent of Europe, counting it in this context is about as sensible as calling Venezuela and El Salvador "American" just because of the continent they happen to be part of.
If you didn't mean Russia, I have no idea what fiction you're reading.
Not that any of this justifies American cars being overpriced, having no real low-end options. You're way more car-centric than we are, lots of you need cars, whereas many more of us are fine without any, so you having no cheap (new) options is more surprising.
Ah, you’re talking about the regime that fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labour Statistics because the president didn’t like the figures, right?
> Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike
You mean to try to get them all and find out they're not really against what's happening? There's a reason why socialists, originally fighters for workers' dictatorship, have almost entirely switched to supporting minorities and not workers.
> I hope the cartoon villain responses coming from the administration when they're challenged on any of this will get more people to stand up against it all.
I don't think we should expect people to stand up against all of this. Even if most of them don't like it, let's be honest, it's not a dealbreaker for them. Especially if the next election other party puts forward some deliberately hypocritical, racist, out-of-touch elitist like Kamala Harris.
> hypocritical, racist, out-of-touch elitist like Kamala Harris.
Gee I wonder what side of the political spectrum you align to...
I like rule of law and due process. I like the Constitution and its balance of powers. I think that a good chunk of Americans also like these things. I believe the current administration is acting in extremely contrary ways to those things. So yes, I expect more Americans to stand up and speak out.
Many people like this. It's just that the choice, as far as I understand, is not between rule of law and authoritarian dictatorship.
> I like the Constitution and its balance of powers.
And here, frankly speaking, I'm unfamiliar with the American Constitution in these aspects. How does it work? Does it only protect citizens? Or residents too? Does it protect illegal aliens too? Does it protect everyone in the world? Or does it operate on territorial principles, and begin to protect any person who sets foot on American soil, but does not protect everyone else?
This is standard right wing hate-filled drivel, like that peppered throughout your comment history.
Your ilk really are hoping that Trump's authoritarian takeover of the US succeeds, through provocation, apathy or by whatever means, because you're driven only by the pursuit of power to turn your hate into violence against your perceived enemies.
> The question IMO is, who will be creating the demand on the other side for all of these goods produced if so many people will be left without the jobs?
There is no reason why people will left without jobs. Ultimately, "job" is simply a superstructure for satisfying people's needs. As long as people have needs and the ability to satisfy them, there will be jobs in the market. AI change nothing in those aspects.
I think it very much does. Those exact needs so far have been fulfilled by N people jobs. Today those same needs are going to be fulfilled by N-M people jobs. For your hypothesis to work, human, or shall I say better, market needs to scale such that M people left redundant will be needed to cover that new gap. The thing is that I am not so sure about the "scaling" part. Not to mention that people's skills also need to scale such so that they can deliver the value for scaling the market. Skills that we had until yesterday are slowly started to begin a thing of a past so I am wondering what type of skills people will need in order to get those "new" jobs? I would genuinely like to hear the opinion because I am not really positive that the market will self-adjust itself such that the economy will remain the same.
> You would simply be insane to think Alabama was in any way wealthier than Bavaria.
Is it accurate? Europe has a fairly low standard of living compared to America, but their totalitarian governments are quite effective at silencing all dissent.
Yes, life in Bavaria, working in manufacturing, is nothing but miserable oppression. Horrible 35 hour work week. Wretched 6 weeks of vacation. Ruinously expensive 500 EUR/month daycare. The prospect of having to pay a couple hundred Euros per semester when my child reaches university.
The good wine is now 8 EUR/bottle.
Suffering and deprivation.
Do not come here, I beg of you. Save yourself.
I had to use extraordinary means to get this message out.
Yes - same question - maybe I'm a frog in boiling water but same question. The most toxicity I've encountered is when working with large groups of foreign workers that retained their workplace norms from their home country.
Prisoners voting is madness. They are in too dependent a position to believe that their vote will reflect their votes.
On the contrary, voting should be banned not only for prisoners but also for people working for the government in any capacity. People who live off taxpayers should not be able to decide how to spend their taxes.
Registration procedures should be more complex and strict, not simpler. If someone is irresponsible, disorganized, or illiterate enough to fail to fill the form on time, then why should we consider their vote meaningful? If someone believes they have more important things to do than vote, why force them to vote?
reply