zlacker

>>tokai+(OP)
God fucking damn it not again

This is, what, the fifth time in ten years they try to pass shit like this?

>>isopro+ke
They only need to succeed one time. People are generally preoccupied with a lot of other things right now, so maybe this is their lucky shot…

>>9dev+Je
It's a shitty system, if one side just needs to succeed one time while the other side needs to succeed over and over again.

What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. Once a mass surveillance proposal like this is defeated, it shouldn't be allowed to be constantly rebranded and reintroduced. We need a firewall in our legislative process that automatically rejects any future attempts at scanning private communications.

>>zubspa+8h
I wonder if it'd be possible to fix a lot of these issues by having a constitution with damn near impossibly strict standards for changing it that rely on the entire population agreeing (or close to it)?

So there might be a right to privacy or freedom of speech enshrined in law, and the only way to change it would be for 90+% of the population to agree to change it. That way, it'd only take a minority disagreeing with a bad law to make it impossible to pass said law. Reactionaries and extremists would basically be defanged entirely, since they'd have to get most of their opponents to agree with any changes they propose, not just their own followers.