|
big scary monsters posted:Yeah. I mean, I'd rather get my 3% annual increment and reduced insurance premiums than not, but I feel like unions should be about more than just that and awful sounding networking events. Why not post in the scandi thread for language buddies? I think there's even a discord. Might not need to pay for lessons. Pretty sure just about every norwegoon would be happy to help out.
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yeah the de-facto disenfranchisement of a huge sector of our actual working class is a massive problem and we really really need drastic reform. IMO LO should be pushing hard for voting rights for residents, not just citizens, and we should be arranging courses in the norwegian model to recently arrived immigrants In Denmark residence grants voting rights for municipal and regional representation, but not parliament, which requires residence and citizenship. This is due to the following part of the constitution: quote:§ 29 So that's impossible to change. Lowering electoral age is also de facto impossible, as it is tied to age of elective eligibility, and it would be awkward to have minors in parliament from a legal perspective. I would assume there is something similar in the Norwegian constitution.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
I've been living in Iceland for the last 5 years, but I was hoping to visit my mom in Denmark this year sometime and work is asking us to use vacation time. I know they opened the border to Norway today for tourism and Iceland so I figure I can probably go in June unless something changes drastically. My girlfriend is South African though, she has a visa for Iceland since she lives and works here but is she able to travel to Denmark with me during the current situation?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
PederP posted:In Denmark residence grants voting rights for municipal and regional representation, but not parliament, which requires residence and citizenship. This is due to the following part of the constitution: we just got done with a constitutional revision in norway so you might be surprised actually. i'm not clear on the specifics of constitutional voting law because the law is for brains that have broken even more than mine, but there's an ongoing debate about lowering voting age and there have been local trials etc so i assume it's not identical on that level also
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Like a universal lowering of voting age or for specific elections? Because honestly I don't really think minors should vote. Alot happens in your brain roughly between the ages of 14 and 20.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
lowering voting age and voting rights for resident non-citizens are different discussions, i'm just using the one as an indication that poo poo isn't necessarily as fixed in norway as they might be in denmark
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Like a universal lowering of voting age or for specific elections? Because honestly I don't really think minors should vote. Alot happens in your brain roughly between the ages of 14 and 20.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
Noone should vote. Stochastic elections are the best elections. Representative democracy leads to political aristocracies.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I'd rather 16YO's than 60YO's vote tbqh PederP posted:So that's impossible to change. Lowering electoral age is also de facto impossible, as it is tied to age of elective eligibility, PederP posted:and it would be awkward to have minors in parliament from a legal perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
PederP posted:Noone should vote. Stochastic elections are the best elections. Representative democracy leads to political aristocracies. I thought we already have stochastic elections given that everything average to the center anyways?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:I thought we already have stochastic elections given that everything average to the center anyways? I don't see representative demographics in parliament. I'd trust 179 random people over those power-hungry enough to make the quest for office their profession.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:As long as they're 15+, parliament is safe. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
PederP posted:I don't see representative demographics in parliament. I'd trust 179 random people over those power-hungry enough to make the quest for office their profession. That is literally the voting system from a sci-fi book I have read and about as unrealistic. Mainly for the simple reason that most people don’t care about politics and have no interest in involving themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:That is literally the voting system from a sci-fi book I have read and about as unrealistic. It was practiced in some ancient greek city-states for the express purpose of avoiding the emergence of a political class. I realize it might not be possible to include every citizen, I would hope that civic duty and conscience could mobilize a large enough portion of the populace to make it feasible. At the very least random choice from willing candidates could be used. Representative democracy with minor variations on the voting system is annoyingly considered the only realistic type of democracy. This frustrates me - as I think we've had plenty of evidence that our current type of representative democracy does create the political class and the politico-aristocratic houses that the greeks tried to avoid. Jefferson did also have a point when he talked about "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", which is interestingly taken as a conservative adage by people unaware of the historical context. It is the opposite, talking about a cost of human life being an acceptable price to remind tyrants that resistance could and would exist - even if current events did not warrant violence. But I digress - Stochastic elections are not voided by political apathy, because this argument also voids the ability of such individuals to identify a worthy candidate to represent them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 11:40
|
|
|
more to the point it'd take a revolution to do that and if we're doing a revolution i've got some other stuff on the agenda as well
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
PederP posted:It was practiced in some ancient greek city-states for the express purpose of avoiding the emergence of a political class. I realize it might not be possible to include every citizen, I would hope that civic duty and conscience could mobilize a large enough portion of the populace to make it feasible. At the very least random choice from willing candidates could be used. Representative democracy with minor variations on the voting system is annoyingly considered the only realistic type of democracy. This frustrates me - as I think we've had plenty of evidence that our current type of representative democracy does create the political class and the politico-aristocratic houses that the greeks tried to avoid. Jefferson did also have a point when he talked about "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", which is interestingly taken as a conservative adage by people unaware of the historical context. It is the opposite, talking about a cost of human life being an acceptable price to remind tyrants that resistance could and would exist - even if current events did not warrant violence. But I digress - Stochastic elections are not voided by political apathy, because this argument also voids the ability of such individuals to identify a worthy candidate to represent them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 13:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:AFAIK, a stochastic election is one where the political system could be essentially the same, individually popular politicians would just be more likely to win due to having gotten more votes rather than ensured to win.You're not thinking of sortition, which is basically handing out political office through a lottery, with all eligible candidates having an equal shot? Basically meaning that anyone with the right to sit in parliament would have an equal shot at it. I was thinking about what you call sortition, but I am open to other models - my main gripe is with the emergence of a political class, parties as gatekeepers to representation and increasing voter disillusion causing populism to rise. Something is wrong with our current system, and it's causing the power-hungry and corrupt to rise to the top. Perhaps that's inevitable in any social structure, but I would like our political system to actively work against this trend.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
PederP posted:I was thinking about what you call sortition, but I am open to other models - my main gripe is with the emergence of a political class, parties as gatekeepers to representation and increasing voter disillusion causing populism to rise. Something is wrong with our current system, and it's causing the power-hungry and corrupt to rise to the top. Perhaps that's inevitable in any social structure, but I would like our political system to actively work against this trend.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:more to the point it'd take a revolution to do that and if we're doing a revolution i've got some other stuff on the agenda as well Pretty much, yeah. The kind of random coup that PederP thinks of will be hijacked by commies/fascists/islamists basically from the word go. Any form of clean slate thinking when it comes to changing a government is going to favor the extremists. There is a reason why democracy have evolved in an iterative fashion. I also like the arguments about the classic Greeks being great at democracy since their form of democracy excluded slaves and women. There was nothing civil about classic Greek.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:I also like the arguments about the classic Greeks being great at democracy since their form of democracy excluded slaves and women. There was nothing civil about classic Greek. I actually had written a disclaimer about the Greeks having a point despite being scummy, but deleted it for brevity. They may have been chauvinist and oppressive, but this does not invalidate building on their significant philosophical and political output. I did not claim they were great at democracy, merely that they correctly identified representative democracy having a tendency to lead to the rise of political aristocracies. I agree with the other poster arguing that a clean slate usually leads to extremism and broken dreams. I am not arguing there should be a randomized coup. I am aware that the manner and pace at which change is introduced makes a difference. It's the single most valid tenet of conservatism - that traditions and culture cannot be ignored if society is change for the better. But there are ways to introduce elements of randomization in democracy to offset the negatives of representative democracy. This is irrespective of the underlying economic and political system. For me the most important thing is that power needs to be actively diffused. There is an inherent drift towards centralization of power in the hands of the few, towards entrenchment of privileges among an elite. Again this is a drift existing irrespective of the underlying systems. Socialism or capitalism - doesn't matter. Unjust accumulation of various kinds of power is an inevitable challenge. There are many ways to combat this - and representative democracies usually have quite a lot of mechanisms acting in this manner - but I strongly think that random mechanisms for at least some of representative political offices could play a part. Elections should be considered a necessary evil - not this holy institution, that some seem to portray them as. I always cringe when politicians present the act of voting as some kind of sacrament. Uninformed voting is destructive to democracy. I am looking for ways to stifle the power of political oligarchs because a revolution is a (painful) reset button at best, and something terrible at worst. It would be good to improve our current political system.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
I like the Greek thing where in court the jury was like 500 randos that direct democracy voted on your guilt by majority vote. And jury placement was drawn from a hat so no one knew who was going where or when. I wonder if that's better of worse than what we have now. I think they also had a ton of important elected offices with pretty strict term limits. Except commanders of the military which strikes me as a pretty major oversight. In fact reading military history. It seems that soldiers castes/enforces have been universally a bad idea. Because when poo poo hits the fan. Professional soldiers are loyal to their unit and the person who controls the military controls the country. It's better when soldiers are part timers who have real jobs and duties. And that goes double for cops.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Katt posted:In fact reading military history. It seems that soldiers castes/enforces have been universally a bad idea. Because when poo poo hits the fan. Professional soldiers are loyal to their unit and the person who controls the military controls the country. It's better when soldiers are part timers who have real jobs and duties. And that goes double for cops. Well, that idea works great until your part time soldiers meets the professional ones and gets their asses handed to them. Also, if we are talking Greek philosophers it is kinda relevant to point out that herostratos and platon were not exactly proponents of democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Well, that idea works great until your part time soldiers meets the professional ones and gets their asses handed to them. Eh. Conscripts, militias and citizen levies have a much better track record against professionals than is often imagined in popular culture. Levying military service from the mass of your citizenry is typically only a thing that happened in societies where the people in some way participated in government (by voting or otherwise) in any case. It was also typically tied to wealth, especially owning property, and was dependent on there being a large class of small property owners to draw from. The Roman legions transforming from a citizen levy drawn mostly from small farmers was not done in the name of military efficiency but because that manpower pool of free, small-time landowners was dwindling away, so Roman legions gradually evolved to enlist volunteers (essentially for life, 20 years) from non-propertied citizens with equipment provided at the expense of local notables (often the general himself, who in addition to now having provided the equipment and training of the soldiers, often also became the person responsible for ensuring they got their wages and end of service benefits, so soldiers evolve to become the clients of their generals). Randarkman fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
every really serious war has been fought and won by conscripts. you don't need to maximise your soldiers' individual effectiveness if you can reach some point of diminishing returns and put more bodies in the field than the other guy
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:every really serious war has been fought and won by conscripts. you don't need to maximise your soldiers' individual effectiveness if you can reach some point of diminishing returns and put more bodies in the field than the other guy I mean in those wars, every side was using conscripts. Only serious combatant in WWII who wasn't really using conscription was Canada (and even then we aren't talking about professionals, we're talking war-time volunteers), and they were running on dry and really suffered on the fronts when they weren't able to properly replace their casualties. e: Also when the Romans conquered the Eastern Mediterranean their legions were made up of citizen levies while the Successors and the Greek city states (to the extent the latter mattered at all) were using mostly professional mercenaries*. *And the effectiveness and reliability of pre-modern mercenary soldiers is also vastly misrepresented and misunderstood in most pop culture representations. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 22:09 on May 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
Counter point: Feudalism and knights existed and were developed to keep peasantry armies down by superior training and materials. The 30th year was basically fought by mercenaries. Mamluks and Janissaries was a thing. And incidentally these had quite a lot of common with roman legionnaires in terms of taking over a state. So that was roughly a 1000 years of professional soldiers winning over part time soldiers and mass armies didn’t really become viable until technology and mass production allowed for them to be successfully deployed.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Counter point: Peasant levies, militias and yeoman soldiers were a huge part of medieval warfare. Fyrd were a huge part of anglo-saxon early medieval warfare. Viking armies were composed mostly of part-time soldiers. Caliphate armies had a non-professional backbone. Migration period tribes trashed the professional armies of the time so soundly that it contributed to the fall of great empires. Professional warriors between antiquity and the renaissance were mostly a social institution and a ruling class. So I'd say it's more like the periods of domination by professional soldiers (roman empire, 30 year war to napoleonic wars) are the exception. Humans are fundamentally violent creatures, and most great wars were indeed determined by armies comprised mostly of non-professional soldiers. That doesn't mean that professional soldiers were irrelevant in a military or social sense, even in these wars. The warrior elite of the germanic tribes and vikings were pivotal to the military and 'normal' history of these people. But the existential wars of history are indeed dominated by citizen-soldiers, armed commoners or tribespeople.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
French revolutinary armies of citizen levies kicked the asses of the professional armies of several surrounding countries invading them in the wars of the first and second coalitions, sometimes even when numerically inferior. It's hard to call all their armies after that a "citizen levy", but it was definitely that in the first coalition. My point is that it is a bad argument either way, as there are tons of examples in history of professional armies kicking the asses of citizen levies, and there are tons of examples of the opposite (the reunification of Japan was led by and won by those clans that moved away from mostly part-time peasant armies and included them in their professional warrior caste, vastly increasing their available campaign seasons, for example). Neither type of organization is an inherent auto-win and there are many more important factors at play. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 08:37 on May 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
Katt posted:I like the Greek thing where in court the jury was like 500 randos that direct democracy voted on your guilt by majority vote. And jury placement was drawn from a hat so no one knew who was going where or when. Not an oversight, as replacing experienced commanders after only a few years can be a detriment to military performance. Experience matters alot especially in Classical greece where many soldiers are amateurs and Athens realised this early. Athenian strategoi were subject to revision of how they handled their duties and performance, and if put up to vote could result in their sacking, or worse, condemned to death. Like when an Athenian fleet scored a great victory but in the aftermath failed to perform a rescue operation due to a storm. 8 generals were put on trial and executed.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
I just saw a passed out loving A-Lagare, getting tased in the back of his loving skull - oh 50 minutes ago. Five loving cops plus a loving dog all ontop of a passed out wino. Like, I know Sweden wants to be mini-America, but loving hell. Also already lodged a complaint about it loving hell
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
For a bit more detail... I came out to Gedt’s and I’s balcony as there was a dog barking endlessly, and despite living by a square, this doesn’t happen. I saw a guy on the ground, two cop cars, about four cops, and a police dog barking. The undercover(?) unmarked(?) Volvo came out of nowhere and out popped a guy in those weird dude capris that European men have a hard on for, and then, the guy on the ground was moved, and tased. He wasn’t doing anything on the ground, in a prone position, slightly fetal, and then after being moved by the cops, tased. He wasn’t doing anything at all, as I thought it was a drunk that passed out. There were others on the ground that saw too, and I know someone recorded. The cops knew they were being watched. But after contending with my weird guilt on being safe in Sweden as an American, this is the cherry on loving top.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
ACAPOS.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
I might also gotten a bit shouty.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
e: dumb post
netcat fucked around with this message at 18:53 on May 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a pretty dumb hot take.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
So apparently you get your DNA stored forever if you get tested for COVID-19.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:So apparently you get your DNA stored forever if you get tested for COVID-19. is it at least public property?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
Is that before or after they put Epstein's DNA in you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 10:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:is it at least public property? It's supposedly for SSI to do research, but they're not adequately informing people. They keep the samples up to ten years after you die. They've been taking DNA samples from newborns since 1982: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKU-registeret Once more they were inadequately informing people about the ability to have the samples destroyed. Ten years ago they proposed turning it into a regular DNA registry for citizens. Also somehow 86,000 people's DNA ended up in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 10:52
|
|