← Back to context

Comment by mdp2021

11 hours ago

Look at this other piece in the frontpage:

> Every new car sold in the European Union must include a driver monitoring camera (allaboutcookies.org)

the eu should never have been born. The above are its results - and just an example. How do we fix that disaster?

And the US wanted to install a breathalyzer in every car a few years back. How is this supposed to prove anything?

  • That was a law in France from 2012 to 2020 too (breathalyzer needs to be on board). It was not on European level and it has been removed.

    • That offensive law (every car owner must keep a breathalizer item in the vehicle ready for use) was famous in the "issued but not enforced" category.

      But the mandate to keep "equipment" in the car is very different from kill-switches depending on sensors and embedded in electronics - the poster seems to have meant this.

  • > [they] wanted

    Did they? That makes a good amount of difference, you know. Especially when "they" may be a vocal exception.

    > How is this supposed to prove anything

    Prove what. Nothing seems to be disproven.

    Edit: look, if you were trying to negate a "bad A" through an "(also) bad B", review and revise your logic. Which is important because that non-argument has been exploited to bend the political opinion of street-rubes to CEO-rubes for the past few years ("Bad Springfield hence [...] not bad Vernapool").

    • > Did they?

      Look, this was a headline I recalled seeing in the news. I do not live in the US, and honestly I'm kinda tired of hearing as much about your (?) politics. If I hadn't used the uncertainty qualifier, I would have been lying.

      That said, I believe it did pass almost unanimously, coming into effect in 2027 or something. The law in question required all cars come equipped with intoxication detection systems and refuse to start failing that check.

      > vocal exception

      I'm not from there, yet even I can tell the system is as broken as it could be. There are two parties funded by almost the same oligarchs, one advocating for open fascism and the other aimlessly laundering elite interests in nominal progressivism, while being more concerned with exterminating actual leftists within than tackling their opposition. You've steadily passed age verification in most major states, followed by a bipartisan federal bill.

      Your system does the same thing as EU-steadily laundering corporate agenda into legislation. At least in most of the EU, this shared disease hasn't progressed into the stage of eroding so much of workers rights and basic environmental protections. But with the recent populist currents, I can imagine the median voter will vote for their starvation if only to spite the brown people.

      > Bad Springfield hence not bad Vernapool

      The argument that started this thread was that the EU itself needs to be entirely abolished because it produces laws of this nature.

      If you apply that same standard, do you think cessation is what the US states should do too? Well, these same laws easily pass into state legislation too. All you'd be doing is delaying the inevitable, if you don't cut the problem at its root.

by educating our fellow co-citizens about who to vote for. This is not an issue of the EU, but about the politicians in power and them caving in on lobbyists from economy side and fascists

  • That translates to "capillary education, to the point of fixing structural systemic issues", measure needed generations ago.

    We have damages now. The car systems destroyed. How would we be able to fix that, to revert from that and the rest of the damages - which they are carrying on perpetrating as we speak, inventing new.

    This is not any more a matter of prevention, it is a matter of fixing the past and preventing the future predictable damages.