Polish Prime Minister calls for EU leaders to reject ACTA(translate.googleusercontent.com) |
Polish Prime Minister calls for EU leaders to reject ACTA(translate.googleusercontent.com) |
Just look at Canada's safety minister Vic Toews back-pedal like a champ when he was called out after he compared any person criticising his proposed fascist spying bill to a 'child pornographer' supporter. It seems like there's an open season on moving the goal post when it comes to deteriorating publics right to privacy.
Congrats to the participants of the anti-ACTA protests in Poland (possibly the biggest ACTA opposition in the world), who brought about this change.
I also think the fact that they don't care how you perceive them (by acting juvenile or otherwise immature) is one of their greatest strengths. Believe it or not, but it frees you from a lot of burdens if you don't have to be polite and politically correct, and makes it a whole lot easier to actually do something (whether or not that something is good and/or justified is certainly debatable).
Tusk over and over again refuses to change his policies when he meets the opposition from huge groups of people (for example the retirement system reform, fighting with football fans, with the doctors, with drug substitutes), I think ACTA is one of the few situations where he reversed his opinion.
On the press conference, IIRC, he said that it's not because of the protest that he changed his mind, but because of the reasonable arguments. He also mentioned his reasons for changing his stance on Acta, and it seems that he genuinely understands now why it was wrong.
You and I probably agree that the outcome is good overall, but be wary of the political song and dance. Stay vigilant is my motto.
Tusk said he's not doing this because of the protests, but because the arguments presented to him made sense. That is what I'm expecting of a good politician.
I wonder how that magic that makes people wise enough once every 4 years works.
One possible way is that politicians are better than regular people, and they have to lie before elections to ponder to stupid voters. After the election wise and benevolent politicians do what is Right, no matter their stupid voters opinion.
Is THAT why indirect democracy is better? Because it depends heavily on the fact, that the most wise and benevolent politicians have to tell the best lies to the stupid voters. And it's not obvious to me, that this will be always true.
This is also a similar way the pirate ships were being run.
The reason for this is that person(s) at helm have the better perspective. Not because they are superhumans or sth, but because they spend 15 hours a day involved in the manner.
In other words - yes, the politicians are better to make decisions regarding the country. Not because they were born better, but because that's their job.
It doesn't mean that they won't make mistakes, or be misinformed (as in case of ACTA) - that's why they should listen to people, consult society. But by "listening to people", I mean "hearing their arguments and reasoning", not "doing what people want". The former is called "being wise", the latter "being populist".
btw. majority making decisions on every issue is not a populism. It's a direct democracy. I'd argue that it is as bad as populism.
Because of this distinction I was against ACTA, but at the same time against a referendum against ACTA :)