It defintly is a slippery slope. I work for a municipalitylies utilities company. Part of my job is working with a utilities companies union to lobby politicians to make laws that will actually improve the way we can work. I think we actually do improve things for the German public by bringing desperately needed knowledge to the table.
But I think we are a small minority among lobbying institutions.
They’re basically the same. I’d extent that to outright banning of any religion. Believe whatever you want, but the moment people gather and share the same “true faith”, things get ugly.
That’s not necessary. What’s needed is to treat religious beliefs as a personal choice, and no more. You can get protection from being discriminated against based on your beliefs so long as it doesn’t extend past actual disadvantage (so yes to not being disadvantaged in your workplace for being religious, but no to not wanting to bake a cake for gay people). Other than that, your religion buys you nothing. No ‘medical exemptions’, no special treatment, and especially no influence on other people’s lifestyle choices. True freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It stays in your home and place of worship. In public, in government, in education and healthcare, religion does not exist.
I would also specify that your religion doesn’t get to negatively (and of there’s any confusion about what is negative, err on the side of caution) impact their children in any way. Otherwise, as children are a very vulnerable group that will grow into an adult, it’s just a loophole for religious people to continue to propagate their religion without arguing against an opponent qualified to actually think sceptically, or commit harms against minors unable to protect themselves.
First step to achieving that is banning homeschooling - way too many people use that as a way to avoid their children getting educated about stuff they don’t want them to know.
Sorry, but religion has nothing to do with beliefs. Why do people always mix those? There’s also a difference between stealing for hunger and joining a drug cartel. You join a religion and take over their “beliefs”.
Religion is for the mentally handicapped who can’t think for themselves but need a group who tells them what to think. So they feel “connected”.
Besides that intermixing of terms, you’re not wrong. Have a belief. We all believe something, even if it’s nothing. I even love talking about people’s beliefs. As long as they’re in no cult (or religion), as i don’t want to interact with those. It’s like talking with a plant.
Sustenance doesn’t mean “the only thing available”.
Look, I’m excited for lab-grown meat. I’ve reduced my meat consumption significantly over the last year or two. I may not be “in your camp” exactly, but I’m an ally. And it’s probably better to earn and keep allies than to argue semantics in an adversarial way. Win more flies with honey and all that.
I assume you agree o the general statement “Animals shouldn’t be killed for pleasure.”
If you then have two options for food, one including animal meat and one without, all other things being equal, even nutrition wise, then how is it not “for pleasure” to chose the option with meat?
Absolutely, the biggest nature lovers in my family are all hunters, they enjoy being in the woods, they enjoy seeing animals, they follow the rules to only harvest as much they are allowed and only during the season permitted.
It’s usually not that much extra effort to take the carcass and bring it to a butcher, so they do that sometimes. But yeah. Often, just leave it.
It’s actually not all that bad because we have a lack of natural predators (because we already hunted them almost to extinction) so hunting keeps the deer population from exploding.
It violates the theory of inalienable rights that implied the abolition of constitutional autocracy, coverture marriage, and voluntary self-sale contracts.
Inalienable means something that can't be transferred even with consent. In case of labor, the workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, so by the usual norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, they should get the legal responsibility i.e. the fruits of their labor
Make employment contract toward all company members, not “the company”. Workers are working for each other, not owned by share holders. They are the company.
I think that it depends on the nature of the contract. Sure, most of them are terrible.
On the other hand, NDAs are a form of employment contract that are often a necessity. Non-compete contracts can serve a legitimate purpose, in preventing unfair competition or using company secrets for person gain. They’re usually written in an overly broad manner though, or prevent legitimate employee activities.
I would argue that all employment contracts are terrible due to their violation of the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. De facto responsibility is de facto non-transferable, so there is no way for legal and de facto responsibility to match in an employment contract. Instead, workers should always be individually or jointly self-employed as in a worker coop
Small print, excessive legalese and outright deceptive language in ads, agreements and such. All the “free” (not really free) trials, “unlimited” (not really unlimited) plans, “best value” (according to the producer and their mum) deals and shit like that.
There really should be a law prohibiting that - if reading through terms and conditions for using a damn website or a toothbrush or whatever requires 4 hours of free time, a magnifyibg glass and degree in law, such t&cs should be illegal. Same for disclaimers and such in ads - any 4pt text displayed for 2 seconds on screen should automatically result in a massive fine.
“By buying [unnecessary product] you will help [marginalized group] to gain a livable income and also send their kids to school instead of sending them to [work place with - even for adults - horrible work conditions]. Also, when buying [product] we will save [arbirtary area] of [rainforest/ coral reef/ mangrove swamp] that would otherwise have been destroyed [but not by us]. Additional to that, your purchase helped us to save [arbitrary ammount of CO2 - at least in a completely hypothetical scenario]. While using [product] you will make the world a better place.”
As a customer there is barely any way you can ensure or check that these things are true. It cannot be possible to save the enviroment while buying stupid products like, for example, internet-of-shit-devices which will be phased out in no time or single use products made from plastic or other harmful materials that are not recycleable.
All these claims are just an indulgance trade - like it is done for centuries in a religious context. It is just that you have an excuse to consume more, because they to something to help people/ enviroment. If there was a product that would have been advertised as: “Well, we irretrieveably destroyed 100 km^2^ of nature, and for each single product in average two workers died and at end-of-life this product will fuck up the environment once more - also it will impair your health just by existing”, it would be horrible - but at least it would be honest.
Surprised to see no one has said cigarettes yet. Not only are you poisoning yourself, it’s harmful to everyone else around you that has to inhale that shit.
I would vastly prefer that gas cars be phased out. But I believe that this is a bit different:
Cigarettes don’t offer any benefit beyond making you “feel good.” And you don’t need cigarettes to feel good, and, in fact, literally any other option is better for both you, and everyone around you, save for harder drugs.
Gasoline cars, while poisonous to the world around us, also offer us far greater benefits: supplies and logistics, we can carry goods further, wider, and faster than we ever could without them. And because of that, without them, sure we’d pollute a lot less, but then we’d have a far harder time carrying critical resources to more remote parts of the world where trains and planes can’t reach, and people would starve or lack critical medicine.
As it stands, EVs are not a reliable substitute. They’re getting there, I want them to get there, but I disagree with the notion that cars should be made illegal as things currently stand. I don’t think it’s nearly as cut and dry as cigarettes are. I can only hope to live long enough to see a world where gas powered cars could be outlawed without leaving hundreds of millions of people high and dry.
I’d be fine with copyright being like 20 years or so, that’s plenty of time to make a good amount of money from your work IMO. But yeah the current system where some corporation gets to keep cashing in on something half a century after the author is dead is pretty ridiculous.
Not for something like medicine or crops that people will die if the copyright holder abuses their copyright. In that case we have to act for the greater good and make medicine first, compensate creators later, if at all.
the statute of Anne was the first copyright law and it was written to stop printers in London from breaking each others’ knees over who was allowed to print the world of Shakespeare who was already long dead.
copyright is a bill of goods when packaged as a protection for creatives.
Lying if you’re a politician. You should be in a state similar to “under oath” in court, but at all times.
Advertising. I should have the legal right to not be advertised at. I should have the right to not have to accept advertising in order to access services, especially so if I already pay a subscription to that service. I cannot put into words how much I loath and despise advertising and advertisers. I hate them. Hate, in the real sense of the word.
Loot boxes in video games, whatever age group the game in question is aimed at, but especially so in kids’ games.
Microtransactions in video games for anything other than non-essential/non-advantageous items, like cosmetics. Even then, their presence should upgrade the PEGI rating to adult/18, regardless of the actual content of the game. This might help prevent their inclusion at all.
Whatever the fuck is going on in Gaza right now.
Shielding police or soldiers from prosecution for crimes they’ve committed. If you stand in the way of the due process any other citizen would face, you should be heavily penalised for that. Like, the murderer soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday are currently being protected by the British state and its lackeys, and I cannot fathom why. Cops in the US who murder people are frequently protected by unions and get to retire rather than be fired etc. All of that shit should be illegal. Get the fuck out of the way of due process.
Naziism and related nonsense like Holocaust denial. Germany already has laws about this, but that shit needs to be legally smothered in its crib everywhere.
Conspiracism surrounding public health issues like vaccines and masks.
Oh come the fuck on. You want to live in world that puts the same people this guys claims (rightfully so just using his words) are skirting the around the law, to also regulate political lying, advertising, video games, conspiracy theories, uneducated opinions and Joe Rogan? I mean I don’t even know where Rogan fits into any of this. I assume his podcast bit fuck me that means you all support governing who can amd can’t have a public voice? I’m not saying his whole list is out there and yeah I’ll admit I cherry picked the shit out if it but since when has there ever been any legal or legislative framework designed exactly as the voting people wanted? I’m not fuckin Libertarian and will prolly vote for Harris but damn I am not about to allow the buffoons to metaphorically get the foot in the door when they are on record of not even checking if they’re in the right house before blindly opening fire on innocent civilians.
It would be nice if prisoners of non-violent/minor crimes could (voluntarily) work (at maybe a lower wage than usual) and and they would be able to get what they earned once they get out of prison.
Products purposefully manufactured to be unfixable. Main example being anything apple…you can’t even add ram to a iMac anymore and they have the audacity to sell the lower end model with 8 gigs of ram as if that’s enough when everyone knows its not. Basically selling a 1400$ piece of shit.
It is far worse if you look at the radmom no name brand products sold by Amazon, they are straight manufactured trash, that is only barely functioning when it comes out of the factory.
Not really something that is legal that should be illegal, but I would love to see this nonsense that corporate executives can’t be held criminally responsible (the corporation is) for their illegal acts. I think it would correct an awful lot of shitty things corporations do really quickly (assuming enforcement).
I think all those in the management chain should be held responsible. Maybe with a weighting of the proportion of those under them engaged in the criminal behaviour.