"They only "earn" that monopoly because ostensibly they have been authorized democratically by the people."

Well, that might be the social framework fir a democracy. But we are talking about Hungary here.

But they're (allegedly soon) federated and say they want to give control of the protocol over to an independent standards body. So like, half of the stuff you're saying might not even really apply here.

I'm curious what lesson learned from twitter easily also applies to bluesky, as that's genuinely not very clear to me.

If we are the only ones imposing climate regulation, businesses and industries will move abroad where it's cheaper to operate

What are you even talking about exactly. EU regulations for what cars are allowed will be exactly the same whether the cars are manufactured in the EU or elsewhere. And carmakers already have different factories in different regions of the world to serve each market.

Honestly, without some strict rules for European and US car manufacturers to get their shit together, they're only going to fall ever further behind China, which has the biggest EV manufacturer already. Fossil fuel burning combustion engines don't have any future anyway, because fossil fuels are finite, the climate crisis is accelerating ever further and EV are getting more and more competitive (they're already cheaper in the long run for mid and higher class cars). Carmakers aren't being done any favours by allowing them to drag their feet and become ever more obsolete.

If I spend 100€ now to avoid 10000€ in damages later, spending more money NOW will actually leave me with LESS debt in the long run. And we just so happen to be in the midst of a global catastrophe where every Euro not spent as early as possible to prevent it will make it infinitely more expensive for us in the long run.

Not criminalizing people who had a big ol' vote, the bedrock of any democracy. Truly horrifying!

Well that kinda depends on whether longer sentences are more or less likely to make someone recommit crimes. If it's the former you might just end up with more people committing crimes.

Longer sentences very generally don't do much to deter crime. No criminal thinks things through with a calculator and goes "oh well, if doing this might get me into jail for three years, that's a risk I'm willing to take. But ten years? Ouwie wowie, I better not do this then!" Most people don't even think, care or know about the possible repercussions or think they will actually get caught.

Damn Macron couldn't even be bothered to invent a time machine. 😡

Indem man z.B. eine eigene Lemmy-Instanz betreibt und automatisch damit zugemüllt wird?

Ahh "this doesn't affect me", the pinnacle of enlightened politics

Uneinlösbar ist es schon deshalb, weil es so etwas wie absolute Freiheit überhaupt nicht gibt und reale Freiheit zwangsläufig eine relative ist. Also müssen wir so oder so darüber diskutieren, wo die sinnvollen Grenzen liegen. (Mal abgesehen davon, dass ich sowieso nicht in einem möglichst freien Land, sondern in einem Land, in dem alle möglichst gut leben können, leben möchte. Wovon Freiheit natürlich ein Kernelement ist, aber halt nicht das einzige. Von daher interessiert es mich eigentlich auch gar nicht zu versuchen, die Utopie eines "freien Landes" zu erreichen)

Und Steuerzahlungen bringen niemanden um. Das Ausbleiben von Steuerzahlungen aber auch nicht (direkt). Das Zwangseinziehen von Soldaten bringt zwangsläufig Leute um. Das Nicht-Einziehen aber halt auch (in diesem Fall). Und dann tendenziell eher die Schwächeren und Verwundbareren.

Wenn wir hier also irgendeinen Freiheitsbegriff ansetzen wollen, der tatsächlich etwas bedeutet, müssen wir auch zwangsläufig Freiheiten abwägen. Die Konsequenz dessen kann natürlich immer noch sein, dass Zwangsrekrutierung falsch und scheiße ist (sehe ich tendenziell auch eher so). Aber so eine Abwägung lässt sich halt mMn auch nicht mit einfachen Platitüden über freie Länder abkanzeln.