• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Under an authorisation government though I assume the law would be rescinded, so it’s not really protecting anybody.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean becoming an authoritarian government to prevent an authoritarian government doesn’t really make sense

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s like saying we shouldn’t send anyone to prison because some of them might be innocent. You have to try your best with a system but that system has to be robust enough that it cannot be abused otherwise it will end up being abused.

        • Contravariant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          If you want a system that cannot be abused then don’t remove the safeguards designed to fix mistakes.

          Allowed innocents to be released from prison, and allow the disenfranchised to regain their voting rights.

          This is why there is always a higher power to overrule previous decisions, and when it comes to elections there is no higher power than a majority.