The public pressure and ad campaigns _against_ these things have to be constant.
All it takes is 1 domino to fall then it becomes "well, if it is good enough for <other country>, its good enough for us!"
Makes me question democracy really, it seems fundamentally broken when the peoples voice is supressed over and over. Same stuff happens in Sweden, but with other kinds of laws.
A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance.
Maybe one day we'll something better than Democracy, like an AI-controlled government, but nobody's come up with anything so far.
And why on earth e we liked i want to be ruled by a machine?
Come on dude
The swiss model where things can be raised to referendum seems pretty reasonable to me (Swede). I'd love it over here, so we can tell our government (including the party I voted for) to kindly shove it sometimes.
You can still have interstate trade, regulations etc.
No, this isn't the problem with monarchies at all (or maybe I'm just disagreeing with your wording). The problem with monarchies is heredity: sure, you can get a great ruler like Marcus Aurelius, but the problem is the great ruler doesn't live forever, and eventually he dies (or is secretly murdered) and this his shitty son takes over. Then the Praetors have to murder him in his bathtub before he completely destroys the empire.
The point still stands that we're better off with a democracy.
There are at least some laws that don't make sense anymore or just flat out failed, but have big implications. Like blue laws, adultery laws, inheritance/intestacy laws, mandatory minimum sentences, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc..
But I do see problems in revisiting laws, it's expensive and time consuming. It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done.
A bicameral legislature where one half needs 2/3rds majority to pass laws, but the other half only repeals laws and needs only 50%.
(The latter is not my idea, it comes from Heinlein.)
Heh, are you a Congressperson? Who is this "we"? The whole thread is people pointing out that "we" and the people doing the things are different. Congress has been on a quiet crusade against encryption since before Pretty Good Privacy in the 90s.
I remain confused about what people fundamentally see when they look at Congress. It would be a huge win for them to get nothing done and have nearly no laws, most of what they've passed for the last 30 years has been disastrous and encouraged the US in steadily unwinding financially and as a united political body. If the power isn't in Congress it'll get picked up by state and local governments where much more ordinary people will get a say on how they are governed. And do much less damage when they screw up.
The problem is twofold...
Politicians have limited capacity to research/understand potential side-effects of these laws. So they rely on lobbyists from the interested parties. Or their own staff, who have their own biases.
Additionally, politicians face re-election. So, they have to balance the whims of their electorate with what might be a better long-term view. "Think of the children" syndrome, if you will.
I'd argue that instead, its more that the public is so apathetic about bad-turns of law that they'll just shrug with a sigh and begrudgingly tolerate the new paradigm.