Their “oligarchs”. LOL.
That’s a different part of the world, it’s not “oligarchs”, it’s just the government and politicians and a significant part of society in every European country. Eastern Europe might even be a bit better in this regard than Western, because of relatively recent historical memory.
You have to deserve “oligarchs” first. They didn’t. You ask some granny in any European country, that granny will likely be in favor of full-on totalitarianism because they are a law-abiding society and there should be order, and people thinking they have natural rights are extremists.
You in your land of the weird joke about “freedumb” and “mass shooter rights” and “free hate speech”, not understanding that the reason Europeans too joke about those is not them seeing your problems as they are, but because they (except for France and maybe some Scandinavian ones, and, eh, maybe Switzerland) unironically have problems with the ideas of freedom, equality, limits of mandate, right to rebellion and free speech. Half the European nations are monarchies or recent monarchies or recent fascist nations or ex-Commie nations.
You there joke about these treating it as a given that you have those rights, just some jerks abuse them, while Europeans joke because they don’t have those rights and don’t treat them as certain. There’s nothing in UK’s or even Germany’s constitutional laws that admits that their citizens are free people with right to rebellion and to freedom of expression and association, even if someone in some other law writes that they are not.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Mhm. Show me where in the US constitution it says that people have a right to rebellion.
And then please show me how this right to rebellion was applied when an actual rebellion occured.
And please also take into consideration any laws regarding treason or domestic terrorism.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 days ago
I said constitutional law, not the US constitution alone. Including declaration of independence and the surrounding history of discussion and all. Also not “says that people have”, but recognizes it as an inherent right. Naturally if such a right exists, either no law can retract it or it would be meaningless.
I don’t see how this is relevant. If you think it is, please explain how, explicitly and not implicitly.
(Also one would guess that slaveholders’ right to rebellion is in significant doubt.)
Can’t override constitutional and inherent rights. Also if you don’t recognize the latter, it’s too bad but your country’s founding documents do as a basis. Basically the US constitution is toilet paper compared to unstated but mentioned in d.o.i. inherent rights, and any normal law is toilet paper compared to the US constitution.
And people who made that system were very well educated, also very practical, and explained very thoroughly why should any system of formal rules be possible to discard by force and why inherent rights not prone to degeneracy of any formal system driven by power should exist in philosophy. They were not XX and XXI centuries’ idealists with overvalued ideas, or idiots dreaming of totalitarianism with those like them on top.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 day ago
A law that doesn’t apply is worthless.
Thinking that this somehow makes you or your anachronistic shithole of a country somewhat better is just plain delusional.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
First, my anachronistic shithole of a country would be Russia.
Second, I said right, not law. Rights are more transcendent.