There is a lot of posts and part-posts which belong to the climate change thread, the political thread, etc, so if this one doesn’t get back on track I will move them. I moved a few.
Welcome to EuroGA, bad1 
I edited the other poster’s offending post; it was beyond the Guidelines.
lionel wrote:
Passing that kind of tax broadly (let’s say at least EU+USA) with an application date two-digit years in the future could be seen as an encouragement to develop these biofuels and/or electric planes… This would still shaft avgas piston GA, as IMHO developing an avgas replacement is showing to be harder than a kerosene replacement.
Thankfully none of the above is going to happen, obviously not in the US anyway and hopefully not in CH either, in the end. It’s very sad to see extremism getting so far anywhere, and one hopes this kind of thing in one relatively isolated country is enough get people elsewhere to see just how irrationally inane the proponents actually are. A normal person thinks democracy defends us from people like this and it’s terrifying to see that so far in CH that has not been the case.
Unfortunately, polarisation together with intolerance and inability to compromise is slowly turning democracy into the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
Only a liberal democracy (liberal in the true meaning of the word) protects the freedom of the minority. Without that protection, 50.1% could vote to kill the 49.9% and get away with it.
Cobalt wrote:
Unfortunately, polarisation together with intolerance and inability to compromise is slowly turning democracy into the tyranny of the majority over the minority.Only a liberal democracy (liberal in the true meaning of the word) protects the freedom of the minority. Without that protection, 50.1% could vote to kill the 49.9% and get away with it.
We call it a constitutional republic , and your point is well taken.
While written constitutions can play a vital role protecting “inalienable rights”, they have no chance against pervasive attitudes or mob rule.
The law, constitutional or otherwise, can only go so far to protect us, it has no chance if it is ignored by the majority – after all, the main reason I don’t get killed every day is that in general people aren’t killers, not because killing is illegal.
Just ask the victims of McCarthyism, 2nd World War internment, the slaves etc. about what happened to “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
I think the US system does a pretty good job of preventing mob rule and de-centering power generally, as per this link Beyond that, I’m not going to provoke a discussion of those elements of the US constitution that take over when legal process otherwise fails, but they exist by design Jefferson was a great believer in revolution.
Cobalt wrote:
Only a liberal democracy (liberal in the true meaning of the word) protects the freedom of the minority. Without that protection, 50.1% could vote to kill the 49.9% and get away with it.
Very good point, if only there was some sort of right you could give people so that they could stop that killing…
My comment was not aimed at the US constitution specifically; this was just an example that the best intentions in a written document (and in this case “only” the declaration of independence) are worth nothing if the general population chooses to ignore them, and recourse to the law is not available or impossibly slow.
And the second amendment did not help any of the groups I mentioned…
My comment was more that it’s a good idea to include this. As I agree, without a way to defend, or value for individuals mob mentality and identity can be used pretty unpleasantly.
getting back to the Swiss part though. What is the perceived likelihood of this progressing through?
Well, constitutional monarchies have shown to have worked OK. UK, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan etc. None of these countries are democracies (in the correct sense of the word). Typically the parliament is elected, the government and the King/Queen are not. Nevertheless, it’s the constitution (or lack thereof) that counts. Italy and Japan were constitutional monarchies with fascist constitutions before and under WW2 for instance. You can have constitutional whatever.
It’s mostly semantics IMO. With a constitution that divides power and assures basic human rights for everyone, I would think that is as good a one can hope for?
