[mdp2021]

> [they] wanted

Did they? That makes a good amount of difference, you know. Especially when "they" may be a vocal exception.

> How is this supposed to prove anything

Prove what. Nothing seems to be disproven.

Edit: look, if you were trying to negate a "bad A" through an "(also) bad B", review and revise your logic. Which is important because that non-argument has been exploited to bend the political opinion of street-rubes to CEO-rubes for the past few years ("Bad Springfield hence [...] not bad Vernapool").

[pona-a]

> Did they?

Look, this was a headline I recalled seeing in the news. I do not live in the US, and honestly I'm kinda tired of hearing as much about your (?) politics. If I hadn't used the uncertainty qualifier, I would have been lying.

That said, I believe it did pass almost unanimously, coming into effect in 2027 or something. The law in question required all cars come equipped with intoxication detection systems and refuse to start failing that check.

> vocal exception

I'm not from there, yet even I can tell the system is as broken as it could be. There are two parties funded by almost the same oligarchs, one advocating for open fascism and the other aimlessly laundering elite interests in nominal progressivism, while being more concerned with exterminating actual leftists within than tackling their opposition. You've steadily passed age verification in most major states, followed by a bipartisan federal bill.

Your system does the same thing as EU-steadily laundering corporate agenda into legislation. At least in most of the EU, this shared disease hasn't progressed into the stage of eroding so much of workers rights and basic environmental protections. But with the recent populist currents, I can imagine the median voter will vote for their starvation if only to spite the brown people.

> Bad Springfield hence not bad Vernapool

The argument that started this thread was that the EU itself needs to be entirely abolished because it produces laws of this nature.

If you apply that same standard, do you think cessation is what the US states should do too? Well, these same laws easily pass into state legislation too. All you'd be doing is delaying the inevitable, if you don't cut the problem at its root.

[mdp2021]

> Your

Your assumptions clinging is staggering. Thank Reason that you put '(?)' preliminary marks - that you do not then follow.

> was that the EU itself needs to be entirely abolished

No, I wrote "should never have been born". Abolishing it does not remove the immense damages it caused. You are keeping your analytical processes very loose.

> If you apply that same standard, do you think cessation is what

Of course comparable cases entail comparable judgements?! But the USA, for example, about the destruction of cars the eu perpetrated, install 4-cylinder engines in the same models that in the eu are sold with 3-cylinders to stay within the regulations. So, not specifically comparable in the destructive effort, nor in the effect.

> []

Bad system, powerful entities that are systemically faulty hence damaging, must not be let into activity. As simple as this in principle - it is just logically self-contained.