Heroist
Auto-translated
Okay, I won't vote on these issues for several reasons.
Take the death penalty, for example. If corruption is rampant in a country, the purpose of such a measure is lost because it's obvious who will receive it and for how many stolen chickens (not billions).
Legalizing marriage between relatives, censorship, same-sex marriage, drugs, alcohol, and weapons – all of these are, in my opinion, on roughly the same level from the state's perspective as potential sources of trouble and extra work for law enforcement and the healthcare system. However, on the other hand, they are an integral part of a certain (in moderate limits, of course) human freedom. Again, the extent to which a country is economically (and even morally and spiritually) developed depends on the corresponding development of its population and how often, or even if, they will use such permissiveness.
The same applies to the inviolability of private life. Personally, I believe that if global surveillance could help reduce the high crime rate and prevent possible major crimes, such a measure would seem quite adequate. Otherwise, its purpose is lost.
That's basically it. It seems the problem is that the very possibility of influencing certain laws through democratic means no longer fits into the concept of any modern state; otherwise, I immediately start creating an image of some ideal country, and therefore the answers in the poll may be completely different depending on many factors.
Take the death penalty, for example. If corruption is rampant in a country, the purpose of such a measure is lost because it's obvious who will receive it and for how many stolen chickens (not billions).
Legalizing marriage between relatives, censorship, same-sex marriage, drugs, alcohol, and weapons – all of these are, in my opinion, on roughly the same level from the state's perspective as potential sources of trouble and extra work for law enforcement and the healthcare system. However, on the other hand, they are an integral part of a certain (in moderate limits, of course) human freedom. Again, the extent to which a country is economically (and even morally and spiritually) developed depends on the corresponding development of its population and how often, or even if, they will use such permissiveness.
The same applies to the inviolability of private life. Personally, I believe that if global surveillance could help reduce the high crime rate and prevent possible major crimes, such a measure would seem quite adequate. Otherwise, its purpose is lost.
That's basically it. It seems the problem is that the very possibility of influencing certain laws through democratic means no longer fits into the concept of any modern state; otherwise, I immediately start creating an image of some ideal country, and therefore the answers in the poll may be completely different depending on many factors.
Whatever