[Nakura]

Why single out the Swiss? They're as restrictive as any other european government you could care to mention.

The Swiss actually understand that citizens have both rights and responsibilities. They're an admirable people who refuse to get themselves involved in the petty affairs of their warmongering neighbors. They refuse to join authoritarian organizations, such as the United Nations (until 2004) and European Union. They utilize conscription and every citizen owns a firearm. They are also the only Western European country in which it's citizens are educated enough and responsible enough to have direct democracy.

Lack of citations, and actual experience with actual Europeans, is obvious. Please try again.

I have plenty of experience with Europeans. And everyone already knows about Europe's restrictive laws, that's like me providing a source to show that the sky generally appears blue. I even provided specific examples, such as French trial of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen, Swiss minaret ban, German bans on far-right parties, Dutch trial of Geert Wilders, British suppression of EDL rallies, etc.

It is true, Europe in general hasn't got the american tradition of extreme skepticism towards the central government that you are so proud of. However, that doesn't mean that the american way is th only or even the best way of running a country.

Is any skepticism of government is seen as "extreme" in your eyes?

Which truths? Why do you call it an "Illusion"? If you could provide a concrete example in which this supposed lack of freedom impacts our daily lives negatively, it would be much appreciated.

It's from the Declaration, the truths that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. The illusion that they have freedom and that their overlords have their best interests at heart.

See above. Please show how this is actually a bad thing.

Governments are supposed to protect rights, not take them away. How exactly is taking away freedom of speech and any number of other rights a "good thing?" If you're going to argue for such laws, then the burden of argument is on you.

Yeah, american "guidance" to create "free society" is such a great thing. Tell me, how did that work out for the countries you guys invaded in recent years?

Who said anything about invading anyone? We can help by providing advice and aid through diplomatic means, which is what we should started doing over a century ago.

AAAhahaahahahahaaa omg I can't stop laughing

So you guys are "opposed to serfdom" now? You, of all people, claim to be fundamentally in support of freedom? You americans, you crack me up.
Seriously, where was this "opposition to serfdom" when corporations took over the political discourse? Where is this "opposition to serfdom" when religious extremists manage to change laws according to their particular brand of stupid? Where is the "opposition to serfdom" in the face of things like the PATRIOT Act, SOPA, CISPA, PRISM? I see a few protesters, but it seems that your actual politics differ from your ideals. Clean up your own act before trying to tell us what to do, thank you very much.

Ask your average American if he thinks we should eliminate the Bill of Rights, they'll say "no." Ask them if they think speech someone finds offensive should be banned, and they'll say "no." Ask your average European those things and you'll invariable get a "yes." There is massive opposition to the Patriot Act, SOPA, CISPA, FAWB, NDAA and PRISM. You're joking right? Just yesterday there was a bill proposed in Congress that would defund PRISM.

So now Switzerland is no longer the shining beacon of FREEDOM? Who'd've thought.
Now, one thing you should consider. In America, a hundred years is a long time, whereas over here, a hundred miles are a long distance. There are historical reasons why Germany isn't especially tolerant with regards to political movements that have the destruction of our free democratic society at their core. We've been burned by those once, and we're pretty sure we don't want it to happen again.

You would be well advised to try to understand the context in which our political systems operate. The american way, at least as it was intended, isn't any better or worse; You trying to get us to follow your ideas (several of which are considered to be absolutely insane around here) is stupidly ignorant of historical and cultural differences.

Finally, Nakura: You really should try to support your arguments next time with some actual evidence. Right now, you're just trolling, and although you're one of the more entertaining trolls we've had around here, you're still a troll. Please be aware that there is no right to freedom of speech on this board.

I think the Swiss minaret ban was wrong, that doesn't mean the entire country is "evil" though, not anymore than America is evil because of PRISM.

Who cares if someone gets "offended?" How can you make offending someone an offense? How can you call yourself so civilized, while simultaneously believing that your own people will commit genocide if you allow them to speak their mind? If you're so concerned about the people voting in a dictatorship, then why don't you create a Bill of Rights, protecting the rights of your citizens, rather than taking them away? Any responsible society has a system of checks and balances to prevent such abuse. Besides, if you can't use your own free speech to counter these so-called "bad people," then perhaps they deserve to win?

[Apollo]

I think the way Europe looks at it is that the Speech itself does not harm, but that Speech will reach the ears of people who will. Saying 'I hate [insert race/sexuality etc here]', whilst regressive, racist and disgusting isn't a physically hurtful thing, I'll agree. However, when a group of people get together saying 'I hate [insert race/sexuality etc here] you will always get members of that group who are prepared to do more than just say it. We had a lot of trouble with that some decades ago.

America had its own phase of 'cleansing', and that is still a sore point on both sides, but Europe had it far worse over its existence, which is why we are somewhat touchy about it now. The reason much of Europe comes across as 'subdued' is because there is hundreds of years of tension under the surface, places like Greece and Turkey have had a long, difficult road to rid themselves of distrust of each other, and we've seen what happens when hatred and distrust run amok.

Now, you may, possibly accurately, claim that this is a case of shooting the messenger, as it were, but there are very definite reasons why at least parts Europe are not tolerant of racial/sexual hatred.

After the Nazis and the Fascists, I can understand why the Europeans would have little tolerance for groups with similar ideologies. Still, banning open displays of racism, homophobia, etc. isn't really going to solve the problem--it'll only fill people with righteous anger and feelings of victimization, two of the primary emotions those groups use to manipulate people. Also, not every racist group is going to be anywhere near as bad as the Nazis--both of America's major political parties use some racial rhetoric, and they aren't trying to exterminate people.

There may be some exceptions. The Westboro Baptist Church calls for the death penalty for homosexuality, so perhaps they should suffer some type of consequence--never being able to sue anybody for libel, or fines, or something like that. I'm just always extremely cautious about censoring ideologies--however offensive they may be--because that can very easily be abused for political purposes, and I don't feel that's the state's role. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental right that enables a democratic system.

[deathfun]

Is it a bad thing that when I see "Serfdom" I think a whole bunch of Europeans in a giant dome surfing awesome waves?

****, that sounds so awesome actually. Totally going to invest in that

[The E]

The Swiss actually understand that citizens have both rights and responsibilities. They're an admirable people who refuse to get themselves involved in the petty affairs of their warmongering neighbors. They refuse to join authoritarian organizations, such as the United Nations (until 2004) and European Union. They utilize conscription and every citizen owns a firearm. They are also the only Western European country in which it's citizens are educated enough and responsible enough to have direct democracy.

Comedy gold, my friend, Comedy gold. The swiss aren't any more educated or responsible than the rest of us. They're small and rich enough to make direct democracy work, a system that is based around the historical independence of each Canton, but they're not any more reasonable than anyone else. I don't see how the way they've organized their military has anything to do with this (Except for tickling your Heinlein fetish).

I have plenty of experience with Europeans.

Really? One would think you've never left the US, based on what you're writing here.

Is any skepticism of government is seen as "extreme" in your eyes?

No, I don't think I ever said that. However, american culture promotes individualism and rugged independence as core values, and government intervention is generally seen as a bad thing to begin with. Our approach is a bit different.

It's from the Declaration, the truths that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. The illusion that they have freedom and that their overlords have their best interests at heart.

Still waiting for that example, you know.

Governments are supposed to protect rights, not take them away. How exactly is taking away freedom of speech and any number of other rights a "good thing?" If you're going to argue for such laws, then the burden of argument is on you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html#BJNR000010949BJNG000100314

The german basic law (We don't call it a Constitution) specifically guarantees rights, it does not grant them.

Who said anything about invading anyone? We can help by providing advice and aid through diplomatic means, which is what we should started doing over a century ago.

There is no proof that you would be any good at it though. You're basically saying "Let us tell you what to do, and we'll show you how to create freedom in x simple steps", without first telling us why you're so uniquely qualified to do so in the first place. Historical evidence of american intervention in other countries' affairs does not show any particular skill at promoting this freedom you speak of.

Ask your average American if he thinks we should eliminate the Bill of Rights, they'll say "no." Ask them if they think speech someone finds offensive should be banned, and they'll say "no." Ask your average European those things and you'll invariable get a "yes." There is massive opposition to the Patriot Act, SOPA, CISPA, FAWB, NDAA and PRISM. You're joking right? Just yesterday there was a bill proposed in Congress that would defund PRISM.

I think you're wrong there, but that's beside the point. That thing you're linking to is a nice gesture, but the proof is in the pudding. Claim it as a victory once it's actually been passed.

I think the Swiss minaret ban was wrong, that doesn't mean the entire country is "evil" though, not anymore than America is evil because of PRISM.

Who cares if someone gets "offended?" How can you make offending someone an offense? How can you call yourself so civilized, while simultaneously believing that your own people will commit genocide if you allow them to speak their mind? If you're so concerned about the people voting in a dictatorship, then why don't you create a Bill of Rights, protecting the rights of your citizens, rather than taking them away? Any responsible society has a system of checks and balances to prevent such abuse. Besides, if you can't use your own free speech to counter these so-called "bad people," then perhaps they deserve to win?

If you're going to reply to me line-by-line, please reply to what I said.

[Grizzly]

Dutch trial of Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders was accused of hate speech by civilians, not by the government, and was declared innocent (the public prosecution actually pleaded for that, too - the one part of the trail which was most closely related to *the government* wanted him to walk free).

Ask your average American if he thinks we should eliminate the Bill of Rights, they'll say "no." Ask them if they think speech someone finds offensive should be banned, and they'll say "no." Ask your average European those things and you'll invariable get a "yes." There is massive opposition to the Patriot Act, SOPA, CISPA, FAWB, NDAA and PRISM. You're joking right? Just yesterday there was a bill proposed in Congress that would defund PRISM.

You need to back up that statement with evidence. Your statements concerning "Europeans" are quickly unfounded by both the fact that many people on this board are European and do oppose all those policies you mentoined quite vehemently, and I assume many people here are quite average (Except perhaps Nuke, but he's an American, so...) - and simply that there is no "European" people as a whole anyway. 2000 years of semi-constant warfare is the proof of that.

Also, the fact that many EU countries lack laws that even come close to the patriot act, SOPA, CISPA etc. is because the public is vehemently opposed to them, and thanks to the much more fluid dynamics of "European" (Or atleast, how it works in NL BE and DE) political power, those bills don't stand a chance of getting trough. And if they did, one can expect a major reshuffle of the parliament at the next election, something which is simply impossible in the rigid american two party system (which, if I may, is not really all that much better then a one party system).

After the Nazis and the Fascists, I can understand why the Europeans would have little tolerance for groups with similar ideologies. Still, banning open displays of racism, homophobia, etc. isn't really going to solve the problem--it'll only fill people with righteous anger and feelings of victimization, two of the primary emotions those groups use to manipulate people. Also, not every racist group is going to be anywhere near as bad as the Nazis--both of America's major political parties use some racial rhetoric, and they aren't trying to exterminate people.

The problem is here that the dutch government (I'll take the dutch as an example as obviously it's the one I am the most familiar with) has several duties. One of them is guaranteeing the right of free speech, sure. However, the safety of it's citizens, their abilities to live their lives normally regardless of race gender and all that jazz is also a very important priority of the government.
"Sowing hate" (or hate speech) is outlawed for that reason. The classic definition (in NL) of "hate" is wishing or hoping that the thing or person you hate would not be part of your life, and that you would love to see it removed, or remove it yourself. WHen you hate a person, you wish that person to die. In other words, hate speech is telling your followers to murder others. In that case, the dutch (and quite possibly german) law considers the right of it's citizens to live their lives without fear of harrasment to be more important then it's citizens right to free speech, and as a result, the person spouting hte hate speech can be prosecuted (for inciting murder, basically).

And you are right, Geert Wilders has used his situation to shout that he was being prosecuted and hunted down by the government, in order to manipulate others (even though those were blatant lies, as the public prosecution wanted him to walk free, as there simply was no case). However, I don't really think that is a problem of the dutch state, but rather the gullibility and ignorance of the people that flock to him, such as Nakura.

[Phantom Hoover]

Can a mod please just ****ing ban Nakura already? Intentionally or not, he acts like nothing more than a neocon troll with a negligible interest in HLP except as a place to talk loudly about his political views.

[666maslo666]

Whether Europe is more or less free overall than the Americans is debatable. But Nakura is correct that in the areas of freedom of speech and expression we still have a lot to learn from the US. We tend to give it up too easily, IMHO.

[Grizzly]

Whether Europe is more or less free overall than the Americans is debatable. But Nakura is correct that in the areas of freedom of speech and expression we still have a lot to learn from the US. We tend to give it up too easily, IMHO.

I'd say it's the other way 'round, considering on how stuff like the Patriot act just flew under the radar.

[headdie]

Why single out the Swiss? They're as restrictive as any other european government you could care to mention.

The Swiss actually understand that citizens have both rights and responsibilities. They're an admirable people who refuse to get themselves involved in the petty affairs of their warmongering neighbors. They refuse to join authoritarian organizations, such as the United Nations (until 2004) and European Union. They utilize conscription and every citizen owns a firearm. They are also the only Western European country in which it's citizens are educated enough and responsible enough to have direct democracy.

So they are a superior nation because military service is compulsory* for men* (reduction in personal freedom) but not women* (discriminatory) and the ability to carry weapons stems from the fact that soldiers and reservists must keep all their kit at home* including weapons which means that Switzerland has one of the highest rates for firearm related murder in europe**

*source = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Military
** source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

also the direct government stems from the fact that if 50,000 people sign a petition within 100 days, or 100,000 within 18 months for federal level legislation piece of legislation being approved it goes to a referendum, the rest of the time government operates on a normal representative government like the rest of the democratic world

On fire arms the rest of europe is educated enough to know that there is no legitimate reason for a large scaled armed population to exist and the notion of carrying weapons to oppose a well funded western government is ludicrous.

As for authoritarian organizations, such as the United Nations (until 2004) and European Union. please give me a moment to finish pissing myself with laughter.  The UN is a talking shop which while having the power to enact international legislation spends most of its time mired in politics that it is fairly rare that new legislation is enacted and usually everyone resorts to opt in treaties which maybe 1/4 of the signatories will actually bother to meet the terms of by the deadline

As for the EU, we have had 80 years of peace in europe thanks to them and its predecessor and while it is far from adequate due to the political in fighting they are also the reason trade flows through europe unrestricted and provide a great deal of funding to assist in developing regions.  as for authoritarian, no because again any EU legislation usually has to be ratified by the constituent nation.

Lack of citations, and actual experience with actual Europeans, is obvious. Please try again.

I have plenty of experience with Europeans. And everyone already knows about Europe's restrictive laws, that's like me providing a source to show that the sky generally appears blue. I even provided specific examples, such as French trial of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen, Swiss minaret ban, German bans on far-right parties, Dutch trial of Geert Wilders, British suppression of EDL rallies, etc.

The USA has yet to truly understand the power of hatred, we have seen populations nearly extinguished because they weren't blue eyed and blond haired or were too successful, or had the wrong faith.  on a more practical and day to day level what is free speech compared to the right to go about your legitimate business without fear of unjust persecution and hatred, no i think i prefer to have extremists silenced than have population that embraces hate because of the notion of free speech.

As for the ED ****ing L I live in the UK and those idiots are more about ignorance and smashing the place up than anything else.  also the idea of "British" is a bul**** notion we have been a mongral race since the romans came along and bashed the celts, we are who we are because of immigration.

Also if the UK is so bad then why the hell do we put up with the BNP and UkIP parties both of which count known racists as influential members and who's party line flirts dangerously close to the countries racism legislation and get away with it because they are political parties.

It is true, Europe in general hasn't got the american tradition of extreme skepticism towards the central government that you are so proud of. However, that doesn't mean that the american way is th only or even the best way of running a country.

Is any skepticism of government is seen as "extreme" in your eyes?

Seriously the president sneezes over there and by the time it reaches us its a conspiracy to bring healthcare to the masses

Which truths? Why do you call it an "Illusion"? If you could provide a concrete example in which this supposed lack of freedom impacts our daily lives negatively, it would be much appreciated.

It's from the Declaration, the truths that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. The illusion that they have freedom and that their overlords have their best interests at heart.
[/quote]

Guantanamo Bay

See above. Please show how this is actually a bad thing.

Governments are supposed to protect rights, not take them away. How exactly is taking away freedom of speech and any number of other rights a "good thing?" If you're going to argue for such laws, then the burden of argument is on you.

as above the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual

Yeah, american "guidance" to create "free society" is such a great thing. Tell me, how did that work out for the countries you guys invaded in recent years?

Who said anything about invading anyone? We can help by providing advice and aid through diplomatic means, which is what we should started doing over a century ago.

Iraq, Afghanistan to name but the two most recent examples, I am just ashamed to say that Blare was so far up Bush's arse that we followed you in

edit
a few more thoughts on extremism

[Grizzly]

Swiss minaret ban

Oh wait. The Swiss Minaret Ban was a result of referendum, not an action of the government.

[Mikes]

Nakura trying to win some "most clueless post of the year" award or something?

[Turambar]

Nakura trying to win some "most clueless post of the year" award or something?

His ideology is not compatible with reality.  If he spends enough time here, that might actually start to become clear to him.

[Lorric]

His ideology is not compatible with reality.  If he spends enough time here, that might actually start to become clear to him.

He gives me a sort of lost soul kind of feeling. I think he's looking for something. Maybe trying to make sense of the World. I could be completely wrong, and apologies to Nakura if I am, it's just the feeling I get.

[Nakura]

So they are a superior nation because military service is compulsory* for men* (reduction in personal freedom) but not women* (discriminatory) and the ability to carry weapons stems from the fact that soldiers and reservists must keep all their kit at home* including weapons which means that Switzerland has one of the highest rates for firearm related murder in europe**

*source = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Military
** source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

also the direct government stems from the fact that if 50,000 people sign a petition within 100 days, or 100,000 within 18 months for federal level legislation piece of legislation being approved it goes to a referendum, the rest of the time government operates on a normal representative government like the rest of the democratic world

On fire arms the rest of europe is educated enough to know that there is no legitimate reason for a large scaled armed population to exist and the notion of carrying weapons to oppose a well funded western government is ludicrous.

It's not a reduction in personal freedom, not anymore than being required to serve on a jury or pay taxes is a reduction of your personal freedom. Women should be required to serve as well, you have a point there. This is largely due to how Europeans are (at least in a historical context) incredibly sexist and discriminatory against women. Nice strawman there, Switzerland has a homicide rate of 0.7 per 100,000 people, which is the lowest homicide rate in Europe. How can you claim that your people are fascists who will commit genocide if they are given even token freedoms, while simultaneously claiming that there is no need to stop genocidal fascists?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

As for authoritarian organizations, such as the United Nations (until 2004) and European Union. please give me a moment to finish pissing myself with laughter.  The UN is a talking shop which while having the power to enact international legislation spends most of its time mired in politics that it is fairly rare that new legislation is enacted and usually everyone resorts to opt in treaties which maybe 1/4 of the signatories will actually bother to meet the terms of by the deadline

As for the EU, we have had 80 years of peace in europe thanks to them and its predecessor and while it is far from adequate due to the political in fighting they are also the reason trade flows through europe unrestricted and provide a great deal of funding to assist in developing regions.  as for authoritarian, no because again any EU legislation usually has to be ratified by the constituent nation.

That's right, the only reason there haven't been any wars in 80 years (hint: there have been) is because of the European Union. The European Union has single-handedly ended war in Europe, it totally hasn't been American hegemony, the global economy, Cold War politics, nuclear deterrent, internationalism, weakening of the bourgeois, democratic peace theory, lessons learned form the World Wars and the fact that wars for resources and land are no longer viable. No sir-e, it was all because of the European Union.

The USA has yet to truly understand the power of hatred, we have seen populations nearly extinguished because they weren't blue eyed and blond haired or were too successful, or had the wrong faith.  on a more practical and day to day level what is free speech compared to the right to go about your legitimate business without fear of unjust persecution and hatred, no i think i prefer to have extremists silenced than have population that embraces hate because of the notion of free speech.

As for the ED ****ing L I live in the UK and those idiots are more about ignorance and smashing the place up than anything else.  also the idea of "British" is a bul**** notion we have been a mongral race since the romans came along and bashed the celts, we are who we are because of immigration.

Also if the UK is so bad then why the hell do we put up with the BNP and UkIP parties both of which count known racists as influential members and who's party line flirts dangerously close to the countries racism legislation and get away with it because they are political parties.

See above. If you can't use your own freedom of speech to prevent these people from coming to power, then maybe they should come to power. Also, the whole "we have to take away your freedom so that you don't take away our freedom" argument is the most ludicrous thing I've heard in a while.

And now you've lost any  credibility you may have once had. There is zero evidence that Nigel Farage is racist or that UKIP is a racist party. Pro-tip: People can disagree with you without being racist. You're so stuck up, so dependent on the system, that you will slander and attack anyone who is even slightly different from you. How sad of a person are you?

Seriously the president sneezes over there and by the time it reaches us its a conspiracy to bring healthcare to the masses

Eh, not really. Sounds a lot like confirmation bias of your pre-existing stereotypes and anti-American bias. The American government is quickly becoming more European, which is to say bloated, authoritarian, corrupt and ineffectual. We keep going further and further down the rabbit hole that you started.

Guantanamo Bay

The same Guantanamo Bay that Obama recently ordered to be closed. Also, foreigners aren't protected by the Bill of Rights.

as above the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual

No such thing.  There is no "right to not be offended" or "right to healthcare."

Iraq, Afghanistan to name but the two most recent examples, I am just ashamed to say that Blare was so far up Bush's arse that we followed you in

And where did I mention Iraq and Afghanistan? Also, I love how you ignore Western intervention in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Uganda and  Yemen. Is it not imperialism when left-wingers do it? Are you Guy Mollet?

[Nakura]

Swiss minaret ban

Oh wait. The Swiss Minaret Ban was a result of referendum, not an action of the government.

Nobody said it wasn't. It shouldn't have ever been considered to begin with and even if the majority of the people supported it (which they did), it shouldn't have been allowed to pass. Switzerland (and much of Europe) lacks a codified Bill of Rights and a system of checks and balances to strike down laws that violate people's rights. This is indeed a failing of the Swiss government.

"X was a result of legislation proposed by democratically elected representatives, not an action of the government."

[The E]

That's right, the only reason there haven't been any wars in 80 years (hint: there have been) is because of the European Union. The European Union has single-handedly ended war in Europe, it totally hasn't been American hegemony, the global economy, Cold War politics, nuclear deterrent, internationalism, weakening of the bourgeois, democratic peace theory, lessons learned form the World Wars and the fact that wars for resources and land are no longer viable. No sir-e, it was all because of the European Union.

Oh, **** off. You do realize, do you not, that the current state of affairs (With no major wars between England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy in 60 years) is highly anomalous in european history?

And where did I mention Iraq and Afghanistan? Also, I love how you ignore Western intervention in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Uganda and  Yemen. Is it not imperialism when left-wingers do it? Are you Guy Mollet?

You didn't, and that is the problem. You have so far not offered one single example where the american model of society has been exported to another country successfully. You have also failed to offer one single example of concrete, every-day negative impacts of our supposed "lesser" freedom.

No such thing.  There is no "right to not be offended" or "right to healthcare."

Yes, there is. We, at least, believe there is. You may disagree, but you may NOT tell us how superior your concepts are without offering compelling, objective proof of said superiority.

You are a troll, Nakura, and our patience is limited. Either you learn how to discuss issues, or you will find yourself unable to discuss anything on this board.

Also, I just love how you misquoted so consistently as to attribute everything to me

Swiss minaret ban

Oh wait. The Swiss Minaret Ban was a result of referendum, not an action of the government.

Nobody said it wasn't. It shouldn't have ever been considered to begin with and even if the majority of the people supported it (which they did), it shouldn't have been allowed to pass. Switzerland (and much of Europe) lacks a codified Bill of Rights and a system of checks and balances to strike down laws that violate people's rights. This is indeed a failing of the Swiss government.

"X was a result of legislation proposed by democratically elected representatives, not an action of the government."

Aaaaand we're done. You do not get to uphold the direct democracy of the swiss as a wonderful example and then cry about how they make bad decisions that should be repealed the moment they do something with it that you disagree with.