The ÖVP has adopted the FPÖ's (far right's) talking point but not the specific law AFAIK. Also, they would probably only pass the law with agreement from their green coalition partners. It might be possible for them to cooperate with the FPÖ in the Nationalrat to pass the FPÖ's idea of the law, but that is extremely uncommon and would be very unpopular with the Greens. This is really only an issue for the next election in about one year.
ApfelstrudelWAKASAGI
joined 2 years ago
Wer ist den bitte noch von irgendwas, was der Höcke sagt, entsetzt?
Inflation IST die Teuerung, die wird nur eben oft durch eine erhöhte Geldmenge ausgelöst.
only good thing to come from that whole situation
20€? Meine Kosten 5 lol
Even if your moral system solves those "problems", you just "solved" them by substituting the obvious and logical base of utility through personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is no inherent good, unlike utility, if people are unhappy/"feel bad", it doesn't matter how personally responsible everyone is being, that world is still a shit place.
Also, the threat isn't imagined. I can assure you that there are a lot more than one person on earth who would choose to kill as many people as possible if given the option.
Idk which moral system you operate under, but I'm concerned with minimising human suffering. That implies hitting kill because chances of a mass murderer are too high not to. You also don't follow traffic laws to a t, but exercise caution because you don't really care whose fault it ends up being, you want to avoid bad outcomes (in this case the extinction of humankind).
Why do you care whose fault it is? You'd want to minimise human deaths, not win a blame game.
I just calculated the sum from n=0 to 32 (because 2^33>current global population). And that calculation implies that the chance of catching someone willing to kill all of humanity would have to be lower than 1/8 billion for the expected value of doubling it to be larger than just killing one person.
It does create the funny paradox where, up to a certain point, a rational utilitarian would choose to kill and a rational mass murderer trying to maximise deaths would choose to double it.
You would need a crazy low probability of a lunatic or a mass murderer being down the line to justify not to kill one person
Edit: Sum(2^n (1-p)^(n-1) p) ~ Sum(2^n p) for p small. So you'd need a p= (2×2^32 -2) ~ 1/(8 billion) chance of catching a psycho for expected values to be equal. I.e. there is only a single person tops who would decide to kill all on earth.
I knew about the lack of a kerosene tax for flights but no VAT on international flights is just downright nuts to me.
Bread, Tampons, and books are more highly taxed than (most international) flights. Talk about distorted markets.