That's easier said than done. What you're dealing with here is a constitutional law. Meaning that to change it, you need insane majorities. Think changing the constitution of the US.
And now think of doing this with 6 instead of 2 parties.
If you wanted to avoid WW2, you should have shot Clemenceau, not Hitler.
Shooting Hitler would only mean that someone else will take his place. I shudder at the thought that this could have been someone competent.
Why is it different when it gets commercial? Because it offends the new global religion?
So we're going to make our own internet. With blackjack. And hookers. And...
Hey, now that I think about it, wasn't there something about the US wanting other countries to stop offering gambling? Pot, kettle, name calling...?
The concentration camps are abroad, most of them in areas that are currently. Hey, even Nazi Germany built most of them in occupied Poland.
Well, before you start foaming, let's try to find out what these laws entail and how these laws came into existence, shall we?
Germany actually has replaced its "original" Anti-anti-semite law with a more encompassing law against Volksverhetzung. Which is basically an anti-hate crime law. Sounds familiar? Maybe? Just in case it doesn't, you might want to read this.
Austria, on the other hand, didn't bother to invalidate and modernize its Verbotsgesetz. There you still have the original one in effect. It may be a little known fact that after WW2 it was not just Germany alone that was considered the criminal. Austria was in it too. Kinda like the junior partner. And just like Germany it was separated into 4 areas, split up between the four winning Allies, the USA, Soviet Union, England, France.
Another little known fact is that Austria, just like Germany, could not really issue any meaningful laws without the express consent of those "victorious powers". More often than not, laws came into existence on behalf of the four powers.
Austria was occupied from 1945 to 1955. That law came into existence in 1947. Now take a wild guess whose idea it was.
Having the son suffer for the crimes of his father? Who are you channeling here, Stalin, Hitler or NKors li'l Kim?
Well, we learned that it's insane to let the military rule a country.
Guess it's gonna take a while to find out that it's equally insane to let politicians wage wars.
So wars are just some kind of entertainment for you? Because that sure has to be the reason, if you retreat (oh, sorry, "advance in a different direction") without actually getting anything out of it, it sure is a hobby, but not a viable source of income.
Actually since shortly after WW2.
Guess who insisted those laws come into existence. Hint: Germany could issue no laws without the consent of the occupying forces, and usually did at the request or rather demand of them.
And yet some of the most successful systems are not built that way.
Built what way? I think you misunderstood what I said, so I'll say it again more clearly:
The Unix way is a way to build good systems. You can skip "stringing together commands" and still follow the Unix way.
And people certainly do like banned things; it makes them feel that they're learning some secret information that the powers that be have ulterior motives for concealing.
That's so true.....think how many people got excited about the "establishment" suppressing the truth after the Lancet retracted that vaccine study paper....
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the expense of it. -- Josh Billings