I believe that Pilatus products, known as "Poor man's bombers" have affected many people to a massive degree as well. What about their freedom?

Brilliant Castro, those are the stuff which the people must have a vote on. But...what if this included if BAE may sell a missle defence system?

Maybe you should ask someone on the receiving end of a bomb or rocket
from a PC-7/9 their views about infringements of rights and freedoms?
.

How is that a "danger"?

If the Swiss PEOPLE do not want to be seen globally as a people who provide arms to others, it is a worthwhile risk to take the chance that a company who wishes to provide arms to other countries may opt to leave.


There are many Americans who are angered by the fact that our soldiers are facing enemies with American made weaponry and even enemies which had been TRAINED by Americans... I'm thinking that at this point in time, many folks from around the world are very aware of this fact... and don't ever want to wind up in the same position.

The best way to ensure that is NOT to sell arms to other nations, if you don't sell them, you don't have to also train them on the usage and so on so forth.


Sure there is the "danger" of loss of revenue as well as loss of employment BUT if it is a business venture that the people vote they do not wish to see, it is a good thing (however much it may sting the wallet) not a bad thing.

Again putting my Daily Mail/The Sun/Daily Express hat on... I would say it depends on how many British Jobs would be created/lost.

So, what if there are dozens of other-companies making electronic components (not arms) which eventually find their way into missles, control systems, engines, electronics of war planes, tanks, radar systems, Pilatus aircraft, etc. The example of Pilatus is a good one - I am sure it supports a massive support industry, as any other.

What if some of these systems, if this is they way warfare is going, is using Microsoft Windows as operating system? Will we restrict these businesses as well? Where does it end?

A bit like the ones that came here between the Wars, to circumvent
minor paperwork issues like the Treaty of Versailles, perhaps?
.

I am sorry, but your angle is complete rubbish: If the Swiss decide to ban smoking, it does harm Philip Morris, Reynolds tobacco and the other usual suspects. If automatic weapons are not allowed, UZI will have not much revenue in Switzerland. If the Swiss decide to not wash the blood money from the global "elite" of dictators, some banks will loose business. And if they choose to not get their hands dirty by supplying weapons for some pretty bad conflicts in the third world anymore, than yes, Pilatus and other will either suffer or move.

This is a very conscious decision and absolutely nothing near "amok".

I live on planet Earth, as you are, but I live in a peculiar country called Switzerland, where everything is a little bit different and a little more stranger than the rest of the 'planet'. I am also acutely aware of my rights as an individual, and quite senstive to situations where mob rule dressed up as democracy may infringe on the rights of others and mine.

I live on a planet and a country where such opinions are encouraged and freely debated.

I live on a planet and a country where such issues can discussed on a free internet forum, where even your half-witted attempt at an insult is encouraged and welcomed.

What the heck are you talking about? : The Swiss will at no point "ban smoking". They ban smoking in public places where it infringes on the rights of others. They will at no point ban Philip Morris to stop making cigarettes. This is quite a different matter.

Gosh.

Yet cocaine production is banned. So is child porn.

What's your point?

Guess you answered your own question there.

The idea behind it is very well, there is only one minor detail - nobody else really limits the sale of their weaponry, or do they? It might put Switzerland on a moral podest, but that really is all there is.

I considered it just a cheap swipe at eliminating the Swiss army by other means, since the organisers of this campaign never won the votes by fair means.

Hash Brown, do you really think we are talking about the same thing here? Really? <sigh>

I think you are right here. In a sense I do see the moral argument - but where is this line drawn? Such a vote may easily translate into a ban of exports. One may argue that the Pilatus trainers are used to train pilots who will be used to fly planes which may be used to protect countries from the agression of others. Many often assume arms are only used by the agressors.

Yes, we are. I am sorry that I did not add "banned in public" but the rest of the argument remains the same: Banning smoking in public hurts the tobacco industry. According to the radio this morning, by approx 9% during the last year with the biggest Canton yet to come. So in your eyes the public decided to financially hurt the share holders of Phillip Morris? I believe they had good reasons for their decision and they might have it for arms trade as well.

Alternatively, you could enlighten us rather than ask us.

Perhaps you could tell us something of the experiences of South Africa,
and the relationships that exists there between democracy, government
and S.A. arms exporters?
.

The argument is not symmetrical as you make it out to be.

Smoking, in any form, is bad for the user and those around them.

Military trainers may be used as training for pilots who may have to protect their country. Their direct usage *may* be beneficial for the country or users. I do not condone war, but what about circuimstances where an agressor attacks a country? Do you see the difference?

Yes.

Arms, drugs, child porn... all are marketable products with potential for high profit and all are products which society tends to take a strong view about.

IF (and I am not saying I advocate this, not at all!!) the societal constraints were removed from the sale of drugs and trafficking of children and instead they were made into legal enterprises, imagine the money that could be made! Imagine the employment which could be had!

However... society takes a dim view of these enterprises and so, they are illegal.

Society is beginning to be more vociferous in their views regarding arms... who knows what may happen in this new world where we live which has readily accessible images of death and destruction available on the internet any time we want?

It's pretty easy to keep the "war machine" grinding when no one can see the realities, however, the realities are exposed for the world to see now... and so now, people are taking the initiative to make some of these hard choices. Choices which include whether or not "we" want to support the sale of goods which lead to death.

Why? I live in Switzerland as a Swiss resident. This is a Swiss forum for issues about Switzerland. My OP is about the uniqueness of the Swiss democracy (which I love) and the way it may infringe on the rights of others.

If you do want to go there -- as I have said before -- I am acutely aware of mob rule dressed up as democracy.

OHHHHH! So it has become a moral argument. Well not everyone agrees with your morality .... hence democracy.

Well not where YOU draw it. But where the majority of the population draws it.