Civil liberties should be defended not because they foster a democratic society, but in spite of it. Mass fear will always be exploitable, that's why we need a set of political principles stronger than pure mob rule.
So, everyone must be free? I can't consciously trade some of my civil liberties for something in return? My idea of freedom is the power of choice. Choice to be free, or NOT free.
Well, this is true. But again, if I can't make a decision for myself then I'm not completely free. Even if that decision limits my freedom henceforth, I've made that decision excercising my free will.
Probably your definition of freedom is something along the line of "the right to exercise free will and take responsibility for my decisions, and the ability to do so now and forever". With this definition, restricting your own rights is against this concept of freedom. My definition doesn't have that restriction.
The problem with his thesis is, as he points out, democracy is currently supporting the factors he thinks will kill it. Why challenge your country's constitution when it's much easier to just convince people to let you subvert it?
If Democracy is in any real danger I think it's from the ineffectiveness of the governments of the world when it comes to controlling themselves. It's easy to imagine a world where democratic governments simply run out of money and have to start cancelling debts. At which point banks start to fail and the government doesn't have the financial power to prop them up. Which in turn causes an economic collapse the likes of which we've never seen.
That's exactly the type of environment that breeds dictatorship (and is in fact how Hitler turned Germany from democracy in World War II)
It's like boiling a frog: if you throw one in boiling water it will immediatly jump away. But if you place a frog in cold water and slowly making it hot, the frog won't even notice it is being boiled.
As with frogs, we humans need constant awareness on the context in which we live.
Technology as an enabler of police states - yes, it is, and judging by current events, pretty much irresistible to a lot of governments. I would imaging that this will balance out, as technology diffuses further into society and matures, but who knows.
Two party systems - yes, again. They roundly suck. Someone really needs to figure out how to break the US, UK, Canada, etc.. out of the death grip of their two party local minima. How do you convince people that some form of PR is much better - and then fight the huge incumbent party machines which oppose it?
9 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 35.9 ms ] threadProbably your definition of freedom is something along the line of "the right to exercise free will and take responsibility for my decisions, and the ability to do so now and forever". With this definition, restricting your own rights is against this concept of freedom. My definition doesn't have that restriction.
If Democracy is in any real danger I think it's from the ineffectiveness of the governments of the world when it comes to controlling themselves. It's easy to imagine a world where democratic governments simply run out of money and have to start cancelling debts. At which point banks start to fail and the government doesn't have the financial power to prop them up. Which in turn causes an economic collapse the likes of which we've never seen.
That's exactly the type of environment that breeds dictatorship (and is in fact how Hitler turned Germany from democracy in World War II)
As with frogs, we humans need constant awareness on the context in which we live.