4 ms·
Your comment tells more about your identity than anything else. Not that there is nothing really wrong with that. Democratic state could take any stance on the
by vlehto 11y ago
Your comment tells more about your identity than anything else. Not that there is nothing really wrong with that.
Democratic state could take any stance on the subject. Probably one that is easy to sell to people. This stuff comes interesting when we have democracy and liberty fighting against each other. Which do you choose?
- mbrock 11y agoMy identity isn't particularly relevant to these foundational principles. I could be a committed nihilist or an anti-liberal ideologue and still explain how draconian ethnic surveillance violates the principles of an open liberal society. Whether an open liberal society is ultimately good or worth maintaining is something I don't bring into the debate at this point. Since it is essential to the core values of the French republic, disputing it seems pretty futile. If "democratic" has any real meaning, a democratic state can not take any stance on the subject: it can't take an anti-democratic stance, because that would be a contradiction in terms. Of course democracy is endangered by terrorism in exactly the way that people point out constantly: it undermines the basic security and "social fabric" that allows for democracy.
- vlehto 11y agoSorry, I guess I read too much into your comment. Democracy, equality before the law and freedom of speech need each other to work. To me it seems self evident and I assumed it to be no-brainer to large majority of HN. I thought that we we're discussing here a situation where freedom and democracy might be conflicted. If they cannot be conflicted, then we have to assume that people of democratic nation are unable to ever vote for ethnic surveillance. Which seems unrealistic assumption.