3 ms·
> is something that the former can become much easier than the latter. It's not easy to compare. Pakistan and others have terrorism but Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tu
by Nutmog 11y ago
> is something that the former can become much easier than the latter.
It's not easy to compare. Pakistan and others have terrorism but Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and others have overthrown governments which might have been prevented with more Stasi-ism. The US is more stable than them so it can allow people more freedom to communicate - but still not complete freedom - see state secrets and the existence of wiretapping at all even on known criminals.
- golergka 11y agoLate tzarist Russia had terrorism. Weimar republic didn't have terrorism per se, but it had militant groups enacting violence against their enemies in order to puruse political goals — some would name it terrorism, although I prefer a more strict definition. In other words, there were at least several instances in history where appearance of militant groups that violated state's monopoly on violence led, in the end, to these groups gaining power, and being much more violent and "bad" exactly because of their violent history. On the other hand, I don't believe I know a single instance where a democratic regimes turned into totalitarian or authoritarian government _because_of_ technological advances that allowed it more control.