5 ms·
> push for more forceful action, for unchecked power Is this something like Barack Obama carrying out drone strikes? Or Madeleine Albright approving the star
by frabbit 10y ago
> push for more forceful action, for unchecked power
Is this something like Barack Obama carrying out drone strikes? Or Madeleine Albright approving the starving of 500,000 Iraqi children? Or Hilary Clinton getting a knife stuck up Gaddafi's rectum? Or the invasion of Iran on a pretext?
Or does it have to be something in dim and distant past which we can tut about as it was done by "those other ones"?
- smacktoward 10y agoNone of the contemporary things you mention are examples of unchecked power. The fact that you can mention them in public without fear of being whisked away tonight by secret police illustrates this. Unchecked power does not permit criticism, or admit room for opposition.
- frabbit 10y agoI think the rules are that you're allowed to criticize things as long as it makes no actual difference.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago> None of the contemporary things you mention are examples of unchecked power. That's easy to say, it's proven by putting a whole lot of war criminals at least on trial. By actually having done that. > The fact that you can mention them in public without fear of being whisked away tonight by secret police illustrates this. How so? This just illustrates that you can say this because nobody cares all that much, because it will not do anything. It doesn't put power in check, it's just someone saying something on HN. Power remains unchecked, and the hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who got murdered and the families they left behind continue to get no justice.
- coldtea 10y agoThat's just because today mentioning them in public doesn't have much (if any) effect. Back in the day when there were powerful alternative fractions for the power (e.g. socialists, communists in Europe etc), mentioning such staff in public against the established powers brought support to them, and advanced their cause. Now people know all about them and still elect e.g. Bush Jr. a second term, Obama 2 terms, now Trump etc. It's not like there's any credible threat to anything. And when there's not, freedom of speech is free, because it's almost worthless. TL;DR; Modern-day unchecked power can permit criticism just fine: when the waters due to media pollution are so muddle that the signal is lost in the noise, and/or when few people care about it anyway.
- woodandsteel 10y agoI take it you believe that socialism and communism are better than liberalism.
- tunap 10y agoThat isn't remotely what the OP said. edit: - unnecessary 2nd sentence
- woodandsteel 10y agoBut coldtea confirmed I was right that he is a socialist. The reason I was able to correctly infer he is a socialist is he was following a familiar socialist-marxist position. This is that democracy in capitalist countries is a shame, everything that happens is decided in secret by the rich people, who control the media to trick the population to go along. According to this view, true freedom of speech and democracy are possible only under socialism.
- mannykannot 10y agoAttaching a label to someone is the most significant act in analysis.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- woodandsteel 10y agoLet me add that you seem to be taking the standard marxist position that fascism is capitalism taken to its logical conclusion, so every non-socialist country is fascist or on its way there.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoLet me agree with tunap and say that that isn't remotely what coldtea said either.
- tunap 10y agoIf that criticism manifests itself into a real threat perhaps we would see if power is unchecked. Recall Saddam Hussein, our best buddy in the Middle East until he decided to go rogue... and tried to off Papa Bush. An illegal war got rid of him. PS: No WMDs? Yeah, well, that's what the News said. However, Rummsfeld has the receipts.
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago> The fact that you can mention them in public without fear of being whisked away tonight by secret police illustrates this. This is plain wrong historically. The nazists, fascists and the stasi all used more manipulative and less blatant methods than dragging away every dissenter.
- manachar 10y agoAll of those are international actions. While the people in other countries impacted by these actions had no direct method to prevent the US government actions, the people making these choices do not have unchecked power. All of these actions were subject to all the constitutional checks and balances of the US system. Obama's drone strikes is an election issue. Albright's actions were overseen directly and indirectly by Congress. Same with Clinton (or did you not notice the amount of time Congress spent on Benghazi). There's also been judicial review of many of these elements. There is no real method of international check on power other than a threat of power in return. The UN, NATO, and international diplomacy tries to forge a method to ensure that war is less commonly used, but ultimately, as the invasion in Iraq showed, if the US wants to do something it can do it. Same with Russia choosing to take a chunk of the Ukraine.
- guelo 10y agoIt's not unchecked. The Republican congress has had plenty of opportunities to stop it and has declined. The National Defense Authorization Act is passed every year. The 2001 AUMF that authorized the "war on terror" was passed bypartisanly without any sunset provision, nobody of either party has proposed repealing it.