4 ms·

I've noticed that Britons, generally speaking, put a lot of trust in authority. They'll shrug it off or rationalize it when their government introduces another

by dracht 10y ago

I've noticed that Britons, generally speaking, put a lot of trust in authority. They'll shrug it off or rationalize it when their government introduces another perverted law - the NHS works, so it can't be that bad, surely. Britain lacks a sizeable and vocal government-distrusting counterculture like they exist in Germany or the US. How you go about introducing that artificially, I don't know. The frog is being boiled too slowly.

vacri 10y ago
Ah, yes. The US, where you don't have so much surveillance... but cops can just take your money because they feel like it. British police also follow the Peelian principles, so they do fewer things like send SWAT teams to batter down people's doors and point guns at innocents. I'm not really seeing how US government application of authority is better than the UK's on the basis of a vocal citizenry.
bjelkeman-again 10y ago
That is interesting. Living in Sweden, and having lived in the UK for 15 years, I feel the Brits trust their government much less than the Swedes do. In the UK there is strong resistance against a national ID card, as an example. Whereas in Sweden you can hardly live without one. I got the feeling that the Brits didn't trust their government with that info and control it implies. In Sweden we have the opposite: ID cards are seen as an asset and surveillance cameras are severely restricted by the government, for privacy reasons.
- nly 10y ago
  Resistance to the national ID card idea mostly came down to two things 1) cost to government, and 2) cost to citizens. There's also the fact that ~87% of the population already hold a passport, and some of those that don't likely have a drivers license.
  - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
    The funny thing is that the cost to the individual is negligible and the cost to government (and business) is low compared to the benefits. Less fraud, efficient identification processes etc.
westiseast 10y ago
I think we're fairly moderate people in general, so it's not so much excessive trust as just some kind of tacit understanding that things won't go to extremes because we're British (and also a tendency to avoid extreme reactions). I guess sometimes that's dangerous because there's a faslse sense of security, but perhaps there's other benefits to that.

by dracht 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

Ah, yes. The US, where you don't have so much surveillance... but cops can just take your money because they feel like it. British police also follow the Peelian principles, so they do fewer things like send SWAT teams to batter down people's doors and point guns at innocents. I'm not really seeing how US government application of authority is better than the UK's on the basis of a vocal citizenry.

bjelkeman-again 10y ago

That is interesting. Living in Sweden, and having lived in the UK for 15 years, I feel the Brits trust their government much less than the Swedes do. In the UK there is strong resistance against a national ID card, as an example. Whereas in Sweden you can hardly live without one. I got the feeling that the Brits didn't trust their government with that info and control it implies. In Sweden we have the opposite: ID cards are seen as an asset and surveillance cameras are severely restricted by the government, for privacy reasons.

nly 10y ago
Resistance to the national ID card idea mostly came down to two things 1) cost to government, and 2) cost to citizens. There's also the fact that ~87% of the population already hold a passport, and some of those that don't likely have a drivers license.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  The funny thing is that the cost to the individual is negligible and the cost to government (and business) is low compared to the benefits. Less fraud, efficient identification processes etc.

westiseast 10y ago

I think we're fairly moderate people in general, so it's not so much excessive trust as just some kind of tacit understanding that things won't go to extremes because we're British (and also a tendency to avoid extreme reactions). I guess sometimes that's dangerous because there's a faslse sense of security, but perhaps there's other benefits to that.