5 ms·

Freedom and democracy are always in a conflict, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. A total democra

Freedom and democracy are always in a conflict, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. A total democracy would mean that a majority can override personal freedoms and basic rights of individuals (like, vote about executing your neighbor). Because of that the combination of democracy with a bill of rights has become so commonplace that you don't even notice anymore, and think about someone who mentions that simple fact as a fascist.

musage 9y ago
"in conflict" and "incompatible" are two different things. Observe how this sentence makes zero sense: Freedom and democracy are always incompatible, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. Democracy being incompatible with freedom is also something quite different from "mentioning the simple fact that the combination of democracy with a bill of rights has become commonplace". Your comment as is doesn't really compile. > A total democracy would mean that a majority can override personal freedoms and basic rights of individuals As opposed to what, though? If it's opposed to not even needing a majority to do that, what's the big insight? For example, dictatorships and freedom are in even harder conflict, that's why they don't even have constitutions that put individuals and their rights first. And private enterprise, at least in a vacuum (and when run by sociopaths) doesn't even have the concept of the workers or consumers having any "rights". If one talks about a 2,5 meter tall person and say they "aren't as tall as they could be", without even mentioning that in comparison to most people they're still freaking tall, that's not the honest mistake of saying something dumb in good faith, it's a rhetorical trick, it's sophistry.

5 ms·

Freedom and democracy are always in a conflict, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. A total democra

by elcapitan 9y ago

musage 9y ago
"in conflict" and "incompatible" are two different things. Observe how this sentence makes zero sense: Freedom and democracy are always incompatible, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. Democracy being incompatible with freedom is also something quite different from "mentioning the simple fact that the combination of democracy with a bill of rights has become commonplace". Your comment as is doesn't really compile. > A total democracy would mean that a majority can override personal freedoms and basic rights of individuals As opposed to what, though? If it's opposed to not even needing a majority to do that, what's the big insight? For example, dictatorships and freedom are in even harder conflict, that's why they don't even have constitutions that put individuals and their rights first. And private enterprise, at least in a vacuum (and when run by sociopaths) doesn't even have the concept of the workers or consumers having any "rights". If one talks about a 2,5 meter tall person and say they "aren't as tall as they could be", without even mentioning that in comparison to most people they're still freaking tall, that's not the honest mistake of saying something dumb in good faith, it's a rhetorical trick, it's sophistry.