4 ms·

My guess is that it will be more sustainable than government that restrict much less freedoms - people carry guns, have drugs, piss on the streets, destroy publ

My guess is that it will be more sustainable than government that restrict much less freedoms - people carry guns, have drugs, piss on the streets, destroy public properties and do all kinds of creepy things and government can’t really do much about it. How is that more sustainable

virmundi 8y ago
I'm confused. I carry a gun daily. I don't do drugs. I don't destroy public property, and I do all my creepy things in private. Having freedom does not mean you're a bad person. It means you are free to be who you are. Freedom allows you to see people's hearts. An iron fist shows you their fear. Given that the US is fairly sustaniable in a political sense (we average about 150 years between civil war, which is better than most EU countries), time will tell? Authoritarian systems don't seem to hold up with the ironman dies. It is an interesting idea to see what happens if you have an iron-committee.
- echevil 8y ago
  My point is not about democracy vs authoritarian, but rather extreme individual liberty vs more restrictions (by law). Sure you won’t do bad thing but you cannot prevent every other people from doing so when it is their “freedom”. When a society tries to maximize individual liberty, there comes a heavy cost that it could drag down the total wellness of the entire society. For example, chewing gum is forbidden for good reason in Singapore, vandalism is heavily punished, simply carrying drugs is a capital crime. All of these sacrifices in individual liberty actually make Singapore a much better place than US to live in. Singapore also has a democratic process in their government. Given that most Singaporean are contempt with their government, there is no sign that people want one that maximizes liberty.
korantu 8y ago
The standard reply would be - if the government controls everything and gets corrupted - it has the power to corrupt everything. This is a worry - there is no feedback loop unless government makes sure it is. On the other hand, if current government really can't control who will be elected next, then there is less chance that current government abuses power. And having armed citizenry reduces chances of government going totalitarian.. or so they say.
- sampo 8y ago
  Do you think the other countries in the area are less corrupted than Singapore?
  - korantu 8y ago
    Sorry, I did not make it clear. I was talking about dynamics, IF government of Singapore for some reason in the future decides to do crazy shit - citizens will have harder time stopping it. That's all. I am not referring to situation right now, only in an unlikely future.
    - echevil 8y ago
      Plenty of democratic countries have severely corrupted leaders or government doing crazy shit. It’s not like democracy alone can make these shit stoppable
      - korantu 8y ago
        Our definitions of crazy shit are different :-) I am referring to large scale North Korea type shit, not the 'give government contracts to my friends' kind

virmundi 8y ago

I'm confused. I carry a gun daily. I don't do drugs. I don't destroy public property, and I do all my creepy things in private. Having freedom does not mean you're a bad person. It means you are free to be who you are. Freedom allows you to see people's hearts. An iron fist shows you their fear. Given that the US is fairly sustaniable in a political sense (we average about 150 years between civil war, which is better than most EU countries), time will tell? Authoritarian systems don't seem to hold up with the ironman dies. It is an interesting idea to see what happens if you have an iron-committee.

echevil 8y ago
My point is not about democracy vs authoritarian, but rather extreme individual liberty vs more restrictions (by law). Sure you won’t do bad thing but you cannot prevent every other people from doing so when it is their “freedom”. When a society tries to maximize individual liberty, there comes a heavy cost that it could drag down the total wellness of the entire society. For example, chewing gum is forbidden for good reason in Singapore, vandalism is heavily punished, simply carrying drugs is a capital crime. All of these sacrifices in individual liberty actually make Singapore a much better place than US to live in. Singapore also has a democratic process in their government. Given that most Singaporean are contempt with their government, there is no sign that people want one that maximizes liberty.

korantu 8y ago

The standard reply would be - if the government controls everything and gets corrupted - it has the power to corrupt everything. This is a worry - there is no feedback loop unless government makes sure it is. On the other hand, if current government really can't control who will be elected next, then there is less chance that current government abuses power. And having armed citizenry reduces chances of government going totalitarian.. or so they say.

sampo 8y ago
Do you think the other countries in the area are less corrupted than Singapore?
- korantu 8y ago
  Sorry, I did not make it clear. I was talking about dynamics, IF government of Singapore for some reason in the future decides to do crazy shit - citizens will have harder time stopping it. That's all. I am not referring to situation right now, only in an unlikely future.
  - echevil 8y ago
    Plenty of democratic countries have severely corrupted leaders or government doing crazy shit. It’s not like democracy alone can make these shit stoppable
    - korantu 8y ago
      Our definitions of crazy shit are different :-) I am referring to large scale North Korea type shit, not the 'give government contracts to my friends' kind