2 ms·
> The fact you're expressing it here is a more an attempt to step-around the reality that the US refuses to confront it's fear of having a strong government. T
by humanrebar 8y ago
> The fact you're expressing it here is a more an attempt to step-around the reality that the US refuses to confront it's fear of having a strong government.
This presumes that strong governments don't deserve a critical eye. It's not hard to find contemporary examples worldwide and historical examples in any country.
- XorNot 8y agoThis is a very US response. "Strong" is equated with "violent". Not capable or effective. But the US government is violent today. Yet incredibly weak at protecting it's citizens welfare or rejecting external manipulation against them.
- humanrebar 8y agoA government doesn't have to be violent to be abusive or corrupt. And the US government is formed by its citizens. It's presumptuous, and I'd argue dangerous, that a government should be in a paternal position. In particular, if a democracy is in charge of purifying the media its citizens consume, who holds the the government censors and gatekeepers accountable if (when) they become corrupt? It's not a coincidence that Venezuelan leadership cracked down on courts and independent media as it slid into the current mess. Further, "protecting its citizens" is often narrowed to "protecting the true citizens", enforcing bigotry with a patina of honorable intentions. See the Jim Crow American South, the Spanish Inquisition, and the murder of Christians in 17th century Japan.