4 ms·

I've always said that freedom (liberalism) and democracy is actually unnatural. People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor

I've always said that freedom (liberalism) and democracy is actually unnatural. People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda. The problem is that we have different points of view or agendas. Example: Look at New Zealand after the mass mosque shooting. People support the actions taking which include banning owning or reading the guy's manifesto. Owning it means up to 10 years in jail and/or up to $50,000 in fines.

i386 7y ago
The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other. They are not morally equivalent positions. Stop treating them that way.
- gdhbcc 7y ago
  Expect they are morally equivalent because morality is relative and individual.
- umvi 7y ago
  "Safety" comes at the expense of freedoms, such as the freedom to read the shooter's manifesto. Whether or not you think the freedom/safety it is worth the trade off is you opinion, but you can't deny it's one step closer to total authoritarianism. I've personally read a few shooter manifestos, including "My Twisted World", and don't see why it's a big deal to do so. I found it to be a fascinating insight into a world of mental illness I would never have imagined.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  Can you please explain what positions do you think are being treated as equivalent in the parent comment?
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  > The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other. You want to believe this is black and white, but its not. There is no more blurry line in existence. Actively promoting murder? Eliminate free speech for that, threw em in jail. But what about promoting violence? Violent protests? What about rape, is that worthy of eliminating free speech? What if a high schooler is bullied and then commits suicide? What about microaggressions that make people feel uncomfortable and like they may be in danger? What about people born without advantages that change their chances of "success" from 60% to 10%? Are you actively promoting death and suffering by purposefully ignoring the homeless people you walk by?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- homonculus1 7y ago
  I don't think your parent was making any such moral equivocation. Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon. They may not even realize that if they had their way on every issue it would amount to an authoritarian regime. To put it differently, how many people are actually championing individual rights for every issue?
  - NedIsakoff 7y ago
    "Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon." -- This is expressing my ideas better then what I wrote. Although from their point of view it may not be terrible.
ceejayoz 7y ago
A tolerant society requires a certain level of intolerance towards actors who'd abuse that tolerance to implement intolerance. (Phew!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
jddj 7y ago
Interesting. But how do you reconcile the many counter-examples? Pointing to an incident in time is fine, but someone could just as easily point to the US bill of rights, the general trend over time towards personal liberties in the West (women voting, marriage equality, voluntary assisted death was just passed in one Australian state), et cetera. Whether one or the other is natural seems hard to establish. A more reasonable claim might be that people with power generally seek to attain more (and are in a position to attain more), and the end result of that is authoritarianism. Of course, it's more nuanced than that too. For instance the current Australian government get a lot for free since keeping people afraid enough that they tolerate the powergrabs also happens to pay for Rupert Murdoch's empire, and keeping him happy is as straightforward as maintaining a standard neoliberal trickle-down economic agenda. It could be that we oscillate between authoritarianism and democracy/libertarianism on a multi-generational x-axis simply because nothing is perfect and our cultural memories are so short.
Aromasin 7y ago
Your comment made me chuckle. >People want authoritarian governments >we have different points of view or agendas You say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency. To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]. Humans are adaptable, and we adapt our governance depending on the times. In times of war we might pick a dictator. In times of peace we might pick a democracy. In times of fear we often find ourselves in an autocracy. In times of religious ferverence we chose theocracy. Just as a human seems to be able to thrive on a number of diets, we thrive on a number of ways of group governance. I highly recommend to everyone to read "Pathways to Freedom: Political and Economic Lessons From Democratic Transitions." It's a bit text-booky, but there are some great case studies as to why various new governments have gone various different paths, and why democracy has blossomed in some places but failed in others, as has authoritarianism. In the words of Alexandre Dumas Pere - "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." I my opinion the main reason we're seeing authoritarianism seemingly increase in popularity is because fear in the media has become so profitable. It distorts our perception of reality. We can be in a wealthy, 1st world society with all our basic needs met, however if we're told constantly in a barrage of information everyday that everything is going wrong - regardless of the fact that as the individual or group there could easily be almost nothing objectively going wrong in their life - they'll believe that they're on the brink of destruction and that the only way out is to adapt to an authoritarian government that will "sort everything out". The old phrase "what they don't know won't hurt them" comes to mind. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell...
- NedIsakoff 7y ago
  "To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]." - It is natural, people want authoritarianism naturally. They just want the authoritarian rules or person to follow their point of view or agenda. Look at the list and see how many replaced one authoritarian with another authoritarian. Or the resolution was authoritarian. "You say both say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency." -- I never said everyone wanted one thing. My comment was that most people would prefer a more authoritarian government that agreed with their point of view or agenda.
Nasrudith 7y ago
What people want? The whole bloody point of authoritarianism is that it doesn't care about what people want! It being "wanted" is deeply artificial from repressing the opposition and manufacturing support. It brings to mind jokes that people should nobody should ever listen to monarchists because that is what they want - their opinion on government to not matter.
flukus 7y ago
> People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda People want a stable life to raise their family, they want stable work, stable housing and enough cash left over to enjoy life with family and friends. They will vote for whoever appeals to that and lately it seems to be only the authoritarian leaders that give a fuck.

i386 7y ago

The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other. They are not morally equivalent positions. Stop treating them that way.

gdhbcc 7y ago
Expect they are morally equivalent because morality is relative and individual.
umvi 7y ago
"Safety" comes at the expense of freedoms, such as the freedom to read the shooter's manifesto. Whether or not you think the freedom/safety it is worth the trade off is you opinion, but you can't deny it's one step closer to total authoritarianism. I've personally read a few shooter manifestos, including "My Twisted World", and don't see why it's a big deal to do so. I found it to be a fascinating insight into a world of mental illness I would never have imagined.
balfirevic 7y ago
Can you please explain what positions do you think are being treated as equivalent in the parent comment?
kryogen1c 7y ago
> The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other. You want to believe this is black and white, but its not. There is no more blurry line in existence. Actively promoting murder? Eliminate free speech for that, threw em in jail. But what about promoting violence? Violent protests? What about rape, is that worthy of eliminating free speech? What if a high schooler is bullied and then commits suicide? What about microaggressions that make people feel uncomfortable and like they may be in danger? What about people born without advantages that change their chances of "success" from 60% to 10%? Are you actively promoting death and suffering by purposefully ignoring the homeless people you walk by?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
homonculus1 7y ago
I don't think your parent was making any such moral equivocation. Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon. They may not even realize that if they had their way on every issue it would amount to an authoritarian regime. To put it differently, how many people are actually championing individual rights for every issue?
- NedIsakoff 7y ago
  "Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon." -- This is expressing my ideas better then what I wrote. Although from their point of view it may not be terrible.

ceejayoz 7y ago

A tolerant society requires a certain level of intolerance towards actors who'd abuse that tolerance to implement intolerance. (Phew!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

jddj 7y ago

Interesting. But how do you reconcile the many counter-examples? Pointing to an incident in time is fine, but someone could just as easily point to the US bill of rights, the general trend over time towards personal liberties in the West (women voting, marriage equality, voluntary assisted death was just passed in one Australian state), et cetera. Whether one or the other is natural seems hard to establish. A more reasonable claim might be that people with power generally seek to attain more (and are in a position to attain more), and the end result of that is authoritarianism. Of course, it's more nuanced than that too. For instance the current Australian government get a lot for free since keeping people afraid enough that they tolerate the powergrabs also happens to pay for Rupert Murdoch's empire, and keeping him happy is as straightforward as maintaining a standard neoliberal trickle-down economic agenda. It could be that we oscillate between authoritarianism and democracy/libertarianism on a multi-generational x-axis simply because nothing is perfect and our cultural memories are so short.

Aromasin 7y ago

Your comment made me chuckle. >People want authoritarian governments >we have different points of view or agendas You say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency. To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]. Humans are adaptable, and we adapt our governance depending on the times. In times of war we might pick a dictator. In times of peace we might pick a democracy. In times of fear we often find ourselves in an autocracy. In times of religious ferverence we chose theocracy. Just as a human seems to be able to thrive on a number of diets, we thrive on a number of ways of group governance. I highly recommend to everyone to read "Pathways to Freedom: Political and Economic Lessons From Democratic Transitions." It's a bit text-booky, but there are some great case studies as to why various new governments have gone various different paths, and why democracy has blossomed in some places but failed in others, as has authoritarianism. In the words of Alexandre Dumas Pere - "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." I my opinion the main reason we're seeing authoritarianism seemingly increase in popularity is because fear in the media has become so profitable. It distorts our perception of reality. We can be in a wealthy, 1st world society with all our basic needs met, however if we're told constantly in a barrage of information everyday that everything is going wrong - regardless of the fact that as the individual or group there could easily be almost nothing objectively going wrong in their life - they'll believe that they're on the brink of destruction and that the only way out is to adapt to an authoritarian government that will "sort everything out". The old phrase "what they don't know won't hurt them" comes to mind. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell...

NedIsakoff 7y ago
"To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]." - It is natural, people want authoritarianism naturally. They just want the authoritarian rules or person to follow their point of view or agenda. Look at the list and see how many replaced one authoritarian with another authoritarian. Or the resolution was authoritarian. "You say both say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency." -- I never said everyone wanted one thing. My comment was that most people would prefer a more authoritarian government that agreed with their point of view or agenda.

Nasrudith 7y ago

What people want? The whole bloody point of authoritarianism is that it doesn't care about what people want! It being "wanted" is deeply artificial from repressing the opposition and manufacturing support. It brings to mind jokes that people should nobody should ever listen to monarchists because that is what they want - their opinion on government to not matter.

flukus 7y ago

> People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda People want a stable life to raise their family, they want stable work, stable housing and enough cash left over to enjoy life with family and friends. They will vote for whoever appeals to that and lately it seems to be only the authoritarian leaders that give a fuck.