4 ms·

> how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten out of hand? Not well, but not too bad either. Everyone is happy because of this: ht

> how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten out of hand? Not well, but not too bad either. Everyone is happy because of this: https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/number-of-democracies-over-time.png https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/number... Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's easier to pin the blame to one person. > have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then? There are relatively few people who aren't keen on surveillance. most people are on board with UK level surveillance and most americans still think badly of Snowden. Don't expect it to be voted out soon

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's easier to pin the blame to one person. Well, is it really, though? I mean, no doubt there is a thing that people call "surveillance democracy", and I would agree that it's actually a distinguishable thing. But for one, just because something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a democracy, so the question would be: What makes a democracy a democracy, and would a "surveillance democracy" fit those criteria? But also: Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian control has gotten out of hand yet? Maybe as long as you could still vote the authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet? But then, what if there is actually no real way to achieve this, for whatever reason, and those places are destined for a situation where it is generally accepted that the authoritarians can not be voted out of office, even when people might ultimately change their mind about that whole authoritarianism thing? Maybe then it is out of hand after all? But then, is democracy actually fine if it is unavoidably destined for a place where it is impossible for a majority to elect a new government? Your analysis so far seems not too far from a line of thought that would conclude that the GDR was a democracy (they had elections, and they even called themselves democratic!)--not sure whether you would agree with that, but the GDR sure was and is not considered a democracy by many. > most people are on board with UK level surveillance But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are. So, while it might well be true that most people don't think of surveillance as a problem right now, that doesn't answer the question of whether people are actually OK with it, as in what their opinion would be once they might be directly confronted with the consequences. And that was my point: There sure are and have been plenty of places where people are not happy with authoritarianism anymore, and those do not tend to be the places where people just vote the authoritarianism out. Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition: It is kindof fine just as long as there is still enough democracy left to potentially remove the authoritarians, so people don't realize the danger they are in, but it becomes unbearable exatly at the point where that power does not exist anymore, because that is also the point at which the authoritarians don't have to care about public opinion much anymore.
- buboard 7y ago
  > something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a democracy, Right. We used to call them "liberal democracies" in the west, at some point we dropped the adjective. Obviously democracies like russia, GDR, even Turkey are not liberal, but that bar is pretty low for the west. > Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian control has gotten out of hand yet? > Maybe as long as you could still vote the authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet? No it hasn't. Yet again, the concentration of power is more visible and pervasive than ever (eg. surveillance, border controls, police brutality, incarceration, monetary controls). It's fair to say that both left and right agree with large scale, everpresent state surveillance. We are content with doing relative comparisons between western democracies and illiberal authoritarian governments, but that is wrong, we should instead be measuring democracies against objective measures of liberty. > But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are. Yes, i think they are at this point. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is the dominant ideology. The world's most expensive, desireable cities are also the most surveilled. This might be taken as a sign of democracies sliding into illiberalism, as has happened many times in the past. > Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition Ostensibly, democracies help to avoid fascism and complete concentration of power , but democracy itself is not enough to guarantee freedom. Democracies have voted in the world's worst fascists. There is a case to be made about the abandonment of Enlightenment ideas of reason, liberty, fraternity in place of Democracy (which comes parceled with populism and was not even an Enlightenment ideal).
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > Yes, i think they are at this point. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is the dominant ideology. The world's most expensive, desireable cities are also the most surveilled. This might be taken as a sign of democracies sliding into illiberalism, as has happened many times in the past. How is that a response to my suspicion that people don't understand the risks of authoritarianism? You are just repeating that people do not object to living under surveillance, which is exactly what I said, while you are not responding at all to me pointing out that that may well be because they don't understand what is happening, rather than because they understand what is coming and are fine with it. > Ostensibly, democracies help to avoid fascism and complete concentration of power , but democracy itself is not enough to guarantee freedom. Democracies have voted in the world's worst fascists. How is that a response to authoritarianism not being compatible with democracy? It's like if I said that fire is not compatible with structural integritry, and you are countering that many a structurally sound building has burned down. Yeah, they have, and I very much doubt many of them were structurally sound afterwards.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's easier to pin the blame to one person. Well, is it really, though? I mean, no doubt there is a thing that people call "surveillance democracy", and I would agree that it's actually a distinguishable thing. But for one, just because something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a democracy, so the question would be: What makes a democracy a democracy, and would a "surveillance democracy" fit those criteria? But also: Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian control has gotten out of hand yet? Maybe as long as you could still vote the authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet? But then, what if there is actually no real way to achieve this, for whatever reason, and those places are destined for a situation where it is generally accepted that the authoritarians can not be voted out of office, even when people might ultimately change their mind about that whole authoritarianism thing? Maybe then it is out of hand after all? But then, is democracy actually fine if it is unavoidably destined for a place where it is impossible for a majority to elect a new government? Your analysis so far seems not too far from a line of thought that would conclude that the GDR was a democracy (they had elections, and they even called themselves democratic!)--not sure whether you would agree with that, but the GDR sure was and is not considered a democracy by many. > most people are on board with UK level surveillance But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are. So, while it might well be true that most people don't think of surveillance as a problem right now, that doesn't answer the question of whether people are actually OK with it, as in what their opinion would be once they might be directly confronted with the consequences. And that was my point: There sure are and have been plenty of places where people are not happy with authoritarianism anymore, and those do not tend to be the places where people just vote the authoritarianism out. Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition: It is kindof fine just as long as there is still enough democracy left to potentially remove the authoritarians, so people don't realize the danger they are in, but it becomes unbearable exatly at the point where that power does not exist anymore, because that is also the point at which the authoritarians don't have to care about public opinion much anymore.

buboard 7y ago
> something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a democracy, Right. We used to call them "liberal democracies" in the west, at some point we dropped the adjective. Obviously democracies like russia, GDR, even Turkey are not liberal, but that bar is pretty low for the west. > Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian control has gotten out of hand yet? > Maybe as long as you could still vote the authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet? No it hasn't. Yet again, the concentration of power is more visible and pervasive than ever (eg. surveillance, border controls, police brutality, incarceration, monetary controls). It's fair to say that both left and right agree with large scale, everpresent state surveillance. We are content with doing relative comparisons between western democracies and illiberal authoritarian governments, but that is wrong, we should instead be measuring democracies against objective measures of liberty. > But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are. Yes, i think they are at this point. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is the dominant ideology. The world's most expensive, desireable cities are also the most surveilled. This might be taken as a sign of democracies sliding into illiberalism, as has happened many times in the past. > Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition Ostensibly, democracies help to avoid fascism and complete concentration of power , but democracy itself is not enough to guarantee freedom. Democracies have voted in the world's worst fascists. There is a case to be made about the abandonment of Enlightenment ideas of reason, liberty, fraternity in place of Democracy (which comes parceled with populism and was not even an Enlightenment ideal).
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > Yes, i think they are at this point. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is the dominant ideology. The world's most expensive, desireable cities are also the most surveilled. This might be taken as a sign of democracies sliding into illiberalism, as has happened many times in the past. How is that a response to my suspicion that people don't understand the risks of authoritarianism? You are just repeating that people do not object to living under surveillance, which is exactly what I said, while you are not responding at all to me pointing out that that may well be because they don't understand what is happening, rather than because they understand what is coming and are fine with it. > Ostensibly, democracies help to avoid fascism and complete concentration of power , but democracy itself is not enough to guarantee freedom. Democracies have voted in the world's worst fascists. How is that a response to authoritarianism not being compatible with democracy? It's like if I said that fire is not compatible with structural integritry, and you are countering that many a structurally sound building has burned down. Yeah, they have, and I very much doubt many of them were structurally sound afterwards.