3 ms·

> 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 adj

> 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.
- buboard 7y ago
  > rather than because they understand what is coming and are fine with it. Sorry if it wasn't clear, i do believe people know the consequences of surveillance and are OK with it. An Authoritarian state does not let its citizens know they are living in an authoritarian state. It oppresses or annihilates minorities to create a golden cage for the rest. Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to the contrary. > How is that a response to authoritarianism not being compatible with democracy? Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy. Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee liberalism.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to the contrary. So, you think that the general public understands what it is like to live in a police state, how corruption wastes resources that they otherwise could benefit from, what negative consequences they themselves can expect further down the road? If you ask me, most people are not even really aware of the things you list. Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to ensure safety, or individual mistakes that happen, and and it's not something they would ever experience themselves, because they believe that the state is fair and friendly and would only ever do such things to people who really did bad things, which they themselves obviously aren't, as any officer would immediately recognize. People have no fucking clue how power structures work, how their data is actually being used, how bad corruption can get, how inhuman governments can act against them. They have no fucking clue right up to the moment where they are the victim and they are totally surprised what is happening to them. > Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy. Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee liberalism. How isn't that the exact same "but structurally sound buildings have burned down!" response as before? Nobody is claiming that democracy guarantees liberalism, rather this is all about the fact that you can not have democracy without liberalism. Democracies are perfectly capable of ending liberalism, and have done so many times, but with it they necessarily end democracy. Either people can make free decision in their own best interest, or they have to follow what the authority dictates. A democracy in which authoritarianism rules is only a democracy in name, but not in function, just as the GDR was. If the dictator tells you who you have to vote for, that is not a democracy, no matter how much you get to vote.

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.

buboard 7y ago
> rather than because they understand what is coming and are fine with it. Sorry if it wasn't clear, i do believe people know the consequences of surveillance and are OK with it. An Authoritarian state does not let its citizens know they are living in an authoritarian state. It oppresses or annihilates minorities to create a golden cage for the rest. Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to the contrary. > How is that a response to authoritarianism not being compatible with democracy? Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy. Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee liberalism.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to the contrary. So, you think that the general public understands what it is like to live in a police state, how corruption wastes resources that they otherwise could benefit from, what negative consequences they themselves can expect further down the road? If you ask me, most people are not even really aware of the things you list. Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to ensure safety, or individual mistakes that happen, and and it's not something they would ever experience themselves, because they believe that the state is fair and friendly and would only ever do such things to people who really did bad things, which they themselves obviously aren't, as any officer would immediately recognize. People have no fucking clue how power structures work, how their data is actually being used, how bad corruption can get, how inhuman governments can act against them. They have no fucking clue right up to the moment where they are the victim and they are totally surprised what is happening to them. > Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy. Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee liberalism. How isn't that the exact same "but structurally sound buildings have burned down!" response as before? Nobody is claiming that democracy guarantees liberalism, rather this is all about the fact that you can not have democracy without liberalism. Democracies are perfectly capable of ending liberalism, and have done so many times, but with it they necessarily end democracy. Either people can make free decision in their own best interest, or they have to follow what the authority dictates. A democracy in which authoritarianism rules is only a democracy in name, but not in function, just as the GDR was. If the dictator tells you who you have to vote for, that is not a democracy, no matter how much you get to vote.