4 ms·

What a lazy article. There's no conflict between a democracy and these sort of limits since none of it has prevented us from either voting or engaging in discu

What a lazy article. There's no conflict between a democracy and these sort of limits since none of it has prevented us from either voting or engaging in discussion of the restrictions. We will have the opportunity to vote both federally and at the state level on the leaders who have implemented these measures.

smsm42 5y ago
If you mean democracy as "direct democracy" which requires only a voting procedure (which btw is not the system used in the US) then yes, sure. I suspect most people, when they say "democracy", mean something slightly different - a political system which guarantees every citizen certain rights and freedoms, beyond the ability to vote. In democracy-as-voting certainly the amount of freedom may differ substantially - people could vote to oppress a minority, to ban free speech, even to murder people that dissent from the majority on any issue... it's all compatible with democracy-as-voting. It's certainly not compatible with democracy as political system we're used to in certain countries (usually called "Western model" though there are democratic countries now all over the globe, thankfully). I think that's what the article is about.
- mehwoot 5y ago
  people could vote to oppress a minority, to ban free speech, even to murder people Voting to ban free speech wouldn't really be a democracy for long in any real sense. If you can't talk about the candidates openly you can't really say people are actually making an informed choice. I feel that a lot of what comes with the "Western Model" of democracy is there because if you don't hold those norms, things can slip into non democracy pretty easily. If you can ban free speech, impose curfews, legislate to murder people or oppress minorities- the political system will not be stable, and so long term it actually won't be a democracy. But any sane person can see that's not the case here. It truly is an exceptional circumstance, and there is no legitimate long term threat to Australia's democracy from collectively agreeing to impose a curfew in order to deal with a health crisis. The author is trying to conflate the two so you feel the uneasiness that you would if the government had a curfew to suppress unrest. But they're not the same.
  - anticodon 5y ago
    How is voting and free speech are any more relevant in the world where: 1. You're followed all the time, your gadgets spy on you, you're translating your geo position and your correspondence all the time to Google, Facebook, Apple. 2. Your only sources of information are either Google results that are obviously rigged, or social network posts which are also rigged. Owners of FAANG has their own political views that they impose on all the users of the networks. Traditional media are not as influential as before, but they also belong to a very small circle of stakeholders with their own agenda.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    You are right that informed vote is important, but there's no "informed choice" requirement anywhere in democracy-as-voting. If fact, there's no "informed choice" requirement in the US democracy either. It's commonly implied that we prefer it, but it's not a requirement. > the political system will not be stable, Why not? If the oppressor class is big and cohesive enough, and does not care for the oppressed, there's no reason for them to stop and nothing could force them to stop, short of violent revolution or outside intervention - they would always maintain the majority. > there is no legitimate long term threat to Australia's democracy How do you know that? I think collectively agreeing to suspend basic human rights for reason A would make it very easy to agree to suspend basic human rights for reasons B, C, D, E, ..., Z - and then, what is left from the democracy? Voting? See above.
    - mehwoot 5y ago
      short of violent revolution But that's exactly what happens when you start murdering people and a significant minority knows it can happen to them. How do you know that? I think collectively agreeing to suspend basic human rights for reason A would make it very easy to agree to suspend basic human rights for reasons B I don't think the default position is just a slippery slope. I think someone making this argument should have to show some evidence why you think Australians would agree to impose a curfew for some more sinister reason now other than just "we're used to it". Because we aren't. Despite agreeing to it for public health reasons, in absolute terms people are NOT happy with it. I'd argue the opposite: like a vaccine prepping your immune system, being forced to live with curfews may very well strengthen our resolve to not go through this again if it can absolutely be avoided. Lockdown fatigue is a very real thing here and anyone suggesting lockdown for political or other nefarious reasons (as the author tries to imply) very well could find it now harder than previously.

smsm42 5y ago

If you mean democracy as "direct democracy" which requires only a voting procedure (which btw is not the system used in the US) then yes, sure. I suspect most people, when they say "democracy", mean something slightly different - a political system which guarantees every citizen certain rights and freedoms, beyond the ability to vote. In democracy-as-voting certainly the amount of freedom may differ substantially - people could vote to oppress a minority, to ban free speech, even to murder people that dissent from the majority on any issue... it's all compatible with democracy-as-voting. It's certainly not compatible with democracy as political system we're used to in certain countries (usually called "Western model" though there are democratic countries now all over the globe, thankfully). I think that's what the article is about.

mehwoot 5y ago
people could vote to oppress a minority, to ban free speech, even to murder people Voting to ban free speech wouldn't really be a democracy for long in any real sense. If you can't talk about the candidates openly you can't really say people are actually making an informed choice. I feel that a lot of what comes with the "Western Model" of democracy is there because if you don't hold those norms, things can slip into non democracy pretty easily. If you can ban free speech, impose curfews, legislate to murder people or oppress minorities- the political system will not be stable, and so long term it actually won't be a democracy. But any sane person can see that's not the case here. It truly is an exceptional circumstance, and there is no legitimate long term threat to Australia's democracy from collectively agreeing to impose a curfew in order to deal with a health crisis. The author is trying to conflate the two so you feel the uneasiness that you would if the government had a curfew to suppress unrest. But they're not the same.
- anticodon 5y ago
  How is voting and free speech are any more relevant in the world where: 1. You're followed all the time, your gadgets spy on you, you're translating your geo position and your correspondence all the time to Google, Facebook, Apple. 2. Your only sources of information are either Google results that are obviously rigged, or social network posts which are also rigged. Owners of FAANG has their own political views that they impose on all the users of the networks. Traditional media are not as influential as before, but they also belong to a very small circle of stakeholders with their own agenda.
- smsm42 5y ago
  You are right that informed vote is important, but there's no "informed choice" requirement anywhere in democracy-as-voting. If fact, there's no "informed choice" requirement in the US democracy either. It's commonly implied that we prefer it, but it's not a requirement. > the political system will not be stable, Why not? If the oppressor class is big and cohesive enough, and does not care for the oppressed, there's no reason for them to stop and nothing could force them to stop, short of violent revolution or outside intervention - they would always maintain the majority. > there is no legitimate long term threat to Australia's democracy How do you know that? I think collectively agreeing to suspend basic human rights for reason A would make it very easy to agree to suspend basic human rights for reasons B, C, D, E, ..., Z - and then, what is left from the democracy? Voting? See above.
  - mehwoot 5y ago
    short of violent revolution But that's exactly what happens when you start murdering people and a significant minority knows it can happen to them. How do you know that? I think collectively agreeing to suspend basic human rights for reason A would make it very easy to agree to suspend basic human rights for reasons B I don't think the default position is just a slippery slope. I think someone making this argument should have to show some evidence why you think Australians would agree to impose a curfew for some more sinister reason now other than just "we're used to it". Because we aren't. Despite agreeing to it for public health reasons, in absolute terms people are NOT happy with it. I'd argue the opposite: like a vaccine prepping your immune system, being forced to live with curfews may very well strengthen our resolve to not go through this again if it can absolutely be avoided. Lockdown fatigue is a very real thing here and anyone suggesting lockdown for political or other nefarious reasons (as the author tries to imply) very well could find it now harder than previously.