8 ms·

Strangest thing to me about the topic is that it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choos

Strangest thing to me about the topic is that it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy and use the liberties they’re provided to actively destabilize and destroy it. To me this is the largest issue, not a given topic that results from it. Yes, I am aware current authoritarian countries wage propaganda campaigns, but in my experience such campaigns would be meaningless without an existing tendency to seek out authoritarian rule. While likely flawed opinion, I do feel like one possible explanation is nationalism in general, since while many democratic countries will argue they believe in the rule of law, ultimately any non-citizen is treated as if they are within an authoritarian country and for sure not as citizens by default. Only once there are countries that treats all people equally and as citizens, will such an issue be addressed in my opinion.

dingusdew 4y ago
Unpopular opinion: If you don't like democracy and use your democratic rights to actively work to dismantle it, you probably shouldn't actually be allowed to participate in democracy since you are operating in bad faith.
- red1reaper 4y ago
  That is a good opinion in principle, but rather complicated to implement in a way that would work as expected. Most implementations would at best add too much bias to the process which would make it counterproductive, at worst it would corrupted in no time and lead to an authoritarian government which would defetat its porpouse.
- O__________O 4y ago
  While I don’t agree, I do believe it’s a common perspective and one that’s important to have dialogue on. While for sure an imperfect response, I would say that no democracy will ever be absolutely perfect, since it would require a consensus on everything and everyone understanding the topic equally prior to voicing their opinion. Further, authoritarian beliefs are only true threat to a democracy if majority support authoritarian rule, at which point I would argue it’s not a democracy. That said, with the advancements of AI, it increasingly dangerous, since if given the tools and opportunity, an authoritarian minority might over take an unprepared majority.
- lizzardbraind 4y ago
  If you let them vote, they'll vote to destroy their society. If you don't let them vote, they'll act to destroy their society. It would be emotionally satisfying, but ultimately destructive. It would also be ripe for abuse; imagine how awful it would be if we had secret lists of people who weren't allowed to do other normal activities, like air travel or vehicle registration.
  - dingusdew 4y ago
    [dead]
- pessimizer 4y ago
  That's not unpopular, it's a typical authoritarian opinion. Every censor out there is defending us from threats to our democracy. They would love the idea of setting up the Agency for the Good Faith Belief in Democracy and Democratic Rights, who would certify individuals as being qualified to vote. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    This sounds like the Paradox of Tolerance.
- rwmj 4y ago
  A few constitutions explicitly defend democracy, so you cannot modify the constitution to remove the democratic system. Germany is the most famous example (because, you know, Hitler). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause#Germany
  - int_19h 4y ago
    But then, of course, you need some kind of enforcement. And once you set that up, it turns out that it is subject to the same problems as other law enforcement / intelligence agencies: "In 2001, the federal government, the Bundestag, and the Bundesrat jointly attempted to have the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ban the NPD. The court, the highest court in Germany, has the exclusive power to ban parties if they are found to be "anti-constitutional" through the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. However, the petition was rejected in 2003 after it was discovered that a number of the NPD's inner circle, including as many as 30 of its top 200 leaders were undercover agents or informants of the German secret services, like the federal Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz. They include a former deputy chairman of the party and author of an anti-Semitic tract that formed a central part of the government's case. Since the secret services were unwilling to fully disclose their agents' identities and activities, the court found it impossible to decide which moves by the party were based on genuine party decisions and which were controlled by the secret services in an attempt to further the ban. The court determined that so many of the party's actions were influenced by the government that the resulting "lack of clarity" made it impossible to defend a ban. "The presence of the state at the leadership level makes influence on its aims and activities unavoidable," it concluded."
    - O__________O 4y ago
      NPD being being a German far-right political party: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany https://wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germ...
- micadep 4y ago
  Reminds me of Popper’s idea that a democracy shouldn’t give it’s tools to those who seek to destroy it. “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” Karl Popper
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- anthonypasq 4y ago
  seems like you dont like democracy lol. If the members of a democratic country dont want a democracy anymore, that seems within their rights.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Well, I think we had a solid bipartisan support for classical-liberism up until 2015. It's worth going back to it with the lessons learned. It was the bedrock that allowed limited centralization and most importantly, accountability. We need new journalism that keeps powers in check and hold them accountable, not pander to their readers in an ever resonating echo chambers.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Assuming by “we” you are referring to Americans, which to me not a democracy, but a plutocracy; that is, a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth, either as a individual or organization. As for American media, issues related to pandering to readers is likely related to it deregulating media industry in the 80s; for more information see: https://apnews.com/article/business-immigration-deregulation-f2021dc7425a4001b1f910a3bb075b87 https://apnews.com/article/business-immigration-deregulation...
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Which then is a true democracy according to you?
    - O__________O 4y ago
      One where majority of citizens actively participate in matters impacting the majority of citizens, understand all significant views on a topic, and no entities are allowed have power beyond their own personal independent interests. As is, to me, America, Russian, China, EU, etc are all plutocratic — because the average person doesn’t want the responsibility of dealing that comes with running a society.
      - sgt 4y ago
        Not many democracies then...
      - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
pessimizer 4y ago
> it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy Most people don't get to choose where they live. It's really a relatively tiny percentage of the population who would have the financial ability and/or skills to emigrate, and those are really the people you're talking about. They have no loyalty to where they live because they don't need any; they can leave whenever they want, and threaten to whenever they get upset about anything.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Understand your point, though disagree. My understanding is the majority of people on Earth stay within days walking distance from where they grew up. Further, there are numerous countries that if they wanted could easily cover the costs related to relocating anyone that desired to leave another country. I would argue the real explanation is most likely regardless of person’s situation, most want a predictable future, regardless of how good or bad their current situation. Moving to a new culture with no home, no source of income, no family or friends, etc — is viewed as predictably unpredictable by most.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I think both you and parent are right to an extent. Both are, in fact, factor when it comes to a person staying within a certain distance of their birthplace. I did move and pretty far by most standards, but I did have both opportunity and some support to do just that. I am not entirely certain I would do the same without it. On the other hand, I was young and predictability was the least of my considerations. Come to think of it, I wanted to break free of the predictable pattern within my own familial social circle. That said, I do value predictability and stability now, but being young has its own rights and values. I guess what I am saying is that we need to look at it as more than just x or y. There are multiple reasons for moving and lots of reason people choose to remain where they currently are. If pressed for one, I would argue convenience or maybe 'devil known'.
    - O__________O 4y ago
mjburgess 4y ago
Nationalism is such an ubiquitous and powerful ideology, we don't realise that pretty much everyone today is an extreme nationalist. Before "nations" people didnt regard borders, states, etc. as they do today. "citizenship" of a "nation" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Most today think it's a good-and-fitting thing to defend "one's country". And this impulse is vastly more powerful than defending "democracy". Who would die to stop a coup? Few. Who would die to stop an "invasion", apparently, many. What motivates Ukrainians after all? Quite an extreme ideology, one that puts so many men on the battlefield. But nations were invented, there is nothing "natural" to fight for here; nor anything even clearly moral. "Democracy", therefore, is clearly a vastly vastly weaker ideology. Nationalism is the most powerful ideology to ever exist.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- danenania 4y ago
  I don't think Ukraine is a good example of your point, as apart from being a war between two nations, it is clearly also a war between democratic and authoritarian belief systems. That ideological divide is a large part of what sparked it in the first place--the whole thing began with mass pro-democracy demonstrations that ousted an authoritarian leader. My perception is that Ukrainians know what it's like to live under an authoritarian system and they would rather risk death and the total destruction of the country than go back to it. Nationalism is clearly a factor as well, but it is deeply intertwined with pro-democratic and anti-authoritarian ideals. I don't think you'd see anything close to this level of resistance if victory would mean an authoritarian Ukraine rather than a democratic Ukraine.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    > I don't think you'd see anything close to this level of resistance if victory would mean an authoritarian Ukraine rather than a democratic Ukraine. Ah, well: I do. I think this has extraordinarily little to do with any "political system", of which Ukraine and Russia were both quite similar. One Nation invaded another, and in such moments people's nationalism is trigged. One defends' "one's own nation" regardless. This is a vastly more powerful reaction than any intellectual-sentimental philosophy. This "Nation" is "Ours" and not "Yours". Indeed, the heart of the matter is that Russia isnt nationalist. They're still operating in a pre-National era of loose ethnicities being "of a common group" and hence do not think these borders matter so much. What russia hasnt fully understood is that essentially the rest of the world has become nationalist, whilst it still operates under an ethnic-imperial model.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
I think we need to slow down and look at this with level heads. 1. What is a reliable measure of this "vast percentage"? 2. Are you perhaps lumping any departure from your preferred political model as "authoritarian"? 3. Are you perhaps overattributing the level of "democracy" to your preferred political regime? 4. Have you considered the motivations behind the distaste with ostensibly "democratic" regimes? Simply declaring "nationalism!" is not an intellectually substantive remark and probably caricaturish because a) what do you mean by "nationalism", and b) you haven't identified the confluence of motives to see what might be happening and why. My 2 cents: liberalism as a political ideology traceable to Locke and Hobbes is unraveling because of its inherent tensions and errors (like the tension between knowledge and the mistaken liberal notion of "freedom" understood as "do what thou wilt" versus "do what thou ought"; its radical individualism; its totalitarian "neutrality" which is a manipulative, underhanded means of entrenching liberal presuppositions; its egalitarianism). It is to be expected that someone whose sentiments have been shaped in a social climate that valorizes an ideology will view any departure as hostile and "authoritarian", not on objective grounds, but merely according to habituated affect. You had the same thing in post-Soviet Russia and post-War Germany.
- O__________O 4y ago
  From the first sentence of the related post — “The European Commission is currently in the process of enacting a law called Chat control. If the law goes into effect, it will mean that all EU citizens' communications will be monitored and listened to.” Level headed person would see that the next step is logically that all communications regardless if they’re in private, in person, etc should be monitored. If that’s not an authoritarian state, I am happy to be listen to why. As for a vast percentage, I mean that topic like this would not even see the light of day if there wasn’t source of significant support; hint, there is. I have neither have preference over given political party, nor would I be affiliated with a given group; that is, I am fine independently observing, understanding, evaluating, and if needed, acting on any situation as needed. Not sure understand you point 3, please feel free to clarify. As for point 4, I covered a possible reasoning why current democracies might be viewed as unjust; if you missed that, might be worth reading my OP comment again. And yes, nationalism is toxic. It treats other humans as subhumans by default, that is non-citizens are not treated equal, and for sure not as citizens by default. If there was a country that treated all humans as citizens, equally, fairly, etc - I would be happy to reevaluate my beliefs related to nationalism. And for your two cents, I prefer plain-English and first principle reasoning, not reference to historical ideologies, list of ism’s, etc. Said another way, I don’t understand what you hoped I would understand, but happy to listen.
browningstreet 4y ago
Most people voting/supporting these kinds of things believe there is a dastardly "other" that this will apply to more than it will apply to them. There are plenty of recent political endeavors where this was extremely obvious and loudly detailed and, yet... So much of the large-scale political nastiness these days isn't because a rising minority wants to enforce fair rules that everyone has to abide by together. They want rules that suppress the opportunities of someone else and are certain that the rules won't suppress them. You can argue that there's little difference between one side or the other, but it's like a game cube -- in one direction it's left vs right, flip the cube and it's rich vs poor, spin the cube again, it's majority race/religion against others. The dastardly part is that, say, the propaganda of one orientation of the cube is often accepted by the oppressed parties of another orientation of cube.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Agree. Another possibility (or possibly expansion of your points) is that people feel that they are being responsible by amplifying the predictability of their current environment without realizing the potential for it to destabilize it instead. Honestly puzzled by topic and it’s one that spent a lot of time and effort trying to impact. Ultimately, I want to believe people understand they’re making an informed choice, but obviously concerned and puzzled by the pattern, which is neither new, nor likely to fade away, especially as AI‘s role advances in societies. That said, I have hope, and believe future is truly open to those willing to take the time to make a positive difference.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > They want rules that suppress the opportunities of someone else and are certain that the rules won't suppress them. It should be noted that some of this sentiment comes from people who used the same techniques themselves to disrupt social arrangement, and who want to suppress them precisely because they know that it can work. Here's what one Soviet dissident had to say on the subject of human rights after USSR was gone: "I always knew that only the decent people should have rights, and the indecent ones should not. ... Personally, I've had enough. Some time ago we [dissidents] and the USA have used this concept as a ram against the USSR and communists. This concept has served its purpose, and we should stop lying about human rights and promoting their defenders, lest we undermine ourselves." It's rarely that blatant, but you can kinda sorta see similar sentiments in e.g. the explanations of why ACLU "evolves" on free speech.
klabb3 4y ago
For reference, many years ago when a similar surveillance law was implemented in Sweden (the FRA law), 90% of people were against it (in random polling) but politicians voted it in anyway. It later turned out this was a diplomatic back channel direct order from the US, which was found out through that big Wikileaks dump. So, the people are not at fault in these situations imo. First, it’s politicians and after that it’s journalists. Sunlight keeps malicious politicians in check, investigative journalism has been severely crippled with corporate media. As has whistleblowing.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > It later turned out this was a diplomatic back channel direct order from the US, which was found out through that big Wikileaks dump. Source? I can't find any such documents.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Regardless of what form of government is currently ruling a given country, ultimately the people within it are responsible for the actions taken by the government, not the government itself. As for your other point, I agree, free balanced independent journalism, whistleblower, leaks, etc - play a clear role in insuring public stays informed. That said, in my opinion, if 90% percent of a population was against something, but they passively allowed it to happen, it is no one’s fault but there own. I don’t for a second believe average person does not understand they have a choice over who rules them and how, even if that choice is to fight to the death to defend that right, flee the area, or for that matter, simply do whatever they’re told to do.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    I can be against something but not believe it is worth fighting to the death for. My town implemented a new tax that is highly unlikely to accomplish its stated goals. I’m not going to overthrow the government over $300 a year. It’s the thousands of little paper cuts that build up over time but that can go on for an entire lifetime without ever reaching a breaking point.
slickrick216 4y ago
So close to a breakthrough but you lost it at the end.
- O__________O 4y ago
  How so specifically?
  - slickrick216 4y ago
    “Strangest thing to me about the topic is that it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy and use the liberties they’re provided to actively destabilize and destroy it.” Yes agreed. “Yes, I am aware current authoritarian countries wage propaganda campaigns, but in my experience such campaigns would be meaningless without an existing tendency to seek out authoritarian rule.” Yes agreed. “While likely flawed opinion, I do feel like one possible explanation is nationalism in general, since while many democratic countries will argue they believe in the rule of law, ultimately any non-citizen is treated as if they are within an authoritarian country and for sure not as citizens by default.” Losing me. Non citizens aren’t citizens by default and therefore should in any country be extended the same rights. As they don’t bear the same responsibilities. “Only once there are countries that treats all people equally and as citizens, will such an issue be addressed in my opinion.” This is where I think the breakthrough was lost in my opinion. Having the realisation of the first few paragraphs but getting it backwards. All I have ever seen is a corrupting influence of some groups from authoritarian countries who move to democratic states only to attempt to take their brutal systems with them. Specifically here to avoid doubt I’m talking about Islamic and Chinese immigration both have in various countries setup their own police systems. This is wholly unacceptable and should not be tolerated in the same way Irish/Italian/Russian organised crime shouldn’t. Not saying it’s all people from a place or a “racial” thing cause there are many people trying to escape the regimes of their homes. However it’s clearly motivated by nationalism but by external nationalism. People taking pride in their own countries is a counter to this influence.
    - O__________O 4y ago

dingusdew 4y ago

Unpopular opinion: If you don't like democracy and use your democratic rights to actively work to dismantle it, you probably shouldn't actually be allowed to participate in democracy since you are operating in bad faith.

red1reaper 4y ago
That is a good opinion in principle, but rather complicated to implement in a way that would work as expected. Most implementations would at best add too much bias to the process which would make it counterproductive, at worst it would corrupted in no time and lead to an authoritarian government which would defetat its porpouse.
O__________O 4y ago
While I don’t agree, I do believe it’s a common perspective and one that’s important to have dialogue on. While for sure an imperfect response, I would say that no democracy will ever be absolutely perfect, since it would require a consensus on everything and everyone understanding the topic equally prior to voicing their opinion. Further, authoritarian beliefs are only true threat to a democracy if majority support authoritarian rule, at which point I would argue it’s not a democracy. That said, with the advancements of AI, it increasingly dangerous, since if given the tools and opportunity, an authoritarian minority might over take an unprepared majority.
lizzardbraind 4y ago
If you let them vote, they'll vote to destroy their society. If you don't let them vote, they'll act to destroy their society. It would be emotionally satisfying, but ultimately destructive. It would also be ripe for abuse; imagine how awful it would be if we had secret lists of people who weren't allowed to do other normal activities, like air travel or vehicle registration.
- dingusdew 4y ago
  [dead]
pessimizer 4y ago
That's not unpopular, it's a typical authoritarian opinion. Every censor out there is defending us from threats to our democracy. They would love the idea of setting up the Agency for the Good Faith Belief in Democracy and Democratic Rights, who would certify individuals as being qualified to vote. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
- midoridensha 4y ago
  This sounds like the Paradox of Tolerance.
rwmj 4y ago
A few constitutions explicitly defend democracy, so you cannot modify the constitution to remove the democratic system. Germany is the most famous example (because, you know, Hitler). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause#Germany
- int_19h 4y ago
  But then, of course, you need some kind of enforcement. And once you set that up, it turns out that it is subject to the same problems as other law enforcement / intelligence agencies: "In 2001, the federal government, the Bundestag, and the Bundesrat jointly attempted to have the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ban the NPD. The court, the highest court in Germany, has the exclusive power to ban parties if they are found to be "anti-constitutional" through the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. However, the petition was rejected in 2003 after it was discovered that a number of the NPD's inner circle, including as many as 30 of its top 200 leaders were undercover agents or informants of the German secret services, like the federal Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz. They include a former deputy chairman of the party and author of an anti-Semitic tract that formed a central part of the government's case. Since the secret services were unwilling to fully disclose their agents' identities and activities, the court found it impossible to decide which moves by the party were based on genuine party decisions and which were controlled by the secret services in an attempt to further the ban. The court determined that so many of the party's actions were influenced by the government that the resulting "lack of clarity" made it impossible to defend a ban. "The presence of the state at the leadership level makes influence on its aims and activities unavoidable," it concluded."
  - O__________O 4y ago
    NPD being being a German far-right political party: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany https://wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germ...
micadep 4y ago
Reminds me of Popper’s idea that a democracy shouldn’t give it’s tools to those who seek to destroy it. “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” Karl Popper
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anthonypasq 4y ago
seems like you dont like democracy lol. If the members of a democratic country dont want a democracy anymore, that seems within their rights.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Well, I think we had a solid bipartisan support for classical-liberism up until 2015. It's worth going back to it with the lessons learned. It was the bedrock that allowed limited centralization and most importantly, accountability. We need new journalism that keeps powers in check and hold them accountable, not pander to their readers in an ever resonating echo chambers.

O__________O 4y ago
Assuming by “we” you are referring to Americans, which to me not a democracy, but a plutocracy; that is, a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth, either as a individual or organization. As for American media, issues related to pandering to readers is likely related to it deregulating media industry in the 80s; for more information see: https://apnews.com/article/business-immigration-deregulation-f2021dc7425a4001b1f910a3bb075b87 https://apnews.com/article/business-immigration-deregulation...
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Which then is a true democracy according to you?
  - O__________O 4y ago
    One where majority of citizens actively participate in matters impacting the majority of citizens, understand all significant views on a topic, and no entities are allowed have power beyond their own personal independent interests. As is, to me, America, Russian, China, EU, etc are all plutocratic — because the average person doesn’t want the responsibility of dealing that comes with running a society.
    - sgt 4y ago
      Not many democracies then...
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

> it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy Most people don't get to choose where they live. It's really a relatively tiny percentage of the population who would have the financial ability and/or skills to emigrate, and those are really the people you're talking about. They have no loyalty to where they live because they don't need any; they can leave whenever they want, and threaten to whenever they get upset about anything.

O__________O 4y ago
Understand your point, though disagree. My understanding is the majority of people on Earth stay within days walking distance from where they grew up. Further, there are numerous countries that if they wanted could easily cover the costs related to relocating anyone that desired to leave another country. I would argue the real explanation is most likely regardless of person’s situation, most want a predictable future, regardless of how good or bad their current situation. Moving to a new culture with no home, no source of income, no family or friends, etc — is viewed as predictably unpredictable by most.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I think both you and parent are right to an extent. Both are, in fact, factor when it comes to a person staying within a certain distance of their birthplace. I did move and pretty far by most standards, but I did have both opportunity and some support to do just that. I am not entirely certain I would do the same without it. On the other hand, I was young and predictability was the least of my considerations. Come to think of it, I wanted to break free of the predictable pattern within my own familial social circle. That said, I do value predictability and stability now, but being young has its own rights and values. I guess what I am saying is that we need to look at it as more than just x or y. There are multiple reasons for moving and lots of reason people choose to remain where they currently are. If pressed for one, I would argue convenience or maybe 'devil known'.
  - O__________O 4y ago

mjburgess 4y ago

Nationalism is such an ubiquitous and powerful ideology, we don't realise that pretty much everyone today is an extreme nationalist. Before "nations" people didnt regard borders, states, etc. as they do today. "citizenship" of a "nation" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Most today think it's a good-and-fitting thing to defend "one's country". And this impulse is vastly more powerful than defending "democracy". Who would die to stop a coup? Few. Who would die to stop an "invasion", apparently, many. What motivates Ukrainians after all? Quite an extreme ideology, one that puts so many men on the battlefield. But nations were invented, there is nothing "natural" to fight for here; nor anything even clearly moral. "Democracy", therefore, is clearly a vastly vastly weaker ideology. Nationalism is the most powerful ideology to ever exist.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
danenania 4y ago
I don't think Ukraine is a good example of your point, as apart from being a war between two nations, it is clearly also a war between democratic and authoritarian belief systems. That ideological divide is a large part of what sparked it in the first place--the whole thing began with mass pro-democracy demonstrations that ousted an authoritarian leader. My perception is that Ukrainians know what it's like to live under an authoritarian system and they would rather risk death and the total destruction of the country than go back to it. Nationalism is clearly a factor as well, but it is deeply intertwined with pro-democratic and anti-authoritarian ideals. I don't think you'd see anything close to this level of resistance if victory would mean an authoritarian Ukraine rather than a democratic Ukraine.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  > I don't think you'd see anything close to this level of resistance if victory would mean an authoritarian Ukraine rather than a democratic Ukraine. Ah, well: I do. I think this has extraordinarily little to do with any "political system", of which Ukraine and Russia were both quite similar. One Nation invaded another, and in such moments people's nationalism is trigged. One defends' "one's own nation" regardless. This is a vastly more powerful reaction than any intellectual-sentimental philosophy. This "Nation" is "Ours" and not "Yours". Indeed, the heart of the matter is that Russia isnt nationalist. They're still operating in a pre-National era of loose ethnicities being "of a common group" and hence do not think these borders matter so much. What russia hasnt fully understood is that essentially the rest of the world has become nationalist, whilst it still operates under an ethnic-imperial model.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

I think we need to slow down and look at this with level heads. 1. What is a reliable measure of this "vast percentage"? 2. Are you perhaps lumping any departure from your preferred political model as "authoritarian"? 3. Are you perhaps overattributing the level of "democracy" to your preferred political regime? 4. Have you considered the motivations behind the distaste with ostensibly "democratic" regimes? Simply declaring "nationalism!" is not an intellectually substantive remark and probably caricaturish because a) what do you mean by "nationalism", and b) you haven't identified the confluence of motives to see what might be happening and why. My 2 cents: liberalism as a political ideology traceable to Locke and Hobbes is unraveling because of its inherent tensions and errors (like the tension between knowledge and the mistaken liberal notion of "freedom" understood as "do what thou wilt" versus "do what thou ought"; its radical individualism; its totalitarian "neutrality" which is a manipulative, underhanded means of entrenching liberal presuppositions; its egalitarianism). It is to be expected that someone whose sentiments have been shaped in a social climate that valorizes an ideology will view any departure as hostile and "authoritarian", not on objective grounds, but merely according to habituated affect. You had the same thing in post-Soviet Russia and post-War Germany.

O__________O 4y ago
From the first sentence of the related post — “The European Commission is currently in the process of enacting a law called Chat control. If the law goes into effect, it will mean that all EU citizens' communications will be monitored and listened to.” Level headed person would see that the next step is logically that all communications regardless if they’re in private, in person, etc should be monitored. If that’s not an authoritarian state, I am happy to be listen to why. As for a vast percentage, I mean that topic like this would not even see the light of day if there wasn’t source of significant support; hint, there is. I have neither have preference over given political party, nor would I be affiliated with a given group; that is, I am fine independently observing, understanding, evaluating, and if needed, acting on any situation as needed. Not sure understand you point 3, please feel free to clarify. As for point 4, I covered a possible reasoning why current democracies might be viewed as unjust; if you missed that, might be worth reading my OP comment again. And yes, nationalism is toxic. It treats other humans as subhumans by default, that is non-citizens are not treated equal, and for sure not as citizens by default. If there was a country that treated all humans as citizens, equally, fairly, etc - I would be happy to reevaluate my beliefs related to nationalism. And for your two cents, I prefer plain-English and first principle reasoning, not reference to historical ideologies, list of ism’s, etc. Said another way, I don’t understand what you hoped I would understand, but happy to listen.

browningstreet 4y ago

Most people voting/supporting these kinds of things believe there is a dastardly "other" that this will apply to more than it will apply to them. There are plenty of recent political endeavors where this was extremely obvious and loudly detailed and, yet... So much of the large-scale political nastiness these days isn't because a rising minority wants to enforce fair rules that everyone has to abide by together. They want rules that suppress the opportunities of someone else and are certain that the rules won't suppress them. You can argue that there's little difference between one side or the other, but it's like a game cube -- in one direction it's left vs right, flip the cube and it's rich vs poor, spin the cube again, it's majority race/religion against others. The dastardly part is that, say, the propaganda of one orientation of the cube is often accepted by the oppressed parties of another orientation of cube.

O__________O 4y ago
Agree. Another possibility (or possibly expansion of your points) is that people feel that they are being responsible by amplifying the predictability of their current environment without realizing the potential for it to destabilize it instead. Honestly puzzled by topic and it’s one that spent a lot of time and effort trying to impact. Ultimately, I want to believe people understand they’re making an informed choice, but obviously concerned and puzzled by the pattern, which is neither new, nor likely to fade away, especially as AI‘s role advances in societies. That said, I have hope, and believe future is truly open to those willing to take the time to make a positive difference.
int_19h 4y ago
> They want rules that suppress the opportunities of someone else and are certain that the rules won't suppress them. It should be noted that some of this sentiment comes from people who used the same techniques themselves to disrupt social arrangement, and who want to suppress them precisely because they know that it can work. Here's what one Soviet dissident had to say on the subject of human rights after USSR was gone: "I always knew that only the decent people should have rights, and the indecent ones should not. ... Personally, I've had enough. Some time ago we [dissidents] and the USA have used this concept as a ram against the USSR and communists. This concept has served its purpose, and we should stop lying about human rights and promoting their defenders, lest we undermine ourselves." It's rarely that blatant, but you can kinda sorta see similar sentiments in e.g. the explanations of why ACLU "evolves" on free speech.

klabb3 4y ago

For reference, many years ago when a similar surveillance law was implemented in Sweden (the FRA law), 90% of people were against it (in random polling) but politicians voted it in anyway. It later turned out this was a diplomatic back channel direct order from the US, which was found out through that big Wikileaks dump. So, the people are not at fault in these situations imo. First, it’s politicians and after that it’s journalists. Sunlight keeps malicious politicians in check, investigative journalism has been severely crippled with corporate media. As has whistleblowing.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> It later turned out this was a diplomatic back channel direct order from the US, which was found out through that big Wikileaks dump. Source? I can't find any such documents.
O__________O 4y ago
Regardless of what form of government is currently ruling a given country, ultimately the people within it are responsible for the actions taken by the government, not the government itself. As for your other point, I agree, free balanced independent journalism, whistleblower, leaks, etc - play a clear role in insuring public stays informed. That said, in my opinion, if 90% percent of a population was against something, but they passively allowed it to happen, it is no one’s fault but there own. I don’t for a second believe average person does not understand they have a choice over who rules them and how, even if that choice is to fight to the death to defend that right, flee the area, or for that matter, simply do whatever they’re told to do.
- brewdad 4y ago
  I can be against something but not believe it is worth fighting to the death for. My town implemented a new tax that is highly unlikely to accomplish its stated goals. I’m not going to overthrow the government over $300 a year. It’s the thousands of little paper cuts that build up over time but that can go on for an entire lifetime without ever reaching a breaking point.

slickrick216 4y ago

So close to a breakthrough but you lost it at the end.

O__________O 4y ago
How so specifically?
- slickrick216 4y ago
  “Strangest thing to me about the topic is that it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy and use the liberties they’re provided to actively destabilize and destroy it.” Yes agreed. “Yes, I am aware current authoritarian countries wage propaganda campaigns, but in my experience such campaigns would be meaningless without an existing tendency to seek out authoritarian rule.” Yes agreed. “While likely flawed opinion, I do feel like one possible explanation is nationalism in general, since while many democratic countries will argue they believe in the rule of law, ultimately any non-citizen is treated as if they are within an authoritarian country and for sure not as citizens by default.” Losing me. Non citizens aren’t citizens by default and therefore should in any country be extended the same rights. As they don’t bear the same responsibilities. “Only once there are countries that treats all people equally and as citizens, will such an issue be addressed in my opinion.” This is where I think the breakthrough was lost in my opinion. Having the realisation of the first few paragraphs but getting it backwards. All I have ever seen is a corrupting influence of some groups from authoritarian countries who move to democratic states only to attempt to take their brutal systems with them. Specifically here to avoid doubt I’m talking about Islamic and Chinese immigration both have in various countries setup their own police systems. This is wholly unacceptable and should not be tolerated in the same way Irish/Italian/Russian organised crime shouldn’t. Not saying it’s all people from a place or a “racial” thing cause there are many people trying to escape the regimes of their homes. However it’s clearly motivated by nationalism but by external nationalism. People taking pride in their own countries is a counter to this influence.
  - O__________O 4y ago