3 ms·

I'm not sure if you just didn't notice, but public and private gatherings were unilaterally outlawed just 2~3 years ago in the name of national emergencies. Th

I'm not sure if you just didn't notice, but public and private gatherings were unilaterally outlawed just 2~3 years ago in the name of national emergencies. The freedoms we enjoy here in the west are closer to erasure than you realize.

ethanbond 3y ago
“Unilaterally” outlawed by elected governments who can be peacefully deposed, that is to say, not unilaterally at all. It’s worth being paranoid about our freedoms, which is why I take issue with the characterization that we are just the same as China and Russia. We are neither as helpless nor as victimized as those people.
- lbeltrame 3y ago
  > “Unilaterally” outlawed by elected governments who can be peacefully deposed, that is to say, not unilaterally at all. Well... It took one signature on an administrative act and almost everyone in Italy, not in China, was under house arrest for 70 days with armed soldiers on the streets. No oversight, no checks and balances, no constitution, nothing. This warrants being very careful of any government activity. And at some point someone even suggested to postpone elections. But more on topic, the only reason the Commission is going gung-ho is because of the elections next year. They are very afraid.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Is your impression that democracies function by referendum on every major issue, especially during moments of crisis? > And at some point someone even suggested to postpone elections. I'm sorry someone suggested that. > But more on topic, the only reason the Commission is going gung-ho is because of the elections next year They are very afraid. Right, because they in fact don't have unilateral power.
    - lbeltrame 3y ago
      It is my impression that checks and balances, constitutions etc need to work exactly in times of crisis. If they only work when everything is all right, they are useless. Especially when it comes to freedom. The fact that a government minister even wrote in a book (hastily taken off the market) that he hoped the situation would be used for "a new cultural hegemony" speaks volumes. Didn't dictatorships always use justifications for threats or emergencies to be instated? An emergency doesn't justify taking away fundamental freedoms. Hence, anything the EU does in this space, justified or not, must be scrutinized.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        > It is my impression that checks and balances, constitutions etc need to work exactly in times of crisis. If they only work when everything is all right, they are useless. Especially when it comes to freedom. Agreed, but you haven't demonstrated that these checks and balances have been violated. At least in the US, authority was exercised and at times found overreaching and at times found well-within Constitutional bounds. That's exactly those checks and balances functioning correctly. > The fact that a government minister even wrote in a book (hastily taken off the market) that he hoped the situation would be used for "a new cultural hegemony" speaks volumes. What volumes does it speak? > Didn't dictatorships always use justifications for threats or emergencies to be instated? Nope, not always. And even if that were true, it's also true that threats or emergencies have sometimes required extraordinary government action that didn't result in dictatorships. > An emergency doesn't justify taking away fundamental freedoms. Hence, anything the EU does in this space, justified or not, must be scrutinized. Of course not. But obviously the debate is what is "a fundamental freedom" and what counts as "taking away." Sure, scrutinize away. Just don't assume that lockdown == illegal == immoral == people don't agree with it == you can just assert that it was illegitimate. People elected the governments they elected, a crisis emerged, and those governments did what they felt they were elected to do, and if you disagree you just vote for different leaders next time around. That's how it works. We're obviously not going to do snap elections every time a new crisis emerges.
        3y ago

ethanbond 3y ago

“Unilaterally” outlawed by elected governments who can be peacefully deposed, that is to say, not unilaterally at all. It’s worth being paranoid about our freedoms, which is why I take issue with the characterization that we are just the same as China and Russia. We are neither as helpless nor as victimized as those people.

lbeltrame 3y ago
> “Unilaterally” outlawed by elected governments who can be peacefully deposed, that is to say, not unilaterally at all. Well... It took one signature on an administrative act and almost everyone in Italy, not in China, was under house arrest for 70 days with armed soldiers on the streets. No oversight, no checks and balances, no constitution, nothing. This warrants being very careful of any government activity. And at some point someone even suggested to postpone elections. But more on topic, the only reason the Commission is going gung-ho is because of the elections next year. They are very afraid.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Is your impression that democracies function by referendum on every major issue, especially during moments of crisis? > And at some point someone even suggested to postpone elections. I'm sorry someone suggested that. > But more on topic, the only reason the Commission is going gung-ho is because of the elections next year They are very afraid. Right, because they in fact don't have unilateral power.
  - lbeltrame 3y ago
    It is my impression that checks and balances, constitutions etc need to work exactly in times of crisis. If they only work when everything is all right, they are useless. Especially when it comes to freedom. The fact that a government minister even wrote in a book (hastily taken off the market) that he hoped the situation would be used for "a new cultural hegemony" speaks volumes. Didn't dictatorships always use justifications for threats or emergencies to be instated? An emergency doesn't justify taking away fundamental freedoms. Hence, anything the EU does in this space, justified or not, must be scrutinized.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      > It is my impression that checks and balances, constitutions etc need to work exactly in times of crisis. If they only work when everything is all right, they are useless. Especially when it comes to freedom. Agreed, but you haven't demonstrated that these checks and balances have been violated. At least in the US, authority was exercised and at times found overreaching and at times found well-within Constitutional bounds. That's exactly those checks and balances functioning correctly. > The fact that a government minister even wrote in a book (hastily taken off the market) that he hoped the situation would be used for "a new cultural hegemony" speaks volumes. What volumes does it speak? > Didn't dictatorships always use justifications for threats or emergencies to be instated? Nope, not always. And even if that were true, it's also true that threats or emergencies have sometimes required extraordinary government action that didn't result in dictatorships. > An emergency doesn't justify taking away fundamental freedoms. Hence, anything the EU does in this space, justified or not, must be scrutinized. Of course not. But obviously the debate is what is "a fundamental freedom" and what counts as "taking away." Sure, scrutinize away. Just don't assume that lockdown == illegal == immoral == people don't agree with it == you can just assert that it was illegitimate. People elected the governments they elected, a crisis emerged, and those governments did what they felt they were elected to do, and if you disagree you just vote for different leaders next time around. That's how it works. We're obviously not going to do snap elections every time a new crisis emerges.
      - 3y ago