4 ms·

Wich also means that America has a confortable margin to improve. Their own genius lies in pragmatism, I wouldn't bet against them when necessity joins the game

by astrid 18y ago

Wich also means that America has a confortable margin to improve. Their own genius lies in pragmatism, I wouldn't bet against them when necessity joins the game.

alecco 18y ago
Indeed! US was a beacon of freedom before the Bush administration, together with France. Making an analogy to free software, US is BSD and France is GPL. For example France forces its citizens to be free, like a recent case denying citizenship to a very submissive Muslim-traditionalist woman as she was admittedly waiving her rights for her husband's. Also US has a gigantic human capital with well educated population. It is a bit hard, but IMHO the change has to start with media. Perhaps applying existing laws against the advertisement cartel. But this is the French-style of freedom. I don't know.
- yters 18y ago
  That's a funny kind of freedom.
  - omouse 18y ago
    Not really. It's freedom defending itself. The freedom to take away your own freedom...sounds kind of silly don't you think?
    - netcan 18y ago
      I've thought about these kinds of things often lately. Freedom defending itself, democracy defending itself & such. What should be done about anti-democratic parties in a democratic society? Those kinds of things. I am coming to the conclusion that you hit a breaking point if this becomes to big an issue. Sure it's ok to handle it one way or another if the above party is at <5%. But once they near the 50% mark, it's game over. You cannot defend democracy or freedom without compromising it. Same goes in this case. When it's a once a year case, that's one thing. But if you have a large number voluntarily relinquishing freedoms, it is no longer a free state.
      - yters 18y ago
        My view is that as long as relinquishing one's own freedom does not impact the freedom of others, then it should slide. This assumes the person relinquishing is doing so voluntarily and with full knowledge of the alternatives. Otherwise, it isn't really freedom in the libertarian sense, since people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Plus, what makes a person feel free can vary from person to person, so if "freedom" is being mandated as in France, then it can actually become totalitarian in the name of "freedom."
        netcan 18y ago
        Say you have a democratically elected anti-democratic party. Or even a large minority party. It's usually not so straightforward because democracies & demi-democracies normally disallow these. But they do exist. Currently theocratic movements lead the trend. If you allow these to run, you get a theocracy. If you disallow it, you no longer have a democracy. As long as they're small you can suppress them in the name of defending democracy. But defending democracy against the demos really ends democracy if it is in any way substantial.

by astrid 18y ago

Wich also means that America has a confortable margin to improve. Their own genius lies in pragmatism, I wouldn't bet against them when necessity joins the game.

alecco 18y ago

Indeed! US was a beacon of freedom before the Bush administration, together with France. Making an analogy to free software, US is BSD and France is GPL. For example France forces its citizens to be free, like a recent case denying citizenship to a very submissive Muslim-traditionalist woman as she was admittedly waiving her rights for her husband's. Also US has a gigantic human capital with well educated population. It is a bit hard, but IMHO the change has to start with media. Perhaps applying existing laws against the advertisement cartel. But this is the French-style of freedom. I don't know.

yters 18y ago
That's a funny kind of freedom.
- omouse 18y ago
  Not really. It's freedom defending itself. The freedom to take away your own freedom...sounds kind of silly don't you think?
  - netcan 18y ago
    I've thought about these kinds of things often lately. Freedom defending itself, democracy defending itself & such. What should be done about anti-democratic parties in a democratic society? Those kinds of things. I am coming to the conclusion that you hit a breaking point if this becomes to big an issue. Sure it's ok to handle it one way or another if the above party is at <5%. But once they near the 50% mark, it's game over. You cannot defend democracy or freedom without compromising it. Same goes in this case. When it's a once a year case, that's one thing. But if you have a large number voluntarily relinquishing freedoms, it is no longer a free state.
    - yters 18y ago
      My view is that as long as relinquishing one's own freedom does not impact the freedom of others, then it should slide. This assumes the person relinquishing is doing so voluntarily and with full knowledge of the alternatives. Otherwise, it isn't really freedom in the libertarian sense, since people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Plus, what makes a person feel free can vary from person to person, so if "freedom" is being mandated as in France, then it can actually become totalitarian in the name of "freedom."
      - netcan 18y ago
        Say you have a democratically elected anti-democratic party. Or even a large minority party. It's usually not so straightforward because democracies & demi-democracies normally disallow these. But they do exist. Currently theocratic movements lead the trend. If you allow these to run, you get a theocracy. If you disallow it, you no longer have a democracy. As long as they're small you can suppress them in the name of defending democracy. But defending democracy against the demos really ends democracy if it is in any way substantial.