5 ms·
> Even among two nations equally authoritarian in practice, the one where the population all knows and recites the social-mores of democracy is much much better
by jnbiche 12y ago
> Even among two nations equally authoritarian in practice, the one where the population all knows and recites the social-mores of democracy is much much better-off and more likely to achieve them.
This is off-topic, but I disagree strongly. Some of the very worst authoritarian countries (N. Korea, Iraq under Hussain, a depressingly large number of African countries) all share a total devotion to "democracy" and "elections". With the notable exception of dissidents, most citizens of these countries fervently tribute to these ideals, at least in public. I've been to a country like this, in Africa, and this isn't just an act. People actually believe in this democracy.
That said, I do support the shared ideal among hacker culture of "judgment by your work". However, I do strongly oppose the abrasive means by which people are told that their work isn't up to par in this same culture. It's cruel and unnecessary.
It is possible to both judge people by their abilities, and at the same time refrain from being abrasive or cruel toward people who fall short.
- leereeves 12y agoI think the author actually meant the social-mores of classical liberalism (freedom of speech, etc), which protect, imperfectly, from both regal tyranny and the tyranny of the majority.
- CurtMonash 12y agoI don't think we need to go off on the tangent of fake vs. real democracy here. It is widely and correctly agreed that the "best" democracies have a combination of characteristics, including elections (so you can throw the bums out), personal liberties of the social kind, economic liberties, rule of law, etc. But it is fiercely debated -- to an extent irrelevant to this thread -- exactly which characteristics are most important, what constitutes having such a characteristic to excess, etc.