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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Agree, it’s very common pattern, one that in part is caused by power grabs, but also by people suddenly realizing they now the ones in control and if they fail, they’re next on the chopping blocks.
Would be curious about the evolution on ACLU on free speech you referenced. Does this article cover your understanding, or is it something else?
To be fair to ACLU, they did backtrack somewhat on all this. Speaking as a member who joined years before this became somehow contentious for the organization, I hope that it'll get back on track, but I'm pessimistic about it - I think the zeitgeist is too contrary, and historically, ACLU did waver at such times (e.g. on defending rights of communists in 1930-50s).
Might be wrong, but it’s likely that only real solution is for the organization to introduce controls that attempt to put distance between the donors and operations of organization. Issue is donors, especially large ones, are very aware that organizations crave additional funds and often willing to bend the operations and positioning of an organization to gain them.
Beyond that, free speech is complex topic, so one for which I am sure I lack an even partial understanding of. I can easily see how hate speech is outsides of free speech in part because it feels without fail it’s only matter of time before someone takes the words to heart and lashes out in violence.
Given it appears only four lawyers at ACLU actually engage in free speech litigation according to prior article I linked to, beyond ACLU brand recognition and legacy funding, likely be worth funding and alternative organization instead of waiting for ACLU to default on its founding principals; possible retired ACLU free speech attorneys would be willing to mentor and advise these new attorneys.
Lastly, ACLU might easily address issue by making their potential case review assessments public and requiring those assessments include disclosure of any conflicting values and beliefs related to the case, especially case which they choose not to represent.
I don't think it's an issue with big donors specifically, or at least not just them. Thing is, a lot of people join ACLU for other causes - abortion is a popular one, for example. And back in 2016, many lefties joined during the Trump scare, on the general basis that something vaguely like ACLU was needed to push back all across the board. Naturally, the people who would do something like that tend to be those who feel strongly about politics and have strong opinions on various issues. But then those new members bring the entirety of their public politics to the internal politics of the organization, not just that one issue they joined over. A kind of Eternal September, if you will.
I don't think there is a solution to this, though. If ACLU doesn't get a steady supply of new members, it will wither and die. If it constrains itself to be small enough that the available supply of new members who fully support the existing platform is sufficient to sustain it (even as that platform becomes further away from the mainstream), it will be too small and lacking power for many important fights.
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.
> So, the people are not at fault in these situations imo.
In 2022 elections year one of the largest parties in Sweden (Moderaterna) had "more cameras and surveillance on our streets" as one of their big campaign points, including campaign signs and bilboards. It came in second.
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.
There's a difference between "90% of the population is against something" and "the same, but they are also willing to vote against their chosen representative in order to stop it, and have a viable alternative that will".
In the US, we talk a lot of partisan issues that pit parts of the country against one another; and of bipartisan issues that unite them. I'd like to introduce the concept of an antipartisan issue: one that unites the country against its own politicians. In this particular case, surveillance is antipartisan, because:
- People do not want to be surveilled
- Politicians believe the people need to be surveilled in order to stay in office
The last one might seem confusing. But keep in mind that things like high crime rates tend to get politicians thrown out of their job. Big, high-profile busts of scumbag criminals tend to make politicians look more competent and thus increase chances of reelection. And if politicians as a class believe that surveillance is necessary to prosecute crime, then they will disobey democratic instruction not to.
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.
Agree, there’s rarely critical point that would merit such a response, but obviously one that for some reason, for example being invaded by an authoritarian regime that intents to kill you regardless of what you to would I think for most be an ethical response. Fortunately, world has managed to avoid significant percentage of the world needing to make that choice for awhile.
While understand the death from thousands of little paper cuts issue, generally speaking, even when face with notable conflict, most people rarely independently take responsibility for insuring they aware of what’s going on and attempt to have an impact on the situation.
> 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.
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.
> My understanding is the majority of people on Earth stay within days walking distance from where they grew up.
I can't see where you're disagreeing with me. What I'm saying is that people aren't choosing democracy, they just happen to live in one, and aren't willing or able to give up everything in order to move to a country that matches their political beliefs better.
> there are numerous countries that if they wanted could easily cover the costs related to relocating anyone
I don't understand what this means. If who wanted? Are you saying that there are lots of countries that are paying poor people to immigrate to them?
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'.
For clarity though, I don’t mean literal predictability, I mean relative predictability from the individual’s perspective, which for some actual means life being predictability unpredictable; to some degree, I am, in part because I value the chance to improvise, but anyone that knows me would say that’s predictable.
As for population migration, statistics I had heard before, was roughly half of world’s population doesn’t move more than days walk from where they grew up and remaining in a given area is rarely tied to personal or regional opportunities or threats. Clearly my understanding might be wrong or things like climate change might force people to move; for example, roughly billion of the eight billion people on Earth will likely be displaced by climate change.
I am absolutely willing to buy the rationale based on personal anecdata, but wouldn't it also mean that the other half of the world's population does ( as in, it is basically a coin toss as to whether or move or not)?
I might be conflating some word meanings here so please correct me as needed.
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.
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.
> 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.
Russia as a polity is very confused on this. Officially, it's civic nationalist - you're supposed to think of yourself as a part of the "Russian nation" regardless of your ethnicity, but it's also defined broadly to allow for incomplete assimilation.
As a side note, it's more difficult to talk about this in (most) languages other than Russian because they don't have the distinction that Russian itself does. The word "русский" ("russky") usually means Russian in an ethnic sense, while the word "российский" ("rossiyskiy" - from the name of the country, which is Rossiya in Russian) means Russian in a sense of pertaining or belonging to the country. Thus you can compare and contrast "russky nationalism" (ethnic) and "rossiyskiy nationalism" (civic).
In practice, the government tolerates and sometimes encourages ethnic Russian nationalism so long as it does not manifest as open political opposition.
I don't think your reading lines up with history. Putin was clearly content to allow Ukraine a large degree of sovereignty and autonomy as long as they remained under an authoritarian system. If nationalism was the only driver, why overthrow Yanukovych, thereby spitting in Putin's face and risking domination by another country?
What wasn't tolerable to Putin was a bourgeoning democracy on Russia's doorstep with similar ethnography and demography to Russia. If it proved to be more successful than Russia's model (which isn't hard), that's a clear threat to his regime.
'I think this has extraordinarily little to do with any "political system", of which Ukraine and Russia were both quite similar.'
It seems like you're simply ignoring what happened in 2014. The stark difference between Ukraine and Russia's political systems (and their future trajectories) after that point is one of the main causes of the war.
The "authoritarian system" in question was russia's ethnic-imperial system of empire. That it was "authoritarian" is far less important than its being Russian, ethnically and culturally.
The offense to russia was first to turn to the west, and hence as Russia sees it, a counter-empire; and the secondly, the suprise and outrage, to believe that it's a Nation.
Both are incomprehensible to Russia -- it has nothing to do with how "authoritarian" anything is.
I see some truth to your point, but it's also very reductive, and you're providing nothing to back up your reductionism.
The "turn to the west" is geopolitical but it's also a turn away from a conservative authoritarian order and toward a liberal democratic order. Is that just a meaningless geopolitical coincidence? No, it's clearly part of the equation, though certainly not the only part.
Well my point is only that a person reading my comments comes to see their "intuitive nationalism" as an explicit feature of their thinking, rather than a natural fact of the world.
My analysis doesnt need to be 100% to show that even the very idea of "invasion" in the modern sense is full of contingencies we don't acknowledge.
What a weird thing, no, in the history of the world that the US invades iraq and wishes for it to govern "itself".
Once you remove the "Nation" from your thinking, various issues become clearer, esp. why so many "countries" appear unstable. Ie., politically they are countries, but havent yet "progressed" to "default nationalism".
Once a region adopts nationalism, it seems there's no going back; and people of that Nation are fundamentally radicalised by that notion. There are "borders", "immigration" and indeed -- how strangely -- "illegal" immigration; there are armies, and you should join one if you're "invaded".
These ideas appear in our thinking as transparent, obvious, facts of the world; and if we feel they are violated, then we feel outraged -- and would act very severely to get redress. This is radicalism, and a certain "liberal nationalism" has deeply radicalised the west.
I think, foremost, we want Ukraine to fight Russia because we believe Ukraine to be a Nation. I think something many of its own people did not think 20 years ago, and now, many die because they believe it.
I actually like the point you tried to develop in this thread, because I feel most people don't question their assumptions often enough. However, you are clearly reducing complex phenomena to a single cause, incorrectly so in my opinion.
Greek city-states fought each other all the time. They definitely had a concept of "Nation", even though they would have a different name for it. All patterns you associate with Nationalism were there, including xenophobia - that's where the goddamn word was created. The rise of what we call Nationalism in modernity has its own peculiarities, including the rise of military-industrial complexes that have every incentive to weaponize it as well. But it is simply wrong to think that, for example, the issue between Ukraine and Russia can be meaningfully reduced to one or the other side "adopting nationalism". Also, it is factually incorrect to say 20 years ago Ukrainians (or inhabitants of that region) would have wanted to be ruled by Putin or Russia in general.
It gets less clear-cut as the war drags on. For example, a rather extreme law on mass media has been passed in Ukraine recently, with the justification that it is necessary to block Russian propaganda.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine ends up winning a Pyrrhic victory in a sense that it'll liberate all of its territory, but its internal politics will radicalize in the process, if not to the point of becoming outright non-democratic, then at least becoming more like Hungary or Poland: a democratic majority voting in fully support of a crackdown on all political, ideological, and cultural opposition.
Yes, that is true, though similar erosions of democracy also happen in well-established democracies like the US and UK when there are wars. I think there is clearly still an aspiration towards western-style liberal democracy even if there are many gaps in how it's implemented.
I think this aspiration is the fundamental problem for Putin. He sees it as encouraging things like the ousting of Yanukovych, which he desperately wants to stop from being repeated in other countries within his sphere of influence. He already almost lost Belarus in a similar way.
I'm pretty sure that Putin literally believes all that tripe about "triune people", and I don't think he needed any excuses beyond that. Well, there's also the part where I think he really wants to end up in the history textbooks with the same standing as Ivan III and other famous "gatherers of the land".
So, in a sense, he is also fighting for his country and its nation - it just happens to be an imaginary one: "Greater Russia".
> Before "nations" people didnt regard borders, states, etc. as they do today. "citizenship" of a "nation" is a relatively recent phenomenon.
"Nationalism" had more to do with the relationship between the state and the nation, not the existence of nations. The word "nation" is very old.
Nation comes from the Latin "natio" meaning "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe"[0]. Thus, the essential basis for nationality is familial, a matter of common descent (as all human beings form an extended family, where you draw the line on this blurry map will depend on other factors like culture and language and ultimately the good held in common; note how Croats, Serbs, and Bosnians speak basically the same language, it is the religious and therefore cultural differences that separate them). Naturally, people migrate all the time between nations. That is normal to the degree that migration does not harm the common good of the host society. But immigration is effectively a matter of adoption. We can adopt children. We can also adopt nations.
To expand just a bit more, the map is very blurry. Nation states tap into some real and old sentiments, but are not just a translation of those to a modern political language. They are their own new political projects, with a shape that is a result of historical happenstance and personal ambitions of specific people. It is surprisingly malleable – depending on what common enemies appear, what leaders and writers become popular, etc.
You are fighting for who has the “monopoly of violence”, which is the most natural thing ever, that we have those cliques as big as they are might not be though.
Tribes have existed since before written history; not sure if you’re referring to something else, but to me a tribe is essentially same thing, us vs them.
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.
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.
"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."
Where are you from? This is an initiative of the EU Commission. The EU is not a democracy, the Commission doesn't care what voters think and is quite open about that. It can take that attitude because there are no voters: the Commission is an appointed civil service and the people there get their jobs via opaque processes. So the Commission trying to do something tells us exactly nothing about society, democracy, the will of the majority, how supported the policy is, or anything else beyond what a tiny club of Eurocrats thinks and wants.
As for the percentage of people who want to live in a totalitarian system, it's probably about 25%-30%. A lot but not a majority. That's roughly the proportion of people who in polls in the UK during the Brexit campaigns said they're true EU supporters, and not merely supporting it due to fear of the consequences of disobedience. Why do they like it and support it so much, well, exactly because it's not a democratic system and they'd like to live under such a system (they had no answer back to criticism of the EU as undemocratic).
>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.
I don't see how a democratic system could possibly work without nationalism. Why would you allow people all over the world to vote in your country's elections? This runs completely counter to the very idea of democracy, which is that people should govern themselves and choose their own leaders. People outside the country being non-citizens is simply necessary for this to work at all.
Understand your point, though you might make voting requirements that for example require a residence duration. Problem with that is it would likely result use of cost of living increases that would make residence unaffordable by default.
That said, would be extremely interesting if the whole world was allowed to vote how things would go, never know until you actually try. Likely closest existing comparable would be the UN, not because of it’s democratic representation, but because on the global nature of its membership. Also, easily see other countries actually making dual citizenship illegal, which would mean to
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.
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:
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.
As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond.
This comment by me within this thread might also expand on the topic you’re asking about:
1. I have seen that page multiple times. For starters, what does it have to do with plutocracy? Do you know there are different forms of democracy? What does a direct democracy have to do with plutocracy? You seem to conflate true democracy with direct democracy.
You can have a true democracy that is indirect and not plutocratic. You can assert otherwise but nothing in the definitions contradict that.
2. We seem to be going back and forth. But it seems you don't have any country that matches your original definition
3. > As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond.
This is another strange shift in the thread. I am *not* asking for a non-global power that will impact the course of humanity. My simple original request was just a single power that fits your *original* definition of true democracy (not the modified one you suddenly have presented here).
It is not irrelevant as a true democratic non-global power can become a huge power (thanks to true democracy^TM).
Direct Democracy was addressed and criticized specifically by American founding fathers. You should read the fedaralist papers, specifically the numbers written by Madison. They were aware of what I see here as an extremely naive case for "democracy".
No thanks, if you have a point to raise, please do so yourself in plain-English, I am not going to read 80-100 documents written hundreds of years ago by men who thought a democracy meant 3-5% of the population should be able to control the rest.
> Well, I think we had a solid bipartisan support for classical-liberism up until 2015.
This is a fantasy history. We have had solid bipartisan support for neoliberalism (property rights are king) and neoconservatism (and we need motivating myths about them to keep the proles in line) for a long time. That consensus continues. "Classical liberalism" has never been popular anywhere.
edit: we're having an extreme authoritarian wave as a reaction to the internet, but we shouldn't pretend like we don't come from countries that used to open people's mail to look for pamphlets about contraception.
“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.
Thank you for the clear breakdown, thought that might be a possible explanation, but didn’t want to assume.
> Reply to: “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.”
Rights while sometimes related to responsibilities, resistance, etc — obviously do not always require those features to be present. For example, basic human rights. In this case, right to privacy for many is a basic human right. Additional rights, for example voting rights, might be limited to factors like those mentioned prior.
> Reply to: “This is where I think the breakthrough was lost in my opinion.”
Stating the obvious, repressive law enforcement requires repressive laws. Further, citizenship by default based on some preexisting factors, such as birth parents being citizens and present in the country at the time of birth, clearly already exist as a path to citizenship which requires literally no threshold other than having happened to be born within those circumstances. If those citizens, while in many cases given rights, must follow laws. As such, might easily make laws that state things such as it is a crime to participate in creation, administration, enforcement, etc - of laws which breach basic human rights. As such, those individuals might in turn lose voting rights, face trial, etc.
_________
Additional clarification: Again, not claiming to have solution, just attempting to understand a potential root cause of the situation. For example, if non-citizens have no right to privacy, it makes sense to develop technologies, skills, etc to use for surveillance of non-citizens. Problem is in doing so that it creates a culture that sees such behavior as justifiable and creates tangible resources that might easily be used on citizens at the whim of current leadership.
If there’s anything that’s flawed reasoning, needs clarification, etc — just let me know and happy to attempt to resolve it.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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."
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.
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.