Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
On the one hand, it could be argued that between liberty and democracy, for regular folks, liberty is more important. Tyranny of the majority and whatnot. On the other hand, I see no plausible system where the liberty can be protected in the long run, save by democracy.
The choice between the two is false. It supposes some figure might 'protect' liberty by compromising democracy. Many tyrants have claimed to do this; their claims fair poorly in the judgement of history. If liberty is to be saved, it must be by the people, through a democracy.
When people speak against a "tyranny of the majority", it seems to me the only alternative they can imagine is a tyranny of the *minority*.
I tend to see the issue as more making certain things off-limits to both the majority and the minority. Things like the bill of rights, but also having multiple veto-points in the political process can protect minorities without putting them in charge.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
