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.
Yes! They're not opposites. Democracy is *the means by which we achieve liberty*. Not perfect, but better than all the others that have been tried and all that.
This is a good way to put it. Democracy isn't a 1:1 map to liberty, but it's the only system we've found so far which incentivizes liberty from the government.
The question being, how do we achieve liberty if democracy has been compromised? I think it's fair to say that a substantial number of Americans know neither Republicans nor Democrats will ever implement the laws they want/need. What can they do if democracy gives them no voice?
In my opinion, the US obsession with Liberty above all and first shows the deep misunderstanding on what makes a (modern) democracy: it's founded on human rights, including, but not limited, to liberty/freedom. But requires rules to protect other's freedoms + rights.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
