Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Great piece by friend and colleague @Joshua_A_Tait on the anti-democratic strains in conservatism. As he notes, they don't have to be dominant in the intellectual mixture of the right, but they often have been and clearly are right now.https://thebulwark.com/anti-democratic-conservatism-isnt-new/ …
For my part, I tend to think that 'liberty is more important than democracy' as a conservative position is too clever by half. It is perhaps true in a narrow sense, but I see no prospect of a society retaining the former if it has lost the latter.
for all the fears about the "mob rule of the majority," the actual danger to our liberty comes from the rule of an entrenched minority looking to secure ever-more-permanent advantages
The conservatives have also always carefully maneuvered to make sure the definition of liberty benefits that class of people almost exclusively
isn't this because you have a fundamentally different definition of “liberty”? I agree, if your definition of liberty is an egalitarian liberty. But if - as described in the article - you believe in liberty *for the elite* then I think “liberty” without democracy can be stable.
it's amazing how much conservative thought can be convincingly viewed as an implementation of the old saw “the iron law of conservatism is that there must be an in-group who the law protects but does not bind, and and out-group the law binds but does not protect”.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
