Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
Ahh, so that's the fundamental point we differ on: the inherent trust in our government. I believe in some sort of "power corrupts" reality, for the simple reason that if people can do something that benefits them without getting in trouble for it, they will most likely go for it. Hence why democratic tradition is extremely important.

For example, in the UK, since there is no unified written Constitution, the Parliament could (in theory) revoke laws that guarantee British citizens' freedom. Their extremely long-standing democratic tradition (under an extremely large meaning, it stems from as far as the Magna Carta (1215), putting limits encoded in laws to the absolute royal power) protects them from such a thing: it would never be accepted by the people, and the power in place would be overthrown. That is the power of democratic tradition: protecting from power abuse by the "power of the people", which would revolt if its rights were to be taken away; this, in turn, makes governments stop considering blatant authoritarianism as something even possible when the country's democratic tradition is strong.

The USA's democratic tradition (which has been strongly present ever since the country's foundation, despite the significant flaws in its democratic system) seems to have severely declined over the last decades, and I'm honestly unsure of what has caused this. Perhaps the end of the Cold War removed "the enemy" against which the nation was united in its ideology, although that is only a theory of mine.


I completely agree with this. It's sad how people aren't learning from the lessons of the past on this point: making the State (or any entity) almighty is never good.
That being said, it becomes necessary at some point to stifle "free speech" when it crosses a basic line, which is the line of threats, violence and oppression (grosso modo).
Whether or not you agree doesn't mean you get to tell others you hate their views.