Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Ian Bremmer: The United States Isn't Sweden | Lessons We Don't Have | Response to NYT's Tom Friedman" video.

The thing about democratic countries is that what should be is determined by the people. If the majority want to sacrifice the vulnerable and those who care for them to maintain freedom of movement, they can do that. Likewise, if they want to shut down the economy and force everyone into lockdown to avoid casualties, they can do that too. They can also find something in the middle, balancing the desire for personal freedom against the existing threats that that freedom enables. Your opinion that freedom outweighs safety is valued, but in a democracy, only the majority opinion determines what should and shouldn't be.
4
@josearaujo8616 I disagree with you that freedom is an essential part of a democracy. One of the great fears of Alexander Hamilton was something called "the Tyranny of the Majority", and he had good reason to fear it. I don't think I'm confusing freedom with agreeing with a decision that restricts freedom. Then again, I'm not advocating for freedom. I would contend that dictatorships do not always have popular support. They are often one false move away from overthrow, which is why so many dictators are paranoid. A competent dictator can be an asset during a crisis, but outside of a crisis they are often resented. For this reason many of them consistently seek new crises.
2
@josearaujo8616 A state of emergency is just that, something bad is happening that threatens the peoples' immediate welfare. It may, or it may not, be justification for suspending normal operations or taking extraordinary measures. Just because you have a state of emergency doesn't mean you have to dissolve the legislature, though usually the best branch to deal with it in a timely manner is the executive (assuming you don't have a complete idiot running the executive). The use of extraordinary powers during a state of emergency can admittedly be a tool for undermining a democracy and it should be monitored very closely but there are events short of invasion that I would consider worthy of declaration of a state of emergency, and I would include a pandemic in that short list.
1
@josearaujo8616 You're right about the vulnerability of democracies to dictatorship during crises. But you're still conflating freedom with democracy and they are two completely independent concepts. You can have freedom with or without democracy and you can have democracy with or without freedom. It's perfectly fine for you to desire and defend both, but they're not the same thing.
1
@josearaujo8616 I'm not trying to be condescending when I say this. I mean this sincerely. I'm sorry that your disappointed in the way people are willing to give up some freedom for safety. Our survival instincts are strong and people have always been willing to make that trade. You're probably going to see it many times in your life. While I don't worship freedom the way a lot of my peers do, I am very concerned about who is in charge during this crisis and if power is seized who is in place to seize it. After all, some dictators are ,more palatable than others. Having said that, I don't want to see democracy undermined in my country. It's too much of a fundamental part of our identity. Even though I find the choices of our electorate to be regularly disappointing, I don't think it's worth destroying in the extreme off-chance that we may get something marginally better. I may not love freedom, but I despise revolution. Anyway, I hope you're being safe and acting responsibly during this crisis. If not I'll be sending my secret police out to re-educate you. Have a great day, Alan
1
@stefanjohansson6316 Hopefully you've got some guidelines written into your legal code somewhere. Otherwise it's a gamble someone takes and either they get shot down or succeed. There are real states of emergency though. There are times that decisive leadership is necessary. And yes, there is always a danger that once someone has been granted extra authority that it's very difficult to withdraw it. All of your concerns are legitimate, and you have every right to bring those concerns out and to advocate for position. And you may win, but you may be overruled, whether you think that's acceptable or not. That's how politics goes, and it doesn't always lead to happy endings.
1
@stefanjohansson6316 It's very ironic indeed, and no I don't have to defend democracy because democracy is not a panacea, it's one of a number of legitimate forms of government. The loss of democracy in the United States and a number of other current democracies would be very destabilizing and very dangerous because of that. I will defend democracy in countries where democracy is currently the legitimate and functional form of government on those grounds. However, democracy doesn't mean total lack of leadership in a crisis. The President, Chancellor or Prime Minister in a democracy is the people's top official and s/he should be expected to take the measures necessary to both protect the people as subjects and to obey the people as sovereign.
1