919
Proton Mail founder vows to fight Australia’s eSafety regulator in court rather than spy on users | Australia news | The Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We need a robust democracy with strong regulation, not a lack of structure in our society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This. Anarchism is not the way, democratic control is.

    Structurelessness only leads to tyranny of another kind. Read Jo Freeman's thoughts on this concept:

    https://jacobin.com/2019/09/tyranny-structurelessness-jo-freeman-consciousness-raising-women-liberation-feminism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Anarchism means people can protect themselves and their community without a state interfering. This means if you don't protect yourself you pay consequences. Those that would become tyrannical don't appear fully formed.

    A functional anarchist society needs cultural mechanisms, i.e. tolerance of self defense at all levels, these should be able to prevent psychopaths from growing old. But I'm limited in what I can write here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Agreed. Essentially the big reason many people support the idea of a government is simply because it is an effective deferral of responsibility for certain issues. The most effective example is unironically the existence of the government "benefit".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Democracy tends toward corruption as any concentration of power will.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah so we have a robust system of checks and balances, strong regulation and systemic processes to discourage corruption. For example, if you are in your role due to a public election or representing a public body and you are found to have taken bribes you have to serve 20 years in prison and lose all entitlements associated with your office including pensions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Except it mostly doesn't work. For every corrupt official going to prison you have 10 getting away with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This isn't a reality, I'm saying the system could work if.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Ah ok. I would've agreed with you not too long ago.

    I've since become convinced that any concentration of power will attract exactly the type that should not wield it and therefore a society that wants to maximize things like freedom and minimize things like needless suffering should strive to build a society where power is not needed. I realize this would take time and could not come from violent revolution, but instead cultural change over a generation or two. In the meantime, democracy, imperfect as it is, with checks and balances can help keep things stable enough for cultural change to occur in this world.

    What is power used for except to coerce people to do your bidding instead of their own? I want to clarify that capability for self-defense/community- defense I don't consider power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent