There is the need for dissent within in the political sphere for this treaty, and I'm certain that many activists will take this strategy up. There's also room for technological dissent; for citizens to develop strategies and technologies to mitigate the effects if this treaty does go into effect.

We're all in the same boat.

Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".

Since you can't have government by, for, and of the people without freedom, and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government, I don't feel too bad about conflating the two. Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?

I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress. Do you think you'd get far with a startup in a less egalitarian society? You might, but the fact that your grandfather didn't know the right people's grandfathers is going to really weigh you down. It's only the basic assumption of equality of all people that make it possible for most to start anything new. And I do take it for granted that everyone here believes that starting new things is the way to go.

So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have?

Nothing.

This probably deserves a lot more thought and space than I can fit in this margin.

It's not at all clear that America was supposed to be about this, even if that is what they teach in schools today. However since it's not really relevant I won't argue the point further.

> Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?

Many monarchies and similar governments throughout history have allowed more freedom for their citizens than today's democracies. Of course, no one is completely free under any of these governments (certainly not a democratic one).

> I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress...that make it possible for most to start anything new.

You really, really shouldn't take that as a given, especially that "democratic" part. It is understandable, though, that many people believe this -- considering it's essentially what has been taught in schools for the last century or so. Do you really believe enterprise did not flourish in the West until after the rise of democracy? That is not what history shows.

> what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing.

Not that I want your hypothetical to come true, but it is worth considering that tax rates in monarchies were generally quite low (<10%), especially when compared to the tax rates in today's democracies. There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.

That's kind of where a link would go.

I can't tell whether you're a monarchist or a libertarian, but your overall stance appears to be out-and-out libertarianism. To which I can only say: show me one. Show me a successful stateless nation (Afghanistan is the only one that springs to mind), and I'll subscribe to your newsletter. In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote.

The same goes for monarchy. Show me an absolute monarchy that stays a good place for more than a generation or two - long enough for the good king to die and his half-wit nephew to take over - and I might give you that one, too. In the meantime, the raging free-for-all that America started out being is a pretty good start on a system that takes the human reality, that political power does in fact and will always in fact exist, and guides society away from the feudalism that both monarchy and libertarianism necessarily approach.

Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you.

I personally think America will totter back from this brink, as well, and clearly there are problems all around us. But to say that democracy itself is the root? No. You're going to have to be more eloquent.

> In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote.

Yes, I know the quote, but I'm not sure you do. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797

> Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you.

If this is what you believe, I doubt you are familiar with much of the work of either of those groups. Who said anything about the top 0.5%? Do you really think all of the bottom 99.5% in a monarchy were like chattel slaves, but today's bottom 99.5% are free as a bird? Please consider what I wrote earlier -- even the average citizen was more free in many non-democratic countries.

You doubt that people wanted to move to the old European monarchies? Even if we're only talking about the present, I'm not a fan, but there are plenty of people who would love to move to the UAE.

You can if the people don't want freedom--i.e. if the majority of the people want to oppress a minority. You don't have a free society if your 80% white state votes 70-30 to segregate the blacks, for instance.

If the people can be easily convinced to limit their freedom out of fear, you can also have an unfree democracy.

"and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government"

"Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?"

This is actually questionable as well. Salutary neglect by a foreign imperial power successfully resulted in civil freedom in colonial America and in pre-1997 Hong Kong, for two. I suspect many of Britain's other colonies received similar treatment. The American Revolution was directly caused by a revision in Britain's policy of salutary neglect, but it's questionable 200 years later whether it really left us off any more free.

"So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have?"

As opposed to a democratic society where an envious populist movement taxes you at 99% of your income as soon as they think you have too much money and are becoming an elitist?

democracy = everybody gets a vote. If we where a democracy, I did not get to vote, because I was not allowed to see the text of the subject to make an informed decision.

Anyway, we are not a democracy we are a republic which is evident by the fact that I did not get a vote on the issue. The elected leaders did and this is the problem with a republic over a democracy, someone is doing the voting for you and after that someone has received your vote to put them their they tend to forget about the people that got them there.

Not really, even the Constitution is amendable by a super majority. You should have said a simple majority.

In any case, I would make the stronger point that you can't really have freedom with democracy.

[1] The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997