I should probably point out that in the OP I wasn't necessarily saying that this freedom is an un-alloyed good thing. I was attempting to draw attention to the trade-off that societies have to make between the benefits of individual freedom (the notion that we should all follow our individual dreams without fear of judgement or the pressure to conform) and the benefits of adherence to traditions and tribal rituals. Both, it seems to me, have their pros and cons.Belindi wrote:I agree with Steve that this general change from authority to freedom seems to be happening. The most conspicuous sign is how women are rebelling against male supremacy and chauvinism, rape and so on.
The quote "In short: freedom" above is from the OP, which says:Londoner wrote:The contrary argument would be that the franchise was extended along with the power of government. The reason that ordinary people did not vote in elections was that nobody dreamed that the state would interfere in ordinary lives in the way it does now. Ordinary life was governed by common law, which was traditional.In short: freedom.
So democracy can be seen as the enemy of individual rights. If our current legal rights are seen as the gift of a democratically elected government, we are also accepting that a democratically elected government can take them away.
So the contrary argument that you've stated here is that the correlation I've described between enfranchisement and freedom is not the whole story. As I understand it, you're putting the argument that we may think we have more individual freedom now, but we actually have less because government has more power over our lives now than it did in the past. It is the increase in the size of government which is more correctly seen as correlating with more universal suffrage. Or maybe the argument could be that the amount of freedom hasn't changed much but the constraints on us have shifted from tribal tradition and ritual to government....This gradual enfranchisement of a larger and larger proportion of society appears to correlate with less and less natural deference towards authority figures, including religious authority figures, and a wider range of lifestyle choices. In short: freedom.
One point I would like to make: When you say "we are also accepting that a democratically elected government can take them away", I suppose that is theoretically not true in countries (like the US) which have a written constitution which purports to set out general principles that can't simply be removed by democratically elected politicians. As I understand it, that's part of the point of having a constitution which forms the baseline on which legislation (which is theoretically decided by the people via their elected representatives) is built. And some people argue that part of the point of that constitution is to limit the size and reach of government.