3 hours ago, KJW said:

I should point out that I'm not living under a Nazi regime where one has to carry "papers" with them just in case one is stopped in the street by the Gestapo. When I mentioned showing ID, it was for things like opening a bank account rather than proving my entitlement to exist. Having a physical ID is a rigorous proof of identity from my perspective, whereas a digital ID may become unavailable due to some form of technological glitch that I have no control over.

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

The point of what I said in my original post is that the holder of a physical ID has control over the ID, whereas the holder of a digital ID no longer has control over the ID, that control having been transferred to the administrating body of the digital IDs. While there are scenarios in which a physical ID might not be sufficient, there are more scenarios in which a digital ID might not be sufficient, including every scenario in which a physical ID has been revoked.

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.

The printing press is part of the technology, you're suggesting is encroaching on your freedom and control.

The digital audit trail, I would argue, is harder to fake, or destroy, than a printed document; I acknowledge that no system is perfect or free of fakery.

Any dictatorship worth it's salt, will be the sole arbiter of reality.

Technology is never the problem, it's the insidious nature of an ageing demography and the rose tinted nature of their vision.

4 hours ago, KJW said:

I should point out that I'm not living under a Nazi regime where one has to carry "papers" with them just in case one is stopped in the street by the Gestapo. When I mentioned showing ID, it was for things like opening a bank account rather than proving my entitlement to exist. Having a physical ID is a rigorous proof of identity from my perspective, whereas a digital ID may become unavailable due to some form of technological glitch that I have no control over.

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

The point of what I said in my original post is that the holder of a physical ID has control over the ID, whereas the holder of a digital ID no longer has control over the ID, that control having been transferred to the administrating body of the digital IDs. While there are scenarios in which a physical ID might not be sufficient, there are more scenarios in which a digital ID might not be sufficient, including every scenario in which a physical ID has been revoked.

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.

I presume that even with a digital ID system you could always print out documents confirming your identity and keep a copy somewhere safe in case of problems.

Estonia adopted digital ID some year ago. There is a review of how this went here: https://www.publictechnology.net/2025/11/13/society-and-welfare/how-estonia-made-digital-id-work-through-choice-transparency-and-trust/

There is a discussion in the UK about introducing digital ID, partly to combat crime and illegal immigration. But it would also replace the various tiresome requests from different sorts of proof of ID required by banks, the legal system and government departments. I don't really see the problem.

5 hours ago, KJW said:

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism.

Bear in mind that humanity is just as scared of the shadow's, as is 'Ozymandias' the greatest of Kings. 😉

It's like Batman v Superman, a hidden joke by Spiderwoman...

Edited Thursday at 01:57 PM3 days by dimreepr

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I presume that even with a digital ID system you could always print out documents confirming your identity and keep a copy somewhere safe in case of problems.

Estonia adopted digital ID some year ago. There is a review of how this went here: https://www.publictechnology.net/2025/11/13/society-and-welfare/how-estonia-made-digital-id-work-through-choice-transparency-and-trust/

There is a discussion in the UK about introducing digital ID, partly to combat crime and illegal immigration. But it would also replace the various tiresome requests from different sorts of proof of ID required by banks, the legal system and government departments. I don't really see the problem.

I think the optimal backup would be a paper copy that is printed in some special way (like those special vertical security threads that react to UV light, in US bills of larger denomination) by a government office and is impossible to counterfeit. If there were a glitch or hack of the digital ID, this would be insurance. You wouldn't normally carry it around, but keep it on a secure location for such an emergency. It wouid be better insurance than something printed at home.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.

That is my broader point though, hidden authoritarianism can be exemplified by arbitrary application of rules to certain people. That is what we are seeing in the US, where ICE and border control seemingly arbitrarily accept or reject various levels of proof of citizenship. In a broader sense, this arbitrariness has always existed at borders as the agents there can legally deny you entry except when you are a citizen, I believe.

I.e. you do not need a full-on gestapo moment, but there built-in vulnerabilities, even in not fully autocratic systems. The main difference in my mind is how these vulnerabilities are being exploited. After all, in the US in theory you always had to prove your legal status if you are not a citizen. But generally you wouldn't be stopped on a random basis. But it was always fully in their power to do so in public places.

Edit: with regard to OP and this point here specifically, the broader issue is that authoritarianism is not binary. Even in an otherwise liberal (as in free) system, there are necessary restrictions as well as vulnerabilities. How free a given society is depends not only on whether the whole structure is authoritarian or not, but rather on how the many individual components, ranging from the bureaucracy, law enforcement, judiciary, but also voter decisions decide to run things and what restrictions and safeguards we put into place and how we decided to enforce those.

The slide in authoritarianism in Weimar, but also many other countries in recent times was often not after a coup and a massive restructuring of the system. Instead, they are characterized by continuous undermining of safeguards on all levels. In the given example, offline paperwork would only provide benefits, if they are robust safeguards forcing for example law enforcement to accept them. Yet much of it still lies in the discretion of the officer. And again, in the US we can see how fast the discretion can change.

35 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think the optimal backup would be a paper copy that is printed in some special way (like those special vertical security threads that react to UV light, in US bills of larger denomination) by a government office and is impossible to counterfeit. If there were a glitch or hack of the digital ID, this would be insurance. You wouldn't normally carry it around, but keep it on a secure location for such an emergency. It wouid be better insurance than something printed at home.

Yes you could get one at the town hall or something, with anti-counterfeit markings like a passport.

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think the optimal backup would be a paper copy that is printed in some special way (like those special vertical security threads that react to UV light, in US bills of larger denomination) by a government office and is impossible to counterfeit. If there were a glitch or hack of the digital ID, this would be insurance. You wouldn't normally carry it around, but keep it on a secure location for such an emergency. It wouid be better insurance than something printed at home.

That's a lot of tech... I'll bet there's a computer involved...

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is my broader point though, hidden authoritarianism can be exemplified by arbitrary application of rules to certain people. That is what we are seeing in the US, where ICE and border control seemingly arbitrarily accept or reject various levels of proof of citizenship. In a broader sense, this arbitrariness has always existed at borders as the agents there can legally deny you entry except when you are a citizen, I believe.

I.e. you do not need a full-on gestapo moment, but there built-in vulnerabilities, even in not fully autocratic systems. The main difference in my mind is how these vulnerabilities are being exploited. After all, in the US in theory you always had to prove your legal status if you are not a citizen. But generally you wouldn't be stopped on a random basis. But it was always fully in their power to do so in public places.

Edit: with regard to OP and this point here specifically, the broader issue is that authoritarianism is not binary. Even in an otherwise liberal (as in free) system, there are necessary restrictions as well as vulnerabilities. How free a given society is depends not only on whether the whole structure is authoritarian or not, but rather on how the many individual components, ranging from the bureaucracy, law enforcement, judiciary, but also voter decisions decide to run things and what restrictions and safeguards we put into place and how we decided to enforce those.

The slide in authoritarianism in Weimar, but also many other countries in recent times was often not after a coup and a massive restructuring of the system. Instead, they are characterized by continuous undermining of safeguards on all levels. In the given example, offline paperwork would only provide benefits, if they are robust safeguards forcing for example law enforcement to accept them. Yet much of it still lies in the discretion of the officer. And again, in the US we can see how fast the discretion can change.

Indeed +1

But when a "law enforcement officer", on a whim, can decide to be a judge and executioner; the event horizon, has already been crossed...

21 hours ago, CharonY said:

The slide in authoritarianism in Weimar, but also many other countries in recent times was often not after a coup and a massive restructuring of the system. Instead, they are characterized by continuous undermining of safeguards on all levels. In the given example, offline paperwork would only provide benefits, if they are robust safeguards forcing for example law enforcement to accept them. Yet much of it still lies in the discretion of the officer.

This seems the heart of the matter. We are seeing enforcers who are allowed to go rogue, not accountable to local/state authorities or established protocols. As long as the MAGA admin can keep the heat to a slow simmer, the frog never jumps out of the pot and so gets boiled eventually. A major problem for authoritarians in the US is the partial autonomy of the states. Which can, among other rights, sue the federal government when they overstep.

23 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is my broader point though, hidden authoritarianism can be exemplified by arbitrary application of rules to certain people. That is what we are seeing in the US, where ICE and border control seemingly arbitrarily accept or reject various levels of proof of citizenship.

It’s not hidden, though, and in light of the thread title, the “mechanism” is not built in to the system, but is coming about because the powers that be have decided not to follow the rules - not respecting rights and not holding transgressors accountable. The collaboration by various non-governmental entities - e.g. the press and businesses, is another part of the mechanism which is not hidden. It’s very much out in the open.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

We are seeing enforcers who are allowed to go rogue, not accountable to local/state authorities or established protocols.

I don't think they are going rogue, they are doing as intended.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It’s not hidden, though, and in light of the thread title, the “mechanism” is not built in to the system, but is coming about because the powers that be have decided not to follow the rules - not respecting rights and not holding transgressors accountable.

I disagree somewhat. I think you are right regarding the intention of the system having accountability as well as checks and balances. However, when it comes to the rules, there are loop holes, intentional or not, that allows certain types of transgressions. For example, there are very few legal paths to hold federal law enforcement (or even state law enforcement). Qualified immunity in the US system is such an element. In essence, it provides government officials performing discretionary functions with immunity, unless the official 1) violated clearly established constitutional rights and 2) only if the those rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. Courts have increasingly narrowed those definitions making it exceedingly difficult to hold authorities accountable via the judicial system.

Thus, it often becomes the discretion of the executive to create rules, protocols and other mechanisms to reign in the likelihood of government officials to overstep or to be hold accountable.

This, in my mind then becomes a hidden lever that an authoritarian administration, such as the current one, can use in order to insulate itself from accountability. They may or may not breaking the rules as such, but first and foremost they are "just" breaking the norms. Of course, in other areas they are actively defying court orders, which adds another dimension to it but. But it also means that means to force the executive to follow laws or rules are weak (essentially the job of congress).

Edit: the point I tried to make in a convoluted way is that the system has to have rules and accountability firmly established to ensure that rules are followed. Yet if there are weaknesses in it, they can be "hidden" as long as norms are followed, but can be ignored without triggering consequences under certain circumstances. Not sure whether that is clearer though, probably need another coffee or six.

I think the perspective of OP is wrong though. It seems that they see imperfection in democracies the same as a fully autocratic system, which is basically just confusing a potential slippery slope with the end of the road.

Fundamentally, any democratic system, in fact, any rules-based systems will have weaknesses as ensuring freedom for the population requires compromises. These weaknesses might or might be hidden, but they do need safeguarding to ensure that they will stop a slide towards illiberalism. There is an interesting book on that matter (the light that failed) which outlines why this is so difficult. One fitting quote that I heard from that author was something to the effect of: "the border between authoritarianism and democracy is the least protected border in the world."

And each democracy has its owns strengths and weaknesses in protecting this border. But again, it is not like OP seems to make it out that there is none.

The US system, in part due how historically it has been formed, puts a high premium on individualism as well as norms and conventions to as safeguards. The current administration demonstrates that this is not enough. Only the most explicit rights and laws are currently holding up in court and just barely so.

Just another thought going back to OP: while one can be critical of the powers of rich folks, ultimately in a democracy the power still flows from the population. Autocracies work because ultimately folks let them. This is both, strength and weakness in a democracy. If too many folks are fine with autocracy, that is what is going to happen. But if there is enough resistance to those movements, these tendencies can be stopped or reversed, this in part is unfolding right now in Minnesota. But ultimately, democracy is not a settled system, it is a constant struggle for balance.

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

don't think they are going rogue, they are doing as intended.

I was not clear on "they." Not individuals, I mean we have rogue agencies, which are sent outside the established constitutional and statutory guardrails of their original mandate and mission. Like all rogues, they wear the mantle of some singleminded principle, like "national security! Stop the invasion!" Essentially it's a rogue administration which is then subverting particular agencies. And it's easier to start with ones whose original mission is easily perverted and its members poorly trained and vetted.

On 1/27/2026 at 1:32 PM, exchemist said:

What has your question, about the choices made in a single US presidential election, got to do with your general assertion about "hidden authoritarianism" in Western democracies?

Very simple – the real rulers of the USA and the Western world in general (financial elite) do not allow smart and honest people to start a serious political career, because a smart politician can become a threat/competitor for these rulers. So only bad candidates can participate in elections, and so the voters do not have a good choice.

I have two questions relating last US presidential elections:

1) Am I right that the US mass media like CNN and Fox News supported Disantis instead of Trump, stating that Disantis is “a young and smart Trump”, “let it be the Trumpism without Trump”, “the approval rating of Disantis is increasing while the rating of Trump is decreasing”?

2) I saw the presidential debates between the candidates; Haley said there that Putin is a murderer. Disantis always said that he plans to stop supporting Ukraine. Logically this means that Haley must had hated Disantis, but instead they rather were “friends against Trump”. Am I right?

25 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Very simple – the real rulers of the USA and the Western world in general (financial elite) do not allow smart and honest people to start a serious political career, because a smart politician can become a threat/competitor for these rulers. So only bad candidates can participate in elections, and so the voters do not have a good choice.

I have two questions relating last US presidential elections:

1) Am I right that the US mass media like CNN and Fox News supported Disantis instead of Trump, stating that Disantis is “a young and smart Trump”, “let it be the Trumpism without Trump”, “the approval rating of Disantis is increasing while the rating of Trump is decreasing”?

2) I saw the presidential debates between the candidates; Haley said there that Putin is a murderer. Disantis always said that he plans to stop supporting Ukraine. Logically this means that Haley must had hated Disantis, but instead they rather were “friends against Trump”. Am I right?

These statements need support.

Whom do you think constitutes your "financial elite"?

And by what mechanism do they - whoever they are - prevent "smart and honest people" from becoming elected representatives in the UK, Germany or the Netherlands, for example?

Edited Friday at 06:53 PM2 days by exchemist

26 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Very simple – the real rulers of the USA and the Western world in general (financial elite) do not allow smart and honest people to start a serious political career, because a smart politician can become a threat/competitor for these rulers. So only bad candidates can participate in elections, and so the voters do not have a good choice.

The logical inference from this is that there has never been a smart and honest person to hold office which I think trivially dismisses your premise as false. If voters can only choose bad candidates but desire good ones, surely the voters will choose the better one in a subsequent election, which happens all the time. Even if the financial elite choose the candidates.

But if the financial elite did choose, why would politicians that hold the elite accountable get elected, and how could they get legislation passed that limits their power, unless a majority of elected officials agreed to do so.

Propaganda is not a credible source of information.

26 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I have two questions relating last US presidential elections:

1) Am I right that the US mass media like CNN and Fox News supported Disantis instead of Trump, stating that Disantis is “a young and smart Trump”, “let it be the Trumpism without Trump”, “the approval rating of Disantis is increasing while the rating of Trump is decreasing”?

How about you do your own research and use it to buttress your ideas, rather than requiring us to do it?

It might require that you spell the names correctly. DeSantis.

26 minutes ago, Linkey said:

2) I saw the presidential debates between the candidates; Haley said there that Putin is a murderer. Disantis always said that he plans to stop supporting Ukraine. Logically this means that Haley must had hated Disantis, but instead they rather were “friends against Trump”. Am I right?

People can disagree on political points and priorities without hating each other.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I don't think they are going rogue, they are doing as intended.

I disagree somewhat. I think you are right regarding the intention of the system having accountability as well as checks and balances. However, when it comes to the rules, there are loop holes, intentional or not, that allows certain types of transgressions. For example, there are very few legal paths to hold federal law enforcement (or even state law enforcement). Qualified immunity in the US system is such an element. In essence, it provides government officials performing discretionary functions with immunity, unless the official 1) violated clearly established constitutional rights and 2) only if the those rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. Courts have increasingly narrowed those definitions making it exceedingly difficult to hold authorities accountable via the judicial system.

That’s a fair point, but it’s also not a feature of the system, it’s a choice. Which means that we can choose to fix both the inability to sue federal officers for rights violations (we can sue state and local ones) and the scope of qualified immunity.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Edit: the point I tried to make in a convoluted way is that the system has to have rules and accountability firmly established to ensure that rules are followed. Yet if there are weaknesses in it, they can be "hidden" as long as norms are followed, but can be ignored without triggering consequences under certain circumstances. Not sure whether that is clearer though, probably need another coffee or six.

Which underscores the distinction I was trying to make between whether it’s inherent in the system or if it can be fixed within the system

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think the perspective of OP is wrong though. It seems that they see imperfection in democracies the same as a fully autocratic system, which is basically just confusing a potential slippery slope with the end of the road.

The OP seems to be based on (or possibly even actively promoting) poorly constructed propaganda, and proceeding under an unproven/unwarranted premise.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Which underscores the distinction I was trying to make between whether it’s inherent in the system or if it can be fixed within the system

In my mind, democracies inherently have a built-in weakness against authoritarianism as the key tenants includes freedoms that make can be exploited to move society towards authoritarianism. Examples include elements of the freedom of expression, which allowed social media to be used as a very powerful propaganda tool. This freedom cannot be eliminated as it would undermine the principles of democracy itself and is therefore (again, IMO) inherent to the system. Now, this is not to say that this not say that there isn't a compromise that we haven't found yet, to balance these elements. But it the weakness in itself cannot be fundamentally removed or fixed without undermining the system itself. That is why in my reading, democracy is a system that ultimately needs to constantly address this struggle to survive authoritarian overreach.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The OP seems to be based on (or possibly even actively promoting) poorly constructed propaganda, and proceeding under an unproven/unwarranted premise.

Fully agreed.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I was not clear on "they." Not individuals, I mean we have rogue agencies, which are sent outside the established constitutional and statutory guardrails of their original mandate and mission. Like all rogues, they wear the mantle of some singleminded principle, like "national security! Stop the invasion!" Essentially it's a rogue administration which is then subverting particular agencies. And it's easier to start with ones whose original mission is easily perverted and its members poorly trained and vetted.

The issue is that those agencies were given wide-ranging powers (which have been soundly criticized when they were formed, as well as the Patriot act as a whole). However, they were mostly kept in check by the executive and congress. While they have clearly overstepped in some instances (as indicated by court rulings), much of what they are doing and which upsets people is, unfortunately, fully legal. And more power is handed to them via the supreme courts, which have expanded their abilities to deploy certain tactics, such as racial profiling, as long as they pretend it wasn't racial.

On 1/29/2026 at 10:04 PM, dimreepr said:

The printing press is part of the technology, you're suggesting is encroaching on your freedom and control.

The printing press? Why are you bringing up this straw man from the 15th century? I never suggested that all technology encroaches on freedom and control. I pointed to particular technology, indicating how they are making us vulnerable to authoritarianism. One technology I didn't mention because, although it poses a substantial risk to our freedom and privacy, it also exposes the evil actions of overlords, is the proliferation of cameras. The thing about a lot of technology is that it provides us with benefits that results in us accepting the technology into our lives only to find that the technology can also be used against us. It perhaps should worry us that we voluntarily carry a tracking device with us wherever we go. And that tracking device could also be a listening device. That may be paranoia, but can any of you say for certain that a mobile phone is not acting as a listening device? That's a problem with much of technology: the users of the technology cannot know exactly how it works.

Australia has recently banned under-16-year-olds from accessing social media. Many people support this as social media can be a dangerous place for children. But the consequence of this is that all (adult) Australians now have to somehow identify themselves to use social media. At present, a VPN may be able to get around the age-verification process. But as more countries adopt age-based restrictions on accessing the internet, and as VPN detection becomes more effective, VPNs will become less effective as a means to bypass age-verification. Gradually, we are finding that our ability to use the internet anonymously is being eroded away.

On 1/29/2026 at 10:04 PM, dimreepr said:

Technology is never the problem, it's the insidious nature of an ageing demography and the rose tinted nature of their vision.

I'll admit to some resistance to new technology based on a natural desire to maintain the status quo. But I can see the benefits of particular technology. And I can also see the dangers of particular technology. About 30 years ago, I was a believer of the idea that a fair society should be run by computers. But since then, having experienced glimpses of what such a society would be like, I no longer believe in a society run by computers. The fundamental problem with dealing with computers is that one can't negotiate with them. For example, a few years ago, I wanted to create a new Outlook email account. However, before I could do that, I had to prove that I was not a robot. But due to the arms race between producing tasks that robots can't solve, and producing robots that can solve such tasks, the requirement that ordinary humans are able to solve the tasks was forgotten. Unable to solve the task, I had to abandon creating a new Outlook email account and go with Gmail instead. Subsequently, Microsoft realised their mistake and reverted back to something that doesn't require a savant to solve. Usually, the option of an alternative task is provided (for the visually impaired), but for some reason this didn't work. Whether AI will make computers easier to negotiate with is hard to say, but I suspect that AI will be more idiosyncratic to deal with.

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's a lot of tech... I'll bet there's a computer involved...

Are you mocking me?! Computers were fine, albeit expensive, when only nerds had them. But now that every man and his dog have them, criminals now see computers as a lucrative avenue to rip people off. And now we all have to use security software that we are forced to trust, ensure that all our software has the latest updates (hoping those updates don't crash our system), treat with suspicion all our online (and other) communication, etc.

The notion of authoritarianism isn't limited to governments. Private enterprise also has authoritarian tendencies in their quest for increasing profit. And criminals use scare tactics to extract money from people. And it seems that the more technology we have, the more vulnerable we are to people who want to take advantage of us.

Edited yesterday at 12:45 AM1 day by KJW

15 hours ago, CharonY said:

In my mind, democracies inherently have a built-in weakness against authoritarianism as the key tenants includes freedoms that make can be exploited to move society towards authoritarianism. Examples include elements of the freedom of expression, which allowed social media to be used as a very powerful propaganda tool. This freedom cannot be eliminated as it would undermine the principles of democracy itself and is therefore (again, IMO) inherent to the system. Now, this is not to say that this not say that there isn't a compromise that we haven't found yet, to balance these elements. But it the weakness in itself cannot be fundamentally removed or fixed without undermining the system itself. That is why in my reading, democracy is a system that ultimately needs to constantly address this struggle to survive authoritarian overreach.

Allowing free speech does mean that one can spout propaganda, but giving the government the power to censor or decide what the truth is, is inherently authoritarian. The problem as I see it is not the system, it’s that authoritarians exist. And to the point of the OP, if we didn’t have sociopaths we wouldn’t have a lot of the billionaires exerting influence.

People are going to try and game the system, regardless of the system that’s put in place. Blaming the system is a red herring, IMO, because the problem is inherent in any population of people.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

The OP seems to be based on (or possibly even actively promoting) poorly constructed propaganda

It’s the latter clearly, plus a dash of shit stirring to get people who are otherwise friends to turn against one another. Basically every post they’ve made since joining further evidences this assertion.

Neither action nor reply needed, just amplifying your obviously correct point.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Blaming the system is a red herring, IMO, because the problem is inherent in any population of people.

Again hitting nails squarely on their heads.

14 hours ago, KJW said:

The printing press? Why are you bringing up this straw man from the 15th century? I never suggested that all technology encroaches on freedom and control. I pointed to particular technology, indicating how they are making us vulnerable to authoritarianism. One technology I didn't mention because, although it poses a substantial risk to our freedom and privacy, it also exposes the evil actions of overlords, is the proliferation of cameras.

The printing press is the start of information technology and was a liberation of information, a classic double edged sword.

The evil side of democracy is, even the fool's get a vote.

The good side of dictatorships are, the idiots can be ignored.

Camera's are capable of exposing everything, let them who are without sin cast the first stone.

The hidden authoritarianism in all societies is self, and it's never evil.

No system, except possibly anarchy, is immune to populist demagogues. Of course, Spain had three years of anarcho-syndicalism...and then they got 36 years of Franco. So...never mind.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

People are going to try and game the system, regardless of the system that’s put in place. Blaming the system is a red herring, IMO, because the problem is inherent in any population of people.

But the issue is that in a democracy the people are the system. It cannot exist or safeguard itself without involving them. If they collectively decide to go for authoritarianism, there is (generally) no separate mechanism to prevent them from doing so. This is why democracy as a system cannot just use system defences to safeguard itself. It requires a constant from the population/voters to fight against authoritarianism.

This, to a lesser degree is also true for authoritarian systems, which essentially would need to clamp down the desire for self-determination within the population. Yet here the mechanism would involve cutting out the people out of relevant parts of the system.

Moreover, with modern technology the balance makes it easier for an authoritarian system to fight against democracy vs a democractic system fighting against authoritarianism.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

But the issue is that in a democracy the people are the system. It cannot exist or safeguard itself without involving them. If they collectively decide to go for authoritarianism, there is (generally) no separate mechanism to prevent them from doing so. This is why democracy as a system cannot just use system defences to safeguard itself. It requires a constant from the population/voters to fight against authoritarianism.

Yes.

The unspoken issue is: what better system is there?

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

This, to a lesser degree is also true for authoritarian systems, which essentially would need to clamp down the desire for self-determination within the population. Yet here the mechanism would involve cutting out the people out of relevant parts of the system.

Moreover, with modern technology the balance makes it easier for an authoritarian system to fight against democracy vs a democractic system fighting against authoritarianism.

It’s not helped by having technologically unsophisticated geriatrics making the decisions about how to rein in the technology. The law is usually already playing catch-up, and that’s an additional handicap

4 hours ago, swansont said:

The unspoken issue is: what better system is there?

Absolutely, and we have come up with none, as far as I can tell. The adage of it being the worst system except for every other one ever tried.

One issue is that I think many of us still have the cold war thinking that authoritarianism will ultimately collapse on its own and that democracy will be the state that most will default to. And ultimately I am not so sure about that. Technocratic authoritarianism has shown to be frighteningly effective in keeping the population in check.

I.e. my point is that democracy has its weaknesses, but because of that (not despite) it is important to keep improving and fighting for it.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not helped by having technologically unsophisticated geriatrics making the decisions about how to rein in the technology. The law is usually already playing catch-up, and that’s an additional handicap

For sure. And also the free market thinking might put blinders on younger ones. The tech is not just a simple product, it has the double-whammy of changing elements of human nature as well as making some folks very rich, and hence powerful, who have then a vested interest in keeping things going that way.

On 1/30/2026 at 9:52 PM, exchemist said:

Whom do you think constitutes your "financial elite"?

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf

Many people I’ve met have concluded that it is getting harder to “make it” in America. When I was a kid in the 1970’s our neighbor worked as a butcher at a chain grocery store and was able to own a nice house, support his wife and two kids, and live a comfortable life, purely on the basis of wages he received. This was typical in my neighborhood; regular working people without advanced degrees could live well in America. Now, people who work 40 hours/week at a grocery store have no chance of buying a house on their own, and can barely afford rent. What happened?

The top right pie chart in Figure 3 shows the USA in 2014. We see how the middle class has shrunk and the top 1% have increased their share due to current economic policies (mainly low taxes on the wealthy).

Since the wealthiest 1% own and control most large corporations, we see that “business friendly” really means policies that help the 1% at the expense of the middle class. Also, since almost all mass media are owned and controlled by the 1%, we almost never see meaningful discussion of these ideas in the mainstream press. So-called liberal media such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC in fact almost always ridicule these ideas as impractical, socialist or even communism, even though they were part of main stream American economic policy from the 1940s through the 1970s, and are a big part of what made America great after WWII. The supposedly liberal media are owned and controlled, of course, by large corporations and the extremely wealthy, so it is not surprising that, like all privately owned entities, they serve the needs of their owners. In my opinion the US mainstream media do a “good cop/bad cop” routine on the American public, with Fox and AM radio playing the bad cop and the “liberal media” playing the good cop, but both conspiring to not let these ideas out. As proof of this, note that in 2016, when Bernie Sanders started outlining some of these ideas, ALL the “liberal” main stream media ignored the ideas, instead focusing on personalities, etc. Fox and the right wing media did focus on the ideas, but only to distort and lie about them, knowing their audience was not very demanding of factual information.

So these 1% welthiest are the "nobles", while maybe the FED bankers are "monarchs".

25 minutes ago, Linkey said:

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf

So these 1% welthiest are the "nobles", while maybe the FED bankers are "monarchs".

I don't see how that relates to democracies or to the thesis stated in OP. This is the overarching effect of capitalist economies and is usually amplified under authoritarian rule. There is a progressive point of view, which suggests that inequality might contribute to erosion of democracy but that is perhaps a different point. More importantly, the quote suggest and incredibly American-centric view, whereas the title of this thread is about Western countries, which are emphatically not the same.

Using the Gini coefficient as a measure of inequality, the USA is somewhere at the top among high income countries, with much of Europe placing significantly lower. But as OP tends to mix up different thoughts almost randomly, it is really hard to tell what the overarching point is supposed to be. Is it to suggest that the US is inherently more authoritarian, than, say Germany, UK or France? And then are the Netherlands, Iceland and Norway even less so?