Freedom and Security:
Yes, ordinary people do not need freedom, but they need security.
But does the government give security?
1. There is some evidence that houses in Russia in the 2000s were blown up - special services. -
- With the goal - to rally the people around the authorities, and to get his support to resolve the Chechen issue in particular - by force, by force.
Most likely, this is not so, but the beneficiary-the power is still.
The authorities are interested in permanent tension, including external ones.
2. Power provokes danger:
The power creates non-legal conditions, in which the only way to resolve conflicts is by force. Terrorist acts, including. And it breeds offended people.
3. Authorities create social tension,
Secondly, - Concentration of power creates a conflict of elites.
All this is fraught with bloody coups.
4. External insecurity:
The dangers of policemen and bandits are nothing compared to the danger of a nuclear dictatorship.
Democracies "do not fight each other". "People simply do not need war. War is needed only by those in power.
In the third act, blackmail with nuclear weapons can result in its use.
5. Power manipulates statistics,
- hides insecurity in Russia and bulges out - in Europe.
At least, "People are leaving the country for safety." (N. Solodnikov)
At the hands of policemen, innocent civilians die an order of magnitude - ten times more than from terrorist attacks.
And from cars, including from bad roads and bribery of the traffic police - by 3 orders of magnitude more.
6. In an authoritarian country, the very power is dangerous.
This is an illusion created by propaganda, that if I do not go into politics, I will be safe in electing whom I will be told. -
Conflict of personal interests with superiors arises sooner or later.
Popular variations:
Corruption, that is, abuse of power, including extortion of bribes, infringement of rights, red tape, lawlessness, "bureaucracy," the demand for evidence that "not a camel," and so on. Conflict with the chief's son in a cafe, racket " "" Law enforcement "bodies,
7. For imaginary security, you must pay an unacceptable price. -
Inequality, disgusting medicine, disfiguring children in schools, bad roads, finally, alcoholism and fools instead of the people.
8. The civil security system can definitely be more effective than the state system.
Suppose we left the same security system as now, but changed only the electoral system, the nomination of candidates. -
That safety will already increase.
Further, it is possible to make a comparative analysis of security possibilities - democratic and authoritarian systems.
9. Technological security capabilities:
They are very large.
For example, a volunteer network of mutual assistance, the police, a voluntary squad.
Now the police come on call - in 20-30 minutes, - they will be able to dig in.
Interested volunteers, remotely, with the help of micro-drones can help - in seconds.
And again in the democratic system, technological opportunities are higher.
10. Transport safety:
A technological system is possible, in which transport safety will increase by 3 orders.
But this system is poorly compatible with the totalitarian control of people.
|