[nickpsecurity]

I don't think there's an overblown credit at all. An active democracy can get a lot done. U.S. history class shows us that successes, failures, wars, schemes, rebellions, etc. go way back on all kinds of issues. The U.S. democracy, for day to day issues, was a constant battle between all kinds of stakeholders. I'd argue it's been a plutocracy far as economic system going back around 100 years. Nonetheless, the basic freedoms (esp press/protest/speech) and occasional willingness of the people led to resolving many, many problems over time. Even intelligence community got a nice shake-up back in Church committee days with various FOIA extensions letting us dig lots of dirt on them.

I agree that neither direct nor representational democracy solve anything by themselves. The people's ability and willingness to take action (and wisely) is the important part. However, the democratic systems provide extra assurance that this can happen. Speech, press, privacy, etc protections ensure a situation can be assessed, information can get out, people can organize, and so on. A much stronger foundation than the alternatives. Much easier than regimes where they have to sneak around with thumb drives and Tor hoping there's not enough infiltrators to get them all busted.

So, democracy is a good foundation to build on what author describes. The other stuff allows arbitrary actions by rulers to counter anything supporting personal empowerment. In a democracy, that might be countered in a new election cycle or court ruling. I prefer a democracy. However, I'd love to live in one where the people put their effort into what mattered and held their government accountable. They stopped doing that in mine quite a while ago. That's why it's screwed up.

[vezzy-fnord]

Again, speech, press and privacy protections are orthogonal to a democratic process.

People forget, but the United States had strict censorship codes for all of the television, film and comic book industries (respectively - Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters, Hays Code and Comics Code Authority) entrenched for decades, by lobbyists and powerful trade associations. Then the Fairness Doctrine for radio broadcasts, without the repeal of which talk radio would have never flourished (I'll admit a mixed blessing, but important for free speech).

Our freedom of speech is actually greater now than it ever was, but to little avail.

[nickpsecurity]

"Our freedom of speech is actually greater now than it ever was, but to little avail."

It is but it's orthogonal to avail. ;) The freedoms are necessary, the press part has to be solid, and the people have to take action. The press and action are the problems. Freedoms are doing their job of producing opportunities, which I act on regularly.

"People forget, but the United States had strict censorship codes for all of the television, film and comic book industries"

And through the democratic process these were fought and freedoms expanded. This is less likely to work in a monarchy, communist state, theocracy, or dictatorship. That the people's input matters and with bloodless avenues of it creating change is a pre-requisite to major reforms benefiting the people without full-on revolt. So, what systems and countries are you talking about where people did similar stuff within their system while dissident speech, publishing, and organizations were all illegal?

Note: Let's add voting integrity to the list of pre-requisites. The ability to speak about or publish the problems would be a pre-requisite to accountability. If you didn't have that, then privacy in property or communications would help you get word out discretely. Without any of the three, situation starts to sound like like certain South American and Asian countries.

[vezzy-fnord]

Monarchy is not opposed to democracy, even if it's not a constitutional/ceremonial monarchy. Liechtenstein and Monaco are two countries with politically active monarchs, which are nevertheless democratic.

Theocracies in practice are dictatorial, but nominally it just means your "constitution" would be a religious text. I agree those are undesirable.

"Communist state" is an oxymoron, surely you mean Marxist-Leninist state. Dictatorship is too vague.

I'm not really objecting to the democratic process being a vehicle for change, so much as contemporary implementations of it being riddled with inefficiencies and fallacies, as well as the fact that most people completely overlook the crucially important meta-theory of how democracy operates and assume it's all good because the word "democracy" gives them warm, fuzzy feelings.

[nickpsecurity]

Well, since you clarified, I think we're mostly in agreement now. :) I'm pro-democracy while recognizing it has to operate correctly and that's far from how it's happening.

[mindslight]

> intelligence community got a nice shake-up back in Church committee days

If this were true, one would have expected reforms and curtailment to have lasted at least a few generations. This situation seems more akin to a misbehaving child who apologizes only to appease, and carries right on with their activities.

Also, please note that pure democracy - people voting with their time/money/attention/data - is what has brought us this modern surveillance nightmare of Google/Facebook/etc.

[nickpsecurity]

"If this were true, one would have expected reforms and curtailment to have lasted at least a few generations. This situation seems more akin to a misbehaving child who apologizes only to appease, and carries right on with their activities."

Not at all: preserving liberty "requires eternal vigilance." Old lesson. ;) Existing elites and people wanting that for themselves never stop. So, the public has to be watchful. It has to stay on them via every branch of government. That shake-up happened when the public had maximum attention on them while defenders, esp CIA media manipulators, were acting in full force. The result was half-ass justice but made them a lot more careful in what they do domestically and a little more in foreign. Had American voters and media stayed on their ass we would've gotten even better results. But, it brings us to another issue...

"Also, please note that pure democracy - people voting with their time/money/attention/data - is what has brought us this modern surveillance nightmare of Google/Facebook/etc."

...tyranny of the majority. Didn't realize back in school how fundamentally bad that problem was and how pervasively it would affect us. Your illustration is excellent although remember that willing, private surveillance to sell analysis to advertisers and unwilling, government surveillance of all data to be used in convictions or murder aren't the same. ;)

You're right, though, about how majority makes our situation worse by where they put their time and money. They seem to be hardwired to go with whatever will screw them up in the long-run for the smallest, immediate gain. I'm at a loss for how to handle this except to practice CYA to max degree, stay out of dragnets where possible, and invest my own energy/money into better things that might get big.

One example was getting people off of scheming SMS and Facebook messenger for IM clients like WhatApp. It was one of best for usability and incremental step in right direction so I used to recommend it. Actually made it in a huge way. Then Facebook bought it. Well, we have the Whisper apps... (Twitter acquisition) (explitives) I'm not naming any more of them lol. Need these jokers all in non-profits or public-benefit companies with charters protecting the future of the app's security or source.