[shaki-dora]

That argument is trivially true for most any civil liberty: the promise of a fair trial is protected only by the next higher court's fairness, etc.

To categorical discount the value of the rule of law, and to apparently consider that idea to be so obvious that just about half a paragraph of argumentation is given for it, strikes me as... just scary?

There are quite a few established democracies that have seen steady improvements in civil rights over their existence. There have been setbacks, such as World War Two. And the last five to ten years may well be similar. But it's still obviously true that "the long arch of history bends towards justice".

And, fwiw, technology alone is not capable to guarantee any meaningful rights when your own government is your adversary. The internet was praised as the killer tool to empower the individual against censorship. And yet there still is no technology that makes accessing Wikipedia in Shanghai as easy as it is in Billings, Montana. Bitcoin was hailed (by the conspiracy-minded) as a tool to overthrow democratically-established institutions. But, as it turned out, regulators were far less interested in shutting down Bitcoin than expected, and did not even break a sweat implementing KYC nad similar regulation across the cryptocurrency universe when needed.

[claudeganon]

> There are quite a few established democracies that have seen steady improvements in civil rights over their existence. There have been setbacks, such as World War Two. And the last five to ten years may well be similar. But it's still obviously true that "the long arch of history bends towards justice".

I’d be interested for you to cite specific example of this. During the Cold War, the threat of the Soviet domination pushed some countries in the direction of greater equality and equanimity. But they seem uniformly in retreat following its collapse, and retreating on the basis of ever shoddier premises (first the War on Terror, now ethnonationalism). While it’s true that the ranks of the elite have diversified, the material reality and civil rights protections of almost everyone beneath them have worsened in many of these countries.

[iudqnolq]

Eastern Europe? Completely authoritarian during the cold war, now various levels of emerging democracies.

Taiwan? US-backed autocracy during the Cold War, now vibrant democracy with some issues.

In terms of steady improvement, while you're right that there have been some recent setbacks, I think you discount just how authoritarian Western governments were during the Cold War. This is a very difficult thing to summarize in a forum comment, so I suggest you look at something like Freedom House's reports (and yes, I know they aren't completely neutral, still think they're reasonable enough to be worth reading). Here's one:

The Civil Liberties Implications Of Counterterrorism Policies: https://freedomhouse.org/report/todays-american-how-free/civ...

[claudeganon]

Freedom House is state-funded, US propaganda that has gone so far as to buttress the white supremacist state of Rhodesia, far right politicians in Latin America, and engage in “clandestine operations in Iran.” They have zero credibility:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House

Eastern Europe is complicated because of the kleptocratic influence of both the US and Russia in the region, various civil conflicts, again rising ethnonationalism. Taiwan’s local trajectory is better from the KMT days, but is largely premised on elite exploitation of workers and resources in mainland China, which has put the country on a deeply unstable economic and political trajectory. Still not seeing a great record of progress versus reversion here.

[iudqnolq]

So I can understand where you're coming from, mind telling me if you'd consider any country presently in existence not "largely premised on elite exploitation of workers"?