> These people seem incapable of understanding the existential threat to free society and democracy posed by limiting everyone's ability to communicate private thoughts.
The existential threat this bill poses to free society and democracy is exactly why they're supporting it. It's not some accidental side effect.
They're opposed to the existence of free society and democracy because it limits government power, which means letting criminals and terrorists run free. They want the police to have all the power they can get because, as far as they're concerned, they're the good guys, and giving the good guys more power helps them win against the bad guys.
Free society means limited government, and the only way for the government to be in favor of that is for the government to vote against its own interests. That requires the people in the government to identify more strongly with the people living under the government than with the government itself. This is precarious at the best of times. Why would the governing party want to make it easy to organize dissenting political parties and alternative centers of power? Power might fall into the wrong hands.
I know that sounds sarcastic, but try to see it from their perspective, even if you don't agree with it.
The existential threat this bill poses to free society and democracy is exactly why they're supporting it. It's not some accidental side effect.
They're opposed to the existence of free society and democracy because it limits government power, which means letting criminals and terrorists run free. They want the police to have all the power they can get because, as far as they're concerned, they're the good guys, and giving the good guys more power helps them win against the bad guys.
Free society means limited government, and the only way for the government to be in favor of that is for the government to vote against its own interests. That requires the people in the government to identify more strongly with the people living under the government than with the government itself. This is precarious at the best of times. Why would the governing party want to make it easy to organize dissenting political parties and alternative centers of power? Power might fall into the wrong hands.
I know that sounds sarcastic, but try to see it from their perspective, even if you don't agree with it.