When democracy meets the fear

So can norwegians save 4,25 billion in interest expense

Spring 2020 go down in history as the period when Norwegian citizens experienced to get what we regard as completely obvious rights in a democracy, is set aside in the fight against covid-19: the Right to use own property, the right to move relatively freely, the right to forsamles – which is essential in a democracy – the right to exercise their profession.

May the to have been the right medicine – it will perhaps, the time display – but we must already now be aware that this is dangerous medicine. And there are fundamental questions that should be posed:

What is the consequence of shutting down the open society in a way that frames what we perceive as basic rights in a democracy?

Asks Norway to look to Denmark,

Is there any societal goals parent to maintain a democracy? To encroach, on the last question the answer should be an unequivocal no.

Why have you really a democracy? Is it because it is the most effective way to control a society? If you think it, we can move into the on a dangerous path, simply because democracy is not necessarily the most effective styreformen. It can be imagined a number of situations where the authoritarian government is more effective than democracy – and that is why an attempt to legitimize democracy instrumentelt pave the way for anti-democratic and authoritarian forms of management.

A widespread way to justify democracy is, therefore, to point out that it has its legitimacy – not to be the most efficient path to a destination – but to be the actual target. Democratic strength lies in the fact that it has an intrinsic value: It protects the individual's freedom and self-determination – and it is a good in itself.

Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError CRITICAL: Kommuneoverlege Dagfinn Haarr in Kristiansand believe many of the suggestions that the Norwegian people have been missing professional basis. Video: Kristiansand kommune, published 3. april 2020. Show more

what is democracy about? It's about two things: first, the right to individual self-determination – you will live your life the way you want it. Secondly, you should not deprive other people the right to just the same – and it adds a limitation on the first.

You are allowed to smoke, but not in a way that forces the other to smoke – therefore, we create a smoking policy. You are not allowed to run as fast as you want with the car because it is well documented that it can harm other people so that they lose the opportunity to take their choice. But you can believe in whatever god you want, any no, or change along the way, because it deprives no one else to believe in the god they want.

With this as a starting point, it is of course legitimate to adopt laws that restrict individuals 'self-determination – but it is when it threatens others' self-determination.

Whether to limit the people self-determination in order to protect people's ability to exercise self-determination, saying that it is crucial to debate that has proportionality to do: Represent a given action or situation, such a great threat to others ' self-determination that it should not be prohibited or require the open society that the dangers, including death, must be accepted?

Can the corona save the Y-block? Debate

to make it absolutely clear: A democratic society accepting a whole range of actions and situations that can be dangerous for other people. Everything from driving, use of tobacco and alcohol, use of weapons, construction projects, russefeiring, and other celebrations, large gatherings, extreme sports, regular sports, for that matter, to the annual sesonginfluensaen and speech that can arouse other people's anger be integrated into the open society. There is a certain degree of regulation, without a doubt, but all of this could have been regulated far harder, with the result that the life had been spared. But we do not.

And the reason we don't do it is that it is too restrictive. Even if life could have been saved, so it would have gone out over the rights we believe must be in place to mention a society that is democratic.

Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError BUDGET: - You can't selectively just take out some parameters, " says prime minister Erna Solberg, after that it is on Tuesday 12. may presented the revised national budget. Video: Hans Arne Vedlog / Dagbladet Show more

The question that needs to set is the following: it Has been built up such a strong narrative about the fear that we forget how we usually handle the danger? Is there a reasonable relationship between the grip we have taken – and the consequences it has and the covid-19 represent the of the danger?

Dramatic images and stories have shaken us, but without really saying anything about the actual probability of becoming infected, and without saying anything about the actual probability of developing severe disease if they become infected. But it prevents us not to commit sannsynlighetsberegning, instead, activated a way to assess the probability of that often causes us to be wrong: The more we are exposed to a phenomenon, through for example the media, the more likely we think that it is.

It is to focus on fear is to insert a double-edged sword. It can, of course, motivate people to comprehensive the plot, but the focus of fear can also get us to stop thinking rationally about proportionality and it can make us willing to accept decisions that are more restrictive than necessary.

Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError MIXED: the Government took NRK Super its danseutfordring in stride, and dancing 17. may-the dance. Video: Government/CNN. Show more

instead of seeing the open society as a resource in the fight against infection, so you end up with to look upon it as a threat that must be overcome – without the citizens protesting in particular.

the Danger by shutting down the a community to protect itself, is that one can undermine the understanding of the fact that democracy has an intrinsic value. It may stick to a belief that there are societal goals that are more important than our freedom and self-determination – and it is thoughts that breed during the non-democratic tendencies.

today, it is worth to have in mind: For the first time in almost twenty years, it is more undemocratic than democratic countries in the world.

This has the plague taught us a Comment

Want to discuss?

Visit Dagbladet debate!