The above statistic, especially for Africa, but also for other continents cannot be anything else that extremely positive! It shows how life is actually improving in the poorest nations. This is no sign of a collapse. You simply cannot disregard the improvements that have happened in the last 20 years. — ssu

I think you miss my point. Yes life expectancy is increasing - in the poorer countries this is a triumph of modern medicines over disease, and provides more wealth-creating workers. However, in the developed world, the survival of many into their 80s and 90s and beyond has a negative impact on growth. And in the long term the poorer countries will become rich..

When the average worker retired at 65 and was dead by 75 (often quickly and cheaply in health terms by heart attack, stroke etc), they only needed support from the pensions system for an average of 5 to 10 years. Now pensioners need that support for 20 or 30 years, and that will grow. And they are not living in serene comfortable retirement. The older people get, the more complex, long-term and costly illnesses they get. Our expertise in keeping people alive is now costing billions. This is why nations are scrambling to raise pension ages and pensions themselves are becoming much less generous.

Perhaps I'm being cold-hearted, but I'm not discussing society's triumphs in prolonging life, but whether it can pay for all that in future with proportionately fewer workers.

btw: I hail from the UK, not the US.

I think it would be proper to list just what are those tipping points 2000-2020 that haven't been around earlier. And I presume that for what you have in mind there are already lengthy threads on this site. And when we look at them, each one specifically, then it gets difficult really to pinpoint it to now. — ssu

Yes you're right, it is impossible to pick one point in time for the tipping point. (And anyway, we haven't even agreed the metric whose value we're watching). If there is one, it will probably only be visible in retrospect after a decade or more. Maybe more likely is a continuation in the slow and uneven reduction in growth we've had since 2008, and then a gradual nosing downwards into contraction. But since the trend-line will be affected by one-off wars, pandemics, climate disasters - whatever - it won't be smooth.

I agree too with what you say about the combination of many factors that affect this overall trend direction. But as there are so many, and they all trend downwards, doesn't that make this overall change seem more likely? Or are there other global indicators looking positive? Maybe investment profit from green tech? But surely that is a mitigation of problems we've already caused. It's just replacing fossil fuel burning (or livestock production or electricity consumption) as a source of growth, it's not an additional source..

What if everyone collectively decided they did not want their money to be in the bank or in the financial and stock markets, and collectively decided to keep their energy consumption to an absolute minimum, grow their own food, only travel when absolutely necessary and so on? — Janus

Yes, and what if mankind was a different species? I don't see much to be gained by going down these alleys of conjecture.

Quite the opposite. Global inequality has been going down the last decade or so, and at a decent clip. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, 'has been'. I'm talking about the next decades..

The question I have is whether the financial elites would allow it and/ or whether the populace can ever manage to unify itself sufficiently to defy them and their cronies (the politicians). — Janus

The past decade has shown that those elites are quite happy to rush headlong into the dire effects of climate change as long as they preserve their wealth and power. The populace don't have the power to stop their negligence. Their only power is through democratically electing politicians to 'do the right thing', but if democracy simply results in Trump or Bolsanaro surely it too is now powerless.

But anyway, I do think the statistics show there are fewer deaths from war now than historically, but I don't think they support your thesis that there was a war holiday the past couple of decades. — Hanover

I'm thinking of wars with possible global ramifications - ie involving superpowers. Local struggles and civil wars of course crop up regularly. But how many since the end of the Cold War have had pan-continental effects on economic growth, international relations etc?

Thinking that this is the best it will get and everything is downhill from here is an extremely popular, extremely long-standing idea that has been with us actually for Centuries now, if not longer. People find comfort in it. — ssu

Indeed, but that doesn't mean it will never come to pass. My point is that the huge changes of the past 20 years may mean that tipping point has now been reached. Perhaps what has changed now is that man is no longer living within the possible resources of the Earth. That surely is a once-in-history change..

When everything goes to hell in a handbasket, the hope is that voters will once again wake up and become engaged, and cause democracy to function better. — Tzeentch

That is possible. The cyclical nature of politics has become quite clear - swing from left to right and back again as each new hope fails. The problem is the Putin effect. Sooner or later a president decides he doesn't want the problem of elections and scraps them. Then the tradition of democracy can swiftly be forgotten. (Not that Russia's was ever deeply rooted.) But once democracy is seen not to solve problems, the Trumps of the world have an easier job in conning the gullible that it's less effective than vacuous belief in a messiah.

Another negative effect I forgot to mention is that of aging populations. In advanced societies the percentage of productive workers compared to unproductive pensioners is shrinking. And so is the birth-rate, further tipping the balance from young to old.

If there is some global measure of the average standard of living, I wonder if it is flattening off, soon to start declining - for the first time in history(?).

The real moot point, as Turing realized, is whether you can tell the difference between your man-made pot and the AI one. If you can't, the question is surely meaningless. Of course by extension you can consider any work of art in the same way. If AI can produce a believable Picasso, isn't it worth the same as a genuine one? If AI can produce a concerto indistinguishable from one by Mozart can you call it inferior?

At least Sunak did understand that the economic policies of Truss were risky in this situation. — ssu

I think everyone realised that. Sunak was perhaps the only Tory with the guts to say so. 'Hubris' is the word I thought fitted Truss and her undergrad economics. 'Inept' is the one for her political acumen.

I expect Mordaunt to bow out - either short of 100 votes, or beaten say 2:1 by Sunak. She surely can't win and forcing a party members' vote would seem churlish and divisive. MPs will be relieved they've finally got the result they really wanted back in July. Sunak is their only possible election winner. Shame the members are too blinkered to realise that..

The market manipulation continues with the disaster budget. Expect more crises. It would have been so easy to make a deal with the EU, by simply agreeing to the trade rules - but no, we were so desperate to have the US's chlorinated chicken and fake cheese. But then we couldn't even make that deal, because we 'forgot' the Irish border. I say sabotage! — unenlightened

I'd say Right-wing fanaticism rather than sabotage. But the Truss disaster illustrates the fallacy of the whole concept. The question is whether Brexiteers and the new PM can hold fast to their no-immigration policy in face of chronic labour shortages, and the no-EU-trade-deal if the N.Irish Unionists keep on suffocating the NI govt. The labour shortage is masking the loss of EU-export-trade jobs too. Unemployment is surely going to surge next year.

Boris is for tax rises to placate the masses. We know that; but it's not Tory, so can he win? Maybe Sunak can chart a middle-way, but the Tories are so split I doubt even an economic upturn can prevent him losing the 2024 election. Only then can we get a fresh start and work out a realistic vision of the future.

Elections have to be had only in 2025, so likely three years feels so long that Conservative party can have a pipe dream that the economy has "a brief rough patch" and walz through it. Otherwise it could be better to be in the opposition and have the Labor now to be in charge when the train wreck happens. — ssu

It's January 2025, and given that that would mean a campaign over Xmas it's unlikely. The December 2019 election was shoe-horned in because of the Brexit end-of-year deadline. Normally Autumn would be chosen, so 2 years' time is realistically the latest date. That almost certainly isn't enough time for the Tories to get through the rough patch given the mess public services are in. Besides, the electorate's instinct is usually to 'give the others a chance' after a long period of one party's rule, and they aren't going to forget the calamity of this summer's Tory infighting.

The most important development will be the end of the tradition of people from the privileged upper middle classes being groomed for a life in politics. Eton and Oxford are responsible for perpetuating this.
It looks as though this might now be happening. — Punshhh

Er.. isn't that the awful spectre of Borisenstein looming over the horizon?! Are the Tories really so desperate they'll bring back the man they threw out as unfit to govern only 4 months ago? I think, possibly yes. I can't see anyone else uniting the party. Even he can't do it via policy, but by convincing MPs they can yet avoid wipeout at the next election under his charismatic wooing of voters he has a shot. I think the public majority will not forgive his past misdemeanors though. And by the way: isn't there an appalling echo of Trump's situation in all this?!

Imperative for the country, yes. But we can assume the Tory party will pursue self-interest first. The question therefore is whether there's anything they can do to stop defeat in 2024. Installing Hunt was a wise move - although it destroys Truss's credibility. I don't see how she can win even if all goes well from now on. 'Well' that is given the looming cuts, inflation and mortgages crises - which is not really 'well' at all. Their only chance I think is to ditch Truss ASAP and install Sunak in a coronation. However the party seems so divided now that that looks unfeasible. Anyway, I think Sunak is sensible enough to know that even then he'd probably lose in 2024, so he'll bide his time and wait to step in in the aftermath of the 2024 rout as the unity post-Truss candidate..

I thought Truss would be a disaster when she was winning the Tory members vote. But I never imagined she'd be quite such a huge disaster quite so quickly! So now she has sacked Kwarteng, in the hope of making him a scapegoat for the Mini-budget fiasco; and appointed Hunt, a more experienced and sober pair of hands. And she really seems to think the disaster of the policies she and Kwarteng brought to confidence in the UK will somehow not hang around her neck like the Ancient Mariner's albatross. Surely the reason that we have not been given sight of the overdue OBR forecast for the effect of her unfunded tax cuts is that she knows it will send the markets into panic mode again. Then the focus will be on the spending cuts she has to make to bring the books into some kind of balance over the next 3-5 years, most of which will be politically suicidal. The crisis-hit NHS was due to benefit from the NI hike, so having cancelled that, its decline will presumably continue even without more cuts. I can only assume she is some sort of tunnel-vision optimist, who sees the future sunlit uplands but not the years of pain needed to get there. It's patently obvious she has no empathy with the ordinary people and was neve ran election winner. For all his short-termist populism at least Boris Johnson knew he had to take public opinion with him. Sunak would have had a chance against Keir Starmer in 2022. Truss has none. The fatal flaw in the Tory party's leadership election process is that it lets its blinkered hard-core members choose the leader, not experienced MPs. Starmer should be sending 160,000 extra Christmas cards this year..

When I saw Jacob Rees Mogg has a prominent ministry in the new Truss govt it dawned on me that we now have the true Brexiteers in power, and we're seeing what they really wanted to happen after winning the referendum. First the tax cuts to draw in overseas investors; next will come the cutting of red tape (code for workers' rights); the immigration doors are on their way open to anyone who can contribute money or talent. One unfortunate fly in the ointment is the death of the US trade deal Brexiteers trumpeted when Trump was still around. Another (connected one) is the NI protocol impasse. The Tory membership were clearly not smart enough to vote in a possible election winner (Sunak) rather than a no-hoper (Truss); but it's not the first time they've made that error (see Clarke vs Duncan Smith..) I've yet to see political commentators make the point, but now we're going to see the Brexiteer reality of post-Brexit Britain. Keir Starmer is probably smart enough not to use the B-word against Truss's heavies, all he needs to do is keep quiet and pick up the next election..

All your replies seem to echo my observation that the system doesn't quite work...

As a Brit I may show some ignorance here, if so please forgive me!

1) How can the system work when the president cannot get his policies through Congress because his party has no majority? Surely the two arms of govt need to be elected on the same ballots, and so be working together. This partial paralysis seems to me to have worked against presidents of both parties. Who gains from it?

2) How can elected senators be allowed to be paid by the pro-gun lobby to advocate their views? In the UK any financial payment by outside interests to MPs is banned. This too perpetuates a paralysis and reduces politicians' power.

3) And now the Supreme Court seems - without being asked - to be deciding on legally relevant but political issues. How is this fair to voters? Another undermining of democracy?

Are there any strong arguments for free will? — TiredThinker

Suicide.

When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. This identification with moral norms and values is typical for human beings as moral animals. — Matias66

'Obligated'? If I see somene being mugged at knife-point I don't feel obligated to tackle the assailant and put myself at risk. I want to help of course, but not by risking my own life. Someone who did rush in would be hailed as a hero. But is heroism expected of us all? I don't think so.

In differentiating human morality from the pure instincts of chimps I think you need to show that the different behaviour is learned by humans rather than simply being the effect of more sophisticted (invariably social and altruistic) instinct. Human morality is often put down to the existance of choice. I.e. I have the choice to tackle the mugger, or not. Of course that choice is heavily influenced by my emotions - fear of harm vs desire to help. Which one wins out would differ from person to person. So is that really a 'choice'? I can by force of will ignore my prevailing urge for self-preservation and rush in; or I can slink away. I'm guessing chimps would act similarly to save members of their own group from attack by another group. But would they all? Maybe some would hang back, scared..

In a moral world, you should not do X, and you should do Y, just because it is the right thing to do, not because it somehow benefits you. — Matias66

Surely what makes it 'the right thing to do' is that it benefits society, as opposed to benefitting you individually. And the knowledge of what benefits society is hard-wired in us as part of the way we as social animals have evolved. Most of us know what is right and what is wrong, regardless of what benefits us personally. Even the burglar knows what he does is 'wrong', but his desire for the cash he'll raise outweighs his sense of guilt. In that sense he/she is an outlying minority in social evolutionary terms, not a disproof; dangerous but small enough not to harm the majority too much.

In addition I think what divides us from chimps is language. We can use it to develop a far more subtle and sophisticated morality which can be better taught and understood. Other than language and the conciously controllable will language allows I see little difference.

Your promotion of the term 'strategic interests' ignores the reasonableness or not of those interests. If Putin's idea of Russia's strategic interest is total world subjugation to his rule, does that mean the UN should allow him his veto? Your vision will surely promote regional conflict as large powers vie to enlarge their empires, secure in the knowledge that they can't be threatened. And what happens when those expanding empires run up against eachothers' borders? We end up with the world of Orwell's 1984, with 4 or 5 continental super-states, and war always on the horizon. I thought the UN was a tool for peace..

Whether we like certain countries' policies and actions or not, their strategic interests are extremely revelant for world peace and that understanding seems to be completely lacking in this thread. — Tzeentch

In what way is Russia's invasion of Ukraine relevant to World peace - other than negatively?! The veto allows Russia to put its 'strategic interest' (ie Putin's vanity and megalomania) first and world peace second. It allows any dictator to act unchallenged by the UN, which seems to me to undermine its whole purpose.

how can any radical change be effected when a member affected can veto it? — Tim3003

Who wants radical change? To benefit whom? It serves as a means of bridging gaps and has helped some situations. It is not a government nor an independent body with its own needs and wants. — I like sushi

Globalisation has changed the world totally from 1945. If problems like global warming are to be tackled, it has to be by all in-sync, not on a country by country basis; or autocratic leaders like Putin, Bolsonaro and Trump - if he wins, will just do all they can to delay progress for their own gain. A UN with power and support from its smaller members would be able properly to lead the world, and hold rogue nations to account - if only in the court of public opinion. As I said re Putin, it would be hard for him to explain away to his people a strong sanction, voted on by the world, against the Ukraine invasion. The same would be true for countries clearly back-sliding on their COP-26 pledges.

I think the future is in a greater concentration of power in a global government, like that evolving within the EU. The EU has kept the peace in Europe since WW2 - excepting Russian incursions.

Ro cap it off, people are depressed because they treat themselves poorly. They drink too much, they don't work hard enough, they don't educate themselves, they surround themselves with non-compatible people, they don't search for meaning, they hate society, they are motivated by greed, they are too wealthy, they lie too much, they sleep with too many people, they value the opinions of others more than themselves, or they engage in all other forms of thought and behavior that negates their own homeostasis- or their parents (or other kids at school) do such to them. You'll be hard pressed to find me someone that sits outside this paradigm, but I welcome your thoughts. — Garrett Travers

I have to dispute most of your long-winded and cant-see-the-wood-for trees view: as someone else who has suffered with depression on and off for nearly 20 years, worked in mental health care, and tried or at least been educated on all popular treatments, my definiton of depression is psychological. You seem to define it as what people do - that's listing the symptoms, not the disease..

Depression results when a person's view of themself falls so far short of who they think they should be that they can no longer live with themself normally. The psychological treatments aim at redressing this imbalance - which is of course constituted of two self-evolved and self-perpetuated judgements, not by events. Counselling seeks by various means to encourage you to replace your overly critical view of yourself with one more realistic; and to replace your overly optimistic view of where you should be in life with a more realistic one.

Some people have a vulnerability to depressive ways of thinking - being pessimistic and sensitive to failure or criticism are 2 warning signs. In these cases anti-depressants can help alleviate the symptoms.

So no, depression is not a natural state of man. Perhaps in today's ever-faster-moving and more chaotic society it is becoming more and more common, but it causes under-performance and grief for all who encounter it. I see no evolutionary advantage in that..

I think NATO's response so far has been pathetic. Ukraine is not a member, but surely an ally, and a request from them for 100,000 NATO troops on Poland's border to help could not have been refused. Putin only understands one language - force. Those troops might have given him pause, but now he's laughing at the weak timid West and ready to roll his tanks as far as he can get away with.

A week ago I thought his aims were simply to 'free' Luhansk and Donetsk, returning them to Russia and scoring a hit with his voters. But now it seems he's going full Hitler. Commentators have noted how no-one in his inner circle stands up to him so he's becoming more and more megalomaniacal.

NATO need to step up fast. Sanctions - unless they paralyse the whole Russian economy won't do it. Nothing less will stop Putin. If the West let him take Ukraine he won't stop there..

Cruelty as a term cant be applied to the world. It applies to an act: an act is cruel if it is needlessly and vindictively harmful. Cruelty is perpetrated knowingly by an individual with moral choice; so it cant apply to animals, only us humans..

I have to admit this puts us meat-eaters in a dodgy place. Is it cruel to kill and eat animals if it's not necessary? You could however argue that if the animal is well-cared for and humanely killed there is no cruelty involved..

Since religion has historically had its greatest power among the illiterate and nowadays those who dont read literature to gain knowledge, it seems pretty unlikely superstition will be defeated that way - or any other way in my opinion..

I think that for many people contentedness comes with age. As you experience more you realise your own limitations and adapt to live within them and stop pushing yourself to do more, go further. So you could say contentedness is the product of a life spent willingly doing things you can do, rather than those you can't or struggle to do with the competence you desire. 'Desire' is always for something you haven't got. If you've got all you need it vanishes, as does the dissatisfaction of 'failing'..

I think the centipede effect becomes a problem worth considering when it is caused by fear, and thus the action concerned is done self-consciously. This can be disabling and reflect deeper mental ill-health. Altough the cause seems simple the cure is not. The fear of underperforming is very hard to reason away - and that's all that's needed to rid oneself of it. For example, I paint and make small-scale models, and my hands are not as steady as they used to be, making the process harder. But the more attention I pay to keeping my hands steady the worse it gets. Adopting a mindful approach and 'just doing it' helps, but not as much as repeating confidence-building assertions that 'it's easy'.

I think there's a clear difference between a social convention (I think 'norm' is too strong a word here) for giving to charity, and the rules of law. Perhaps the only solution is an anonymous poll where people say how much they give as a % of earnings so we can see the average and decide our own position relative to it.
(Although I suspect many people wouldnt fill in the form as they'd be embarassed about not admitting they don't give anything.)

Does "evolutionary theory" tell us a moral tale? Evolution just took place. Is compassion a "building block" of an "advanced" society? Seems to me that the advantage of one people is the disadvantage for others so how you determine which is the right moral? By reference to evolution theory, like the holy bible teaches the morals as intended by the creator? — HKpinsky

Compassion is what stops you letting your child stay outside in the cold or go without food although you yourself thus cant afford to eat. Without help from the stronger members of a tribe the weaker ones might starve in times of scarcity - not good for the tribe's long-term prospects.

If I send money to those starving in Yemen, am I disadvantaging my tribe as much as I'm helping theirs?

Don't kid yourself, why do you care? To improve society as to better facilitate your needs? This would be a quite ineffective method — InvoluntaryDecorum

Very cynical. I'm secure, my needs are all met. Any charitable donation I make is solely to help those in need; done because I feel that as a comfortably well-off member of a rich country I ought to help those less fortunate. Unless you're racist, compassion extends beyond your own tribe - even beyond your own species..

Yes. But what makes the act count? I mean most states have a social system, which is funded by the money produced from taxes off the people. Is that not charity? — Hermeticus

No. Because you have no choice but to pay it. Charity is given solely at your own discretion.

Charity as a moral principle quickly undermines the moral act in itself. — Hermeticus

Why? Because anyone giving must be doing it to seem charitable, rather than because they are? — Tim3003

No. But that's not what I said. — Hermeticus

So what did you mean here?

1) Morals are individual and differ from person to person.
2) Charity as a moral principle quickly undermines the moral act in itself.
3) Social norms for charity as a moral principle is impossible due to the different ideas and interpretations about morals. — Hermeticus

1)Really? Do we not all agree - or more to the point 'feel' that we have a responsibility to act in the face of poverty, mistreatment, disability - ie to help those less fortunate than ourselves?

2) Why? Because anyone giving must be doing it to seem charitable, rather than because they are? Surely it's the act that counts; not how it 'seems'. Do you believe Bill Gates is just donating billions to 'seem' like a good fellow?

3) See 1). As we differ over morals, you could say any attempt to codify law is impossible - you could say murder cannot be penalised because some think it deserves the death penalty, some prison, some community service.. Society has to agree a compromise acceptable to voters. Maybe the same is possible for charitable donations?

But why do you care to donate? To seem moral? Doesn't sound very moral at all — InvoluntaryDecorum

It's called 'compassion'; a well-known human emotion - maybe it's a sort of altruism, which evolutionary theory will tell you is a vital building block of advanced societies.

From an idealistic viewpoint I think, the appropriate question is not "How much do I give?" but "How much do I need"? — Hermeticus

Well that's never going to work: define 'need'.

Do you 'need' your mobile phone? I'd say 'no'. You might say 'yes'. All you 'need' is oxygen, food, warmth, shelter and human contact. Following that ideal we'd all follow St Francis..

Another facet of this problem that's only just occured to me: the shortening of attention-spans and growing inability to focus on tasks for more than a minute or two, caused by many people's addiction to social media on their smart phones, its short-term buzzes and the sleep-deprivation caused by not having the will power to turn it off. Hence many people are happy to go along with simplistic political statements made by the likes of Trump - who never said anything more complicated than what could fit into a Tweet. People who've never made a habit of thinking are not concerned about using that facility less and less if they don't need to.

But again, its the internet - if the wireless one - that's allowing the social media addiction to capture so many minds. Obviously people - especially children - should turn their phones off at night, and bosses should not be allowed to msg workers outside office hours. But who's going to enact legislation that would limit freedom and annoy many ignorant voters? Instead today's populist politicians work on exploiting the public's lack of patience with ever more simplistic and emotive messaging.

According to an article by Johann Hari in the UK Observer: people think they can do several things a once - ie work and phone; but they can't; the mind doesnt work that way. With each switch the mind has to stop, adjust, remember; then re-adjust and re-remember after the return. A side-by-side test of workers with phones with text-message interrupting and without showed a 20% reduction in the productivity of the 1st group. The longer it takes for the problem to be recognised the harder it will be to solve - like the obesity problem..

One possible solution to counteract hate speech/disinformation/misinformation would be to teach people how to use the internet (digital safety): a baloney detection kit à la the late Carl Sagan's should be put together and made hypervisibile so that people can learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff online. I found one :point: Internet Safety 101. — Agent Smith

The problem with solutions like this is that the only people who'll read them are the likes of us who don't need to! Those who do, won't, just as they won't bother to get their news from reputable sources..

Part of the challenge in defining a random number. We all kind-of know informally what one is, but what it actually is, in the sense of this or that number being random, is more difficult. — tim wood

Surely there's no such thing as 'a random number'. Randomness is about a process of selecting a series of numbers, such that no single selection of a number affects any subsequent selection of a number. It's the definition of a random series or sequence we need to worry about..

The fact that 100 randomicals have their randomic aspects in common, doesn't make them less random. Patterned randomity is still random. — Raymond

Of course: if I toss a coin 10 times, and within those 10 there's a sequence of 3 heads, that doesnt make it non-random. Then if I repeat the 10 tosses and again get a sequence of 3 heads, that doesnt make either of those sequences of 10 non-random. For coin tossing it is probably harder to prove the result is not random. For that to be so my tossing action would need to be somehow biassed and/or the coin would have to be unsymmetrical enough to affect the result. Let's face it, both are pretty unlikely.
So all I need is a 10-sided dice...

Thinking of national lotteries: they take huge pains to ensure there is no bias in the balls the machine selects. If after each selection that ball was replaced with one the same, then the selected sequence would effectively be random. Chaos theory would make any analysis of the balls' motions within the circulating drum and thus prediction impossible..

There are more rules/laws/regulations now than in the past is the premise I'm working with. Given so, doesn't it look like democracy is a sham? After all, our freedoms have been drastically curtailed over the timespan between the very first proto-governments and the current "democratic" zeitgeist. Typically, the average person living in a democratic country today has less freedom than the average person living under an authoritarian regime a thousand years ago. — Agent Smith

Why does the limitation of freedom mean democracy is a sham? It's clear to the vast majority of voters that freedom cannot be unlimited - the majority have to protect themselves against the lunatic fringe. As long as these limits and the laws enshrining them are democratrically agreed what is the problem?
It has always seemed to me that politics boils down to a simple choice between the prioritisation of 2 mutually exclusive ends: namely freedom and the alleviation of poverty. Those (eg. US Republicans) who raise the concept of freedom almost to an untouchable-God-level paradigm are deluded and naive to my way of thinking.