3 Answers

  1. First, let's divide states into “instinctive” and “thoughtful” ones. Instinctively, freedom of speech is like a bone in the throat. Here's another thing, I, the beloved leader of the nation, will be criticized by some journalist or blogger, but who is he, anyway?!�

    A thoughtful state understands that there are no sinless authorities, everyone makes mistakes, and criticism helps to detect these mistakes, at least, so that later – ideally – to correct them.

  2. In fact, it is beneficial for the state of a healthy person, because the division of responsibility. Because when citizens really have the opportunity to make their own choices, they take responsibility for this choice on themselves. If you have ugliness and ugliness in your district, then in the state of a healthy person this is also your fault – why did you choose those who make decisions so badly?

    And the smoker's state does not want to share the right to make decisions, and therefore responsibility, so in such a state, the people who appointed themselves to manage the area are to blame for the fact that you have shit and ugliness in your area.

  3. Because then, it will not be able to manage it in the way that it will be profitable for it. If you want, for example, to accept the Spring package, then they will accept it, nothing depends on the people, no one cares, but they will be able to monitor themselves, even if it is illegal. And if the people have power, then the state will not be able to turn everyone around as it wants, will not be able to properly cut the budget, will not be able to commit crimes with impunity and get off with only small fines. A lot of other reasons, to be honest….

Leave a Reply