it's like cleaning (like any and all maintenance work), you're never done with it.
what a lie (a mistake) to believe that liberty once fought and realized stays with us, in a state of having been won. It must be maintained, it's like being in shape.
Liberty, software, bureaucracies and their complicated interactions... why must it get worse before it gets better?
why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep?
And governments are going to constantly try to regulate the Internet and crack down on it, because it's a threat to them. Look at China where regulation reached its logical conclusion.
I'm just enjoying our little golden age of the web where I don't have to upload a scan of my passport just to read a blog post. These are the good ol' days we will look back on fondly. Make the most of them.
Tyranny is the default of civilization. When left alone, that's what it turns into. Tyranny is weeds in your garden. A few here and there not plucked, after a while, you have nothing to eat. Freedom and liberty must always be tended to because of this.
I think it's a lot like the "paradox of tolerance". if society is too tolerant of intolerant people, the intolerant people end up taking over and society becomes intolerant as a whole.
Analogously, there are always people, organizations, and emergent forces that seek to deprive individuals of their freedom. A society that is excessively free will allow these forces to flourish, leading to loss of freedom and ultimately an unfree society.
In an economic context for example, this is the basic argument in support of antitrust law.
Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I posited an explanation for why tyranny in some form another seems like a default state in human organizations. If you think my explanation is wrong, I'd like to hear an actual argument or evidence against it.
To clarify, I find it frustrating when people justify the government making laws that limit or take away existing freedoms by claiming that they are "preventing intolerance". I believe that laws are, first and foremost, justifications for the government to use force against you, and no government in the history of mankind has ever given a single shit about "preventing intolerance". They care about keeping the rich rich and the working class oppressed and powerless.
To your point, I completely disagree, and think it's extremely naive. Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history.
Okay, but that's the whole nature of OP's question: Why does tyranny arise again and again, as if it were a natural equilibrium state of some kind?
I don't see why government should be treated differently from other institutions in analyzing this question. Deebo and Lord Farquad were both tyrants; was the nature of their tyranny any different, just because one happened to represent "government" and the other didn't?
My proposition is that it requires constant effort and vigilance to prevent the rise of tyranny, because the forces that lead to tyranny are ever-present. So any society that exists temporarily in a non-tyrannical state is still subject to power grabs and takeover attempts by would-be tyrants.
Maybe you're implying that the existence of a state or government is what facilitates such tyranny; I've heard that one many times. I contend that if the state did not exist, then other people and institutions would fill the same role; that the nonexistence of a state would not represent an impediment to tyranny; and that the existence of a state is not itself a strong indicator of the presence of tyranny.