"However, freedom of speech is essentially amoral, and because it itself is a political technical concept established atop relativism, it is a matter of course that the thought of the Security Treaty that equates the relative choice of belonging to the so-called democratic camp with national policy can only possess a flimsy ethical basis, and it will likely from now on lose more and more of its power." Currently struggling to understand this. He is saying...democracy is relativistic in that it tries to make room for everyone and thus all aesthetics are supposed to have value, as opposed to a system where true taste is recognized by a hierarchy? And that freedom of speech permits crappy ideas along with good ideas and therefore is immoral? I can't follow the rest of his sentence. Why does freedom of speech lose power?
"However, freedom of speech is essentially amoral, and because it itself is a political technical concept established atop relativism, it is a matter of course that the thought of the Security Treaty that equates the relative choice of belonging to the so-called democratic camp with national policy can only possess a flimsy ethical basis, and it will likely from now on lose more and more of its power." Currently struggling to understand this. He is saying...democracy is relativistic in that it tries to make room for everyone and thus all aesthetics are supposed to have value, as opposed to a system where true taste is recognized by a hierarchy? And that freedom of speech permits crappy ideas along with good ideas and therefore is immoral? I can't follow the rest of his sentence. Why does freedom of speech lose power?