Posted By: fostertomYep, there's a deep contradiction in society/politics -
on the one hand demands - 'libertarian' for freedom to make our own decisions, and 'democratic' for sovereignty to vote for society-wide decisions (or rather, rarely by direct-vote for the decisions themselves, but for politicians delegated to make decisions for us);
and on the other hand, demands for 'protection' (by the politicians) from each other and from our own weaknesses.

New dominant technologies are introduced under the 'libertarian' principle, and are often designed and intended to affect society deeply - but aren't subject to 'democratic' decision, either by direct-vote or by our politician-delegates of whichever colour.
Then, too late, come demands for politicians to protect us from the effects of such un-chosen technologies - both from the deliberate exploitation they often contain, and from our own individual weakness in adopting same - either not seeing the harm they're doing to us, or falling for deberate bamboozlement and and getting addicted anyway.

What is not usually expounded in discussions but fundamental to this is an approach to neoliberalism constructed by the Geneva school. This school of thought asserts the primacy and right of unfettered movement of global capital. But woven within this is a view that national sovereignty were problematic, if not dangerous, if left to their own devices. As such global legal entities were created that would override national sovereignty such as the WTO etc. It was thought that this would reduce geo-political volatility on the backdrop of WWII.

This global order essentially means that nations can be sued for damages for political decisions in the interest of national society which damage the global interests of capital. Fossil fuel companies retain these rights which is one aspect of slow progression in decoupling ourselves from the use of fossil fuels.