Indeed. Simping for Russia and China (and even North Korea, wow) have greatly determental effects to democracy, public discourse, and policy. So I was hoping to change your minds or at least figure out how you think.
Because there's been change in the past, and there is gradual positive change generally happening.
But also because throwing out the system entirely very often leads to power hungry authoritarian groups or people taking advantage of the power vacuum. And they're not as easily dislodged.
I count authoritarian mostly as little to no way for the citizens to effect policy changes. Plus their very heavy handed on controlling their population.
Functional liberal democracies are pretty far from that, since people have feedback, and because of that, the population isn't ruthlessly controlled.
so, say, a place like Cuba where citizens do effect policy changes (like when they recently voted on the new constitution that now enshrines lgbtq rights) are not authoritarian, right?
But most people have no effect on policy and almost all of society, including every necessary resource, is monopolized by the owning class enforcing its will through state violence and deprivation
I disagreed with all of hexbear and was trying to explain things plainly to them.
But was your disagreement morally justified?
Indeed. Simping for Russia and China (and even North Korea, wow) have greatly determental effects to democracy, public discourse, and policy. So I was hoping to change your minds or at least figure out how you think.
Is liberal democracy moral?
I think it is the most effective system yet devised at minimizing the immorality of the system.
Current examples are however far from ideal.
Actually existing liberal democracies aren't perfect but you still support them? How do you morally justify that position?
Because they're the best we've got, and they have the capability to improve.
So despite the many flaws and problems with these systems, you support them because you think they can improve? Why do you think they can improve?
Because there's been change in the past, and there is gradual positive change generally happening.
But also because throwing out the system entirely very often leads to power hungry authoritarian groups or people taking advantage of the power vacuum. And they're not as easily dislodged.
Is liberal democracy authoritarian? If not then why?
I count authoritarian mostly as little to no way for the citizens to effect policy changes. Plus their very heavy handed on controlling their population.
Functional liberal democracies are pretty far from that, since people have feedback, and because of that, the population isn't ruthlessly controlled.
so, say, a place like Cuba where citizens do effect policy changes (like when they recently voted on the new constitution that now enshrines lgbtq rights) are not authoritarian, right?
But most people have no effect on policy and almost all of society, including every necessary resource, is monopolized by the owning class enforcing its will through state violence and deprivation
What do mean by controlling their population? Since thst seems to be the key factor here