There are advantages to the efficiency of authoritarian power, but how do they handle peaceful transition of power? How do they handle abuse?
A lot of democratic stability comes from it being hard to change things quickly, separation of power, and the existence of a lot free speech so it's hard to cover things up. Ultimately, with a dependence on the people.
I could be persuaded that there are better ways to structure things within that, if a lot of thought was put into how to handle a tyrant's rise and how to handle a transition of power. I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people.
I generally agree with the sentiment that elected leaders fear getting voted out, while dictators fear getting dragged out. The ability to vote seems important for long term stability.
In China's case, it seems they've done away with terms entirely for Xi. Speech and dissent is tightly (and violently) controlled, and even when there's just potential for future dissent, entire groups are put into camps to destroy their culture to supposedly reduce that risk.
The west has problems too, but there's a reason people emmigrate out to countries that are more free when they're allowed to.
Enormous economic growth and strategic planning have allowed their people to accept this abuse for now, though the party should be worried if that ever changes.
>There are advantages to the efficiency of authoritarian power, but how do they handle peaceful transition of power?
Europe had hereditary transitions of power, which were about as peaceful as any other form of transition of power. In Rome you would choose your successor and he would be the next emperor.
> I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people.
Just because it's supposed to work that way doesn't mean it actually works that way. Do you think Americans are using free speech well? Do you feel like the government is accountable to you? In America you have free speech but it's not practically useful for anything. Have a go at trying to stop some government abuse of power.
> "Do you think Americans are using free speech well? Do you feel like the government is accountable to you?"
Yes.
> "In America you have free speech but it's not practically useful for anything. Have a go at trying to stop some government abuse of power."
The protests happening now, civil rights movements in the 60s, the changes after the pentagon papers, the suffrage movement. "Me Too" and its impact on culture, awareness of the continuous lies coming from the current administration. There are an enormous amount of historical examples of free speech being critical to improving the society.
I think you're very wrong, but you're free to be wrong (at least on this website).
> Do you think Americans are using free speech well?
I think that's irrelevant, since being a free individual is the main reason being alive and healthy is desirable, not the other way around. If people just existed to keep an abstract group of people alive, with no person in that group actually mattering, actually being allowed to develop as the person they are, not the group they are in -- what's the point of having people at all? What would we be doing that insects or algae aren't already doing much better?
> Just because it's supposed to work that way doesn't mean it actually works that way.
Sure, but if it's not even supposed to work that way, or is even supposed to work the opposite, then that's still a lot worse.
A lot of democratic stability comes from it being hard to change things quickly, separation of power, and the existence of a lot free speech so it's hard to cover things up. Ultimately, with a dependence on the people.
I could be persuaded that there are better ways to structure things within that, if a lot of thought was put into how to handle a tyrant's rise and how to handle a transition of power. I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people.
I generally agree with the sentiment that elected leaders fear getting voted out, while dictators fear getting dragged out. The ability to vote seems important for long term stability.
In China's case, it seems they've done away with terms entirely for Xi. Speech and dissent is tightly (and violently) controlled, and even when there's just potential for future dissent, entire groups are put into camps to destroy their culture to supposedly reduce that risk.
The west has problems too, but there's a reason people emmigrate out to countries that are more free when they're allowed to.
Enormous economic growth and strategic planning have allowed their people to accept this abuse for now, though the party should be worried if that ever changes.