10 ms·

Yes, as an American I think that all forms of government that are not liberal democracy basically are illegitimate. We can have relationships of convenience wit

Yes, as an American I think that all forms of government that are not liberal democracy basically are illegitimate. We can have relationships of convenience with other governments, but it should be known by such governments somewhere in the back of their minds that we would prefer to see them replaced by a liberal democracy. The Iranian state has not shown itself to be one that is very convenient for us to temporarily overlook its flaws, and the people it governs frequently show that they would prefer a different form of government (otherwise, why not let them vote in fair elections?). It should be a no brainer that Americans and their government should be on the side of the people, not the theocracy.

greensh 8mo ago
But USA can't even be on the side of their own people. I can see the recent ICE shooting, health care issues, clearly corrupt government officials. Why should anybody trust them with another country? Also the US has massive protests aswell, would it be okay for china to liberate the USA, since china itself is lead by a "democratic party"? They could argue the USA isn't a real liberal democracy. > why not let them vote in fair elections? Elections can be faked, people can be mislead, oppositions and media can be bought.
- scottyah 8mo ago
  USA has many different people and most try hard allow everyone to speak their mind. That is what is being preserved for others- the ability to escape oppression (that seems to just be a built-in human thing), no matter where you are.
- verall 8mo ago
  There's a big gap between "national firewalls shouldn't exist" and "country should invade/"liberate" another country to prevent national firewall (or insert other disliked policy)". So to respond directly: > Why should anybody trust them with another country? They should not and should not need to trust them with another country > would it be okay for china to liberate the USA no, it wouldn't. But if China felt that the USA gov't was like, not cool, they could impose sanctions or not trade with USA.
kennykartman 8mo ago
The US democracy is quite weird, though, because it's IMHO quite far from the people: billionaires can influence the outcomes of elections by steering the votes where the most paying candidate (or the most knowledgeable, or someone else with other skills) desires. This is not something that people can influence easily, so I find hard to believe that a government is legitimate just by the label on the packaging. I won't go down the path of "fair elections", since I don't think it applies to USA.
- smsm42 8mo ago
  Billionaires can do this in any country. In US, the difference is other billionaires than the rulers of the country are allowed to exist.
  - kennykartman 8mo ago
    I think this is not true. Russia and China come to mind: billionaires are there, but they are not allowed to subvert the regime. Edit just to clarify: presence of billionaires that are not hostile to the regime does not mean they are allies either.
    - smsm42 8mo ago
      Billionaires there are subjects to the regime, and only remain billionaires while they are absolutely loyal to the regime. And threat of disagreement not only would cause them stop being billionaires, but also stop breathing altogether. I mean, running away could be an option, but then one stops being Russian or Chinese billionaire. And also this may not preclude "stop breathing" option, as some examples show.
      - kennykartman 8mo ago
        You're right! Still they are billionaires in their countries with many benefits for being billionaires! Except, steering the government where they want - which typically means getting even richer. In the USA this happened, though. My point is that, even in self-proclamed democracies, it's quite hard to actually give power to the people, precisely as in regimes. It's not a "it's all the same" position, of course: I mean to say that taking some values as absolute is not great if we don't clearly define what we are optimizing for. The USA model of democracy doesn't optimize for individual freedom nor for general population happiness.

greensh 8mo ago

But USA can't even be on the side of their own people. I can see the recent ICE shooting, health care issues, clearly corrupt government officials. Why should anybody trust them with another country? Also the US has massive protests aswell, would it be okay for china to liberate the USA, since china itself is lead by a "democratic party"? They could argue the USA isn't a real liberal democracy. > why not let them vote in fair elections? Elections can be faked, people can be mislead, oppositions and media can be bought.

scottyah 8mo ago
USA has many different people and most try hard allow everyone to speak their mind. That is what is being preserved for others- the ability to escape oppression (that seems to just be a built-in human thing), no matter where you are.
verall 8mo ago
There's a big gap between "national firewalls shouldn't exist" and "country should invade/"liberate" another country to prevent national firewall (or insert other disliked policy)". So to respond directly: > Why should anybody trust them with another country? They should not and should not need to trust them with another country > would it be okay for china to liberate the USA no, it wouldn't. But if China felt that the USA gov't was like, not cool, they could impose sanctions or not trade with USA.

kennykartman 8mo ago

The US democracy is quite weird, though, because it's IMHO quite far from the people: billionaires can influence the outcomes of elections by steering the votes where the most paying candidate (or the most knowledgeable, or someone else with other skills) desires. This is not something that people can influence easily, so I find hard to believe that a government is legitimate just by the label on the packaging. I won't go down the path of "fair elections", since I don't think it applies to USA.

smsm42 8mo ago
Billionaires can do this in any country. In US, the difference is other billionaires than the rulers of the country are allowed to exist.
- kennykartman 8mo ago
  I think this is not true. Russia and China come to mind: billionaires are there, but they are not allowed to subvert the regime. Edit just to clarify: presence of billionaires that are not hostile to the regime does not mean they are allies either.
  - smsm42 8mo ago
    Billionaires there are subjects to the regime, and only remain billionaires while they are absolutely loyal to the regime. And threat of disagreement not only would cause them stop being billionaires, but also stop breathing altogether. I mean, running away could be an option, but then one stops being Russian or Chinese billionaire. And also this may not preclude "stop breathing" option, as some examples show.
    - kennykartman 8mo ago
      You're right! Still they are billionaires in their countries with many benefits for being billionaires! Except, steering the government where they want - which typically means getting even richer. In the USA this happened, though. My point is that, even in self-proclamed democracies, it's quite hard to actually give power to the people, precisely as in regimes. It's not a "it's all the same" position, of course: I mean to say that taking some values as absolute is not great if we don't clearly define what we are optimizing for. The USA model of democracy doesn't optimize for individual freedom nor for general population happiness.