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?
They’d be not very authoritarian then if that’s true. I haven’t looked at that case specifically though. Sometimes the process is pretty rigged to give only the appearance of democracy. But I have no reason to think that’s the case in Cuba.
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
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?
They’d be not very authoritarian then if that’s true. I haven’t looked at that case specifically though. Sometimes the process is pretty rigged to give only the appearance of democracy. But I have no reason to think that’s the case in Cuba.
What do mean by controlling their population? Since thst seems to be the key factor here
Controlling what they’re allowed to think, say, and do. Much further than is necessary for just protecting people.
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