In your email intro to this article you state: "The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman started suggesting that a one-party autocracy led by an “enlightened group of people” can yield superior results than a messy liberal democracy."
To me, this is the exact path that Liberals are on, under the pretext of democracy.
1) They have censored mainstream news and media (incorrectly, I might add as history is proving),
2) They look for political solutions when practical solutions exist - like why is showing ID not necessary in nearly half the states in the US (all Liberal) when every other country in the democratic world requires ID?
3) they offer no accountability over transgressions that affect society- where is the list of people who went to jail for creating the economic collapse of 2008, the censorship of the lab leak theory and the discussion of vaccine injury?
The true reason for a multi party system is ACCOUNTABILITY, and so far the people have none, or very little. And yet the Liberals continue to beat the drum that only their party has all the answers.
Can you do Canada under Trudeau next? This publication derided the Freedom Convoy for being a populist movement filled with conspiracy theorists, and yet here we are, pointing out the failings of COVID-19 policies in China.
Let's face it: many liberal democracies are on the road toward Chinese style authoritarianism and the people on this publication either choose to ignore it or unknowingly are celebrating it.
Lockdowns are incredibly undemocratic, but if anyone challenged those in a western democracy, those people are deemed populists and, in the words of Justin Trudeau, "a small fringe minority with unacceptable views."
In conclusion, the Unpopulist appears to be rank with hypocrisy. Lockdowns in China bad, lockdowns in the west good. Do you guys not see it yet?
Autocratic regimes have a theoretical advantage being able to peruse the public good without the inefficiencies created by politics. (No NIMByism, no short planning horizon, no inefficient redistribution using high deadweight loss taxes, unpopular pigou taxes can be imposed,) Unfortunately for they theory, the can be as subject to dysfunctional politics as liberal regimes. And te ma be even more prone to Olsen-type accumulation o heatseeking than liberal regimes
In your email intro to this article you state: "The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman started suggesting that a one-party autocracy led by an “enlightened group of people” can yield superior results than a messy liberal democracy."
To me, this is the exact path that Liberals are on, under the pretext of democracy.
1) They have censored mainstream news and media (incorrectly, I might add as history is proving),
2) They look for political solutions when practical solutions exist - like why is showing ID not necessary in nearly half the states in the US (all Liberal) when every other country in the democratic world requires ID?
3) they offer no accountability over transgressions that affect society- where is the list of people who went to jail for creating the economic collapse of 2008, the censorship of the lab leak theory and the discussion of vaccine injury?
The true reason for a multi party system is ACCOUNTABILITY, and so far the people have none, or very little. And yet the Liberals continue to beat the drum that only their party has all the answers.
No different than any autocratic party.
Can you do Canada under Trudeau next? This publication derided the Freedom Convoy for being a populist movement filled with conspiracy theorists, and yet here we are, pointing out the failings of COVID-19 policies in China.
Let's face it: many liberal democracies are on the road toward Chinese style authoritarianism and the people on this publication either choose to ignore it or unknowingly are celebrating it.
Lockdowns are incredibly undemocratic, but if anyone challenged those in a western democracy, those people are deemed populists and, in the words of Justin Trudeau, "a small fringe minority with unacceptable views."
In conclusion, the Unpopulist appears to be rank with hypocrisy. Lockdowns in China bad, lockdowns in the west good. Do you guys not see it yet?
Autocratic regimes have a theoretical advantage being able to peruse the public good without the inefficiencies created by politics. (No NIMByism, no short planning horizon, no inefficient redistribution using high deadweight loss taxes, unpopular pigou taxes can be imposed,) Unfortunately for they theory, the can be as subject to dysfunctional politics as liberal regimes. And te ma be even more prone to Olsen-type accumulation o heatseeking than liberal regimes