>>not exactly amenable to liberal democracy I'm a big fan of liberal democracy, so this was an argument against involuntary commitment and forced labor, not an

>>not exactly amenable to liberal democracy I'm a big fan of liberal democracy, so this was an argument against involuntary commitment and forced labor, not an argument against liberal democracy. The 'liberal democracy' reference is not using 'liberal' in the same context as the 'liberal cities' I referred to later. >>the vulnerable who are predated upon by drug dealers I wouldn't characterize that as a talking point associated with the right at all. The left is known for displacing blame for the misbehavior of drug addicts onto external forces, and this particular point does the same. Though it does sound critical of drug dealers, which is a right-ish argument. Anyway, it's impossible to not sound political, when the problem is political. And it's impossible to not be critical of the left, when it is mostly the left that is to blame. Left-wing run cities are much worse off than right-wing ones with respect to homelessness, violent crime, drug-abuse, etc, by any metric you look at, and they got that way, from a starting state of much greater social order and more functional civic life, under decades of left-wing policies that gradually became more extreme.