3 ms·
> Which is more likely to affect any given individual? That metric is hilariously wrong. Consider a country with universal healthcare, but where only a single
by chuckee 5y ago
> Which is more likely to affect any given individual?
That metric is hilariously wrong. Consider a country with universal healthcare, but where only a single political party is allowed. You're much more likely to face medical issues in your life, than wanting to start your own party and being prevented.
Does that make the one-party-state more free than every country without universal healthcare?
In other words, by phrasing it as "freedom to live in comfort and safety", you are conflating comfort and safety with freedom.
- lmm 5y agoIf the one-party-ness doesn't actually affect anyone living there, then yes. Most of us would say that the problems with one-party states are not limited to the tiny minority of people who would want to start a new political party, but also has a large effect on people who disagree with government policies but have no representation.
- kiawe_fire 5y agoRight. People presumably don’t start political movements because they’re happy. They typically do so to affect change. Change that may well be required, for example, to address problems in said one-party healthcare system.
- soperj 5y agoDoes it make a difference when there's only 2 parties and neither of them are really any different from each other?