I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is either not authorianism or is sliding in to it like many Americans do. I think that conception of the world makes it very difficult to have a productive conversation or society. It is, of course, the world that right wing media seems to be trying to build. To what end? I don't know, but I was listening to a right wing station the other day and it was just endless "Christians are victims" and "the left is brainwashing people" and "Christians who are vaccinated are useful idiots." There was no news, no facts, just divisive rhetoric and victimhood for an hour. This was followed by something called "The Mike Lindell Show" which I didn't get to listen to as we arrived home before it aired. I don't know how you can have a productive society when some people are taught to hate anyone who doesn't believe as they do. Once again, I am not sure that I actually used the words you imply I used. My point was never that China isn't bad. China is Firking awful, alright? They have been since before my grandparents fled China to India and before my family left Hong Kong so we wouldn't be anywhere near them. But the western narrative is also faulty and biased, and for a random, average individual, how bad the government might be to certain people isn't all that relevant unless they are the ones in the crosshairs. This is the same problem with issues like systemic discrimination/racism and the other things here in the US - unless you happen to be in a situation where it applies, it can be hard to see it in action, and even then, it doesn't affect every one just because they check off some boxes. An example of the anti-China bias' came with The Altantic's coverage in the early parts of the COVID pandemic, where they criticized China's "draconian" measures and doubted that it was effective, while at the same time praising South Korea and Taiwan's very similar measures as "world class" and other positive adjectives. Contact tracing in China? Invasion of privacy! Contact tracing in South Korea? Key innovation to limiting the spread. China making their businesses make PPE? Anti-freedom socialist control! Taiwan making their businesses make PPE? Private-Public partnership success! Just because I hate China doesn't mean I can't be objective about western's views of the country and recognize how biased it is. If you were to believe some western media, you'd think everyone in China was wearing ankle monitors and fearful for their lives 24/7 while eating plastic rice - that just isn't the case. It doesn't mean China is super duper awesome. The world isn't some black and white place where you either love or hate China, or everyone in China is either super free or super oppressed. That's not how it works. I don't know why you seem to want to interpret everything as black or white extremes, but real life is more nuanced than that.
In general, I'd say that things like civil asset forfeiture, use of military force to suppress protests, attacks on the free speech, suppression of speech of scientists, undermining of democratic institutions, etc. to be much more concerning with regards to potential authorianism than things like vaccines mandates. Specifically, I don't feel that policies which seeks to benefit the average person as a net gain to society is generally problematic. It doesn't mean that there can never be such a policy, or that people can't use such ideas with bad intentions. But for me, police using government sanctioned force to seize private property without due process is literally happening right now and much more problematic. I also think it's funny how some people are concerned about government surveillance and then they go and install Ring doorbells which lets the police surveil the area around their homes without a warrant. ~ Note that I also GEO-Libertarian, which might explain some of your confusion. Geo-Libertarians are a subset and has an emphasis on protecting collective liberty and common resources such as land and air, and recognize that individuals exploiting common resources, while possibly increasing that individuals' liberty, necessarily impacts the potential liberty of others. Specifically, this section from the Wikipedia is pretty accurate: Thomas Paine inspired the citizen's dividend and stated: "Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds"[3] In continuity with the classical liberal tradition, geolibertarians contend that land is an independent factor of production, that it is the common inheritance of all humanity and that the justice of private property is derived from an individual's right to the fruits of his or her labor. Since land by economic definition is not the product of human labor, its ownership cannot be justified by appealing to natural human rights. Geolibertarians recognize the individual civil right to secure exclusive possession of land (land tenure) only on the condition that if the land has accrued economic rent, its full rental value be paid to the community deprived of equal access. This non-distortionary system of taxation, it is argued, has the effects of returning the value that belongs to all members of society and encouraging landholders to use only as much land as they need, leaving unneeded land for others to occupy, use and develop.[4] Perhaps the most succinct summary of the geolibertarian philosophy is Thomas Paine's assertion in his 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds". On the other hand, John Locke wrote that private land ownership should be praised as long as its product was not left to spoil and there was "enough, and as good left in common for others". When this Lockean proviso is violated, the land earns rental value. Some geolibertarians argue that "enough, and as good left" is a practical impossibility in a city setting because location is paramount. This implies that in any urban social environment Locke's proviso requires the collection and equal distribution of ground rent. Geolibertarians often dispute the received interpretation of Locke's homestead principle outlined in his Second Treatise of Government as concerning the justice of initial acquisition of property in land, opting instead for a view ostensibly more compatible with the proviso which considers Locke to be describing the process by which property is created from land through the application of labor. This strict definition of private property as the fruit of a person's labor leads geolibertarians to advocate free markets in capital goods, consumer goods and services in addition to the protection of workers' rights to their full earnings. ~ Also, let me put it another way. I have said this before, but if I were suddenly given the power to reshape society the way *I* think would be best - I wouldn't do it. Because that'd just be me being a dictator. I am passionate about what I believe is best for humanity, but I don't believe that I cannot be wrong. At the same time, I don't believe it is my right to force my beliefs on everyone else. At the same time, I also don't believe most of ideas are actually practical or possible given the current state of society and technological development. Great if society generally moves towards the direction I think is desirable, but I would not support overthrowing society and installing my utopian vision or whatever it might be called on everyone else when we didn't make our way there ourselves.
your grandparents fled to india thats surprising considering india and china during the wartime were still having clashes even after india's independence in '47
My dad grew up in Bombay, where my grandfather worked on a British ship. Keep in mind both China and India are very large and populous, and, especially back then, had limited information availability particularly in the rural areas. It wouldn't surprise me if most of them didn't know nor cared who their country was fighting as long as it wasn't in their villages. I think this is a good illustration of how every day people are not always affected by what the country is doing at higher levels or in completely different parts of the country which they have never been to and have no reason to care about - particularly if you are poor or subsistence farming. You are just looking to your next meal and what not.
That "conception" is also a strawman. None the less, you have and continue to support authoritarian policies. Vaccine Mandates, and extra punishments or segregation for those that go without being among those authoritarian policies. The collectivist side of your "Geo-Libertarianism" also has authoritarian elements as well. In WW2, the justification to put Japanese (or at least people that looked Japanese in some cases) into Camps is much the same as what we have going on in Australia, and is being carried out to an extent in NYC, and pushed by many others. "Well, they MIGHT be a risk to others, so even if we can't/haven't yet proven that we should seperate them for the good of everyone. It's an emergency so that's what must be done!" It can sound good and noble, "we just want to protect people from harm." But it ignores some fundamental principles that in particular the US was founded on. Individualism over Collectivism is one... but not all of it. The "accused" (or "potential threat") should be considered "innocent" until proven "guilty" (or "proven threat"). That it is better to err on the side of releasing a potential threat, than to condemn an innocent person... that's at least half of it. It is also, however, because otherwise you give an outsized power to whomever has "authority to accuse." Such outsized power can, and has often been, used to persecute the innocent, to corrupt the office for personal (or party) gains. It creates a fundamentally unequal application of the law, something only recently codified in actual constitutional law, but which had always been part of the principles behind the Declaration of Independence. It results in arbitrary and dictitorial decrees like: "this liquor store is 'essential' but this temple is not." Or how Biden's recent act as his majesty the wanna-be king excludes Congress and select others from his mandate. It is the fundamental aspect of why racism and sexism is feared and hated (above and beyond the rationale of racism etc. being inherently idiotic). Proving anything can be difficult. It's why "the burden of proof" is on the accuser, or upon those that wish to inact change in the status quo. It's why people are inherently resistant to the idea that the US elections are rigged and why people likewise resist mandates of masks or any other medical proceedure or compound. For some people, one set of evidence is enough, but another isn't. But once you flip the script. Once you say: "it is up to the innocent to prove they are innocent." Than the will of the people is often and swiftly crushed beneath the boot of tyranny. In the theater of law... the "jury" is a substantial enough number of legislators which (provided a functioning electoral system) answer to the people. When this is bypassed in the name of "emergency" or "the greater good." Often great evil results, even if the initial justification given sounds truly noble and proper.
You probably could have saved some time and effort leading with this instead of quibbling about Trump and the like. I know some of this is my own fault. My and your attitude (based on experience and impression, I could be wrong) is often one of "wanting to be right" and also wanting to show different perspectives. The real goal of such discussions should ideally be to build toward consensus on various issues, and to note, but then move on from, points of disagreement where feasible. For my part, I try to take some of this experience as being instructive, and will endeavour, where possible and my patience permits, to change the manner I approach such topics, to again, point out disagreement, but seek out what we can and do agree on. Because despite how it likely seems from recent heated exchanges over this past month and more... I do know that there are things we do have fundamental agreements on, and; while you sometimes disappoint my expectations, it is only because my expectations are (overly?) high based on my respect and, mild friendly affection(?). I shall therefore try not to expect anything in particular, and thus be pleasantly surprised when it is exceeded, rather than unpleasantly put off when they are not met. Well, that's what I'll try anyway.
