"citation needed" I certainly agree that there is really only oligrachy everywhere, and I certainly do not think any individual hero ruler would be better.

The statement only observed a bad thing. It did not advocate or even hint at some other bad thing as a proposed solution.

Putting words into someone else's mouth is worse even than whatever they might have said if they had actually said it.

It's an actual wrondoing that you did vs a fabricated wrongdoing you accused someone else of doing.

That comment turns out to have been wrong after all. So, tell me more about being amused.

They weren't saying that democracy is bad, or that anything else is better, they were saying that it (largely) doesn't exist.

I think the point was not to say that authoritarianism or anything else would be better, but simply to say that in order to get a useful result from judging something, you have to judge what it actually is, not something you imagine.

Oligarchy is probably just an inevitable emergent property of any collection of cells each exhibiting the human condition. No one is saying that it's good or roght, just that it is the actual state of things, where democracy as we were told to imagine it in school, is largely a fantasy. A nice one, and surely the direction we should always aim, but not what is or realistically ever will be.

The point as I see it, is only to point out that when trying to decide what to do, and how to interpret the results of what has been done, there is a difference between the direction you push, the ideals you want, and how far you have or even ever possibly can get, how much of those ideals you have been striving for you actually have, regardless what labels are on things or what they tell everyone in school and on tv.

If you want to judge something, and have a useful result, you have to know correctly what you are actually judging. IE: it's misleading your own self as well as others to imagine that various outcomes and current conditions are the result of democracy, no matter what country you are in. In all cases, regardless what label is on the tin, it is really the result of oligrachy. (or at least to some large degree, and at least so I percieve that comment to be saying, and at least so I am saying myself)

Aiming for democracy is still probably better than not. Not because it demonsteably produces better outcomes, but because at least on paper there is some chance for it's nominal purpose. A paper declaration of agency is better than none at all.

I'm a bit confused, how is the quoted part from my comment relevant here? I'm a liberal and as such, I don't "endorse a country who literally has a single king-like ruler, who will throw you in jail if you speak ill about them"

> Not saying this applies to you, but

So your comment is unfounded and useless, in other words.

One can point out that liberal democracies are heavily liberal and only somewhat democratic without committing to endorsing any other kind of government or regime, ya know.

(A common statist fallacy: assuming that some criticism of an existing type of government must imply that they are rooting for another kind of government. Not saying that this applies to you, though!)

Don't worry, I'm not interested in prescribing any ideology. I think the world is alright and isn't in need of saving. But I would ask you this - when you are jailed for speaking, would it be of some comfort to know that the decision to jail you was decided by 100 politicians instead of 1?

edit: re-reading your comment, I think (mistakenly perhaps) you were suggesting that I support Russia. I would like to clarify that I most certainly do not.