When is it time to leave a country becoming a dictatorship?

[Novus America]

So? Better to die fighting than running.

if it were the case that it were so easy, we would have never conceived of the word "rout".

Nobody said it would be easy. The right thing to do is not always the easy thing of course.
The easy life is not the best life.

Besides there is a difference from living to fight another day and refusing to fight at all.

[Novus America]

Why leave when you can fight?

Because we've only got one life to live and sometimes it ain't worth losing, even for a good cause.

If you only have one life make it mean something.
You only die once, so it is better to die doing good then to live a life where you do not do good.

There is no need to needlessly die, but if you can do better risking your life than not risking it, it is a risk worth taking.

[Neu Leonstein]

You always hear that you have to stay in the country to vote in the next election, but what about when that election is either rigged or never comes. What about when any kind of revolution is doomed to failure? Under what circumstances is it finally acceptable to abandon a country sliding into a dictatorship?

I think you try and impose a binary here where there is no need. It's not about 'dictatorship or democracy'. It's about whether or not you think that the politics and society of the country are a good place for you to live, and whether your indirect support of the politics is justifiable given your ethics.

People usually use 'love it or leave it' as an aggressive slogan meant to shut down the expression of differing opinions by implying hypocrisy and rhetorically expelling those who disagree from the community. But if you rightly ignore that and just take the slogan literally, it's not that bad a maxim.

There is no obligation to hang around to vote. There is no obligation to hang around at all. People should be far more open to emigration than most are. Personally, I think a person who has only ever lived in one country has failed to live their life fully, much the same as someone who has never left their 200-soul birth village.

So no, I think 'abandon a country' is the wrong terminology to use. Do you like the place you live? If so, great. If not, why not go somewhere you think will be better? Whether the reason is your salary, the quality of the local schools or the views of the President on interracial relations is not terribly relevant.

[Novus America]

You always hear that you have to stay in the country to vote in the next election, but what about when that election is either rigged or never comes. What about when any kind of revolution is doomed to failure? Under what circumstances is it finally acceptable to abandon a country sliding into a dictatorship?

I think you try and impose a binary here where there is no need. It's not about 'dictatorship or democracy'. It's about whether or not you think that the politics and society of the country are a good place for you to live, and whether your indirect support of the politics is justifiable given your ethics.

People usually use 'love it or leave it' as an aggressive slogan meant to shut down the expression of differing opinions by implying hypocrisy and rhetorically expelling those who disagree from the community. But if you rightly ignore that and just take the slogan literally, it's not that bad a maxim.

There is no obligation to hang around to vote. There is no obligation to hang around at all. People should be far more open to emigration than most are. Personally, I think a person who has only ever lived in one country has failed to live their life fully, much the same as someone who has never left their 200-soul birth village.

So no, I think 'abandon a country' is the wrong terminology to use. Do you like the place you live? If so, great. If not, why not go somewhere you think will be better? Whether the reason is your salary, the quality of the local schools or the views of the President on interracial relations is not terribly relevant.

Because emigration fixes nothing. And eventually you will run out of places to run to.
The real issue here is it better to put yourself first, or make a sacrifice to actually make things better?
Your own personal benefit should not be the only thing to consider.

[Peoples Cities]

When people start disappearing off the street, it becomes illegal to voice any opposing view of the government and the borders were about to seal shut, I would probably want to leave before it got to that point, least I get trapped in the country and have to endure a period of dictatorship.

If that happened and I was stuck in a dictatorship I would probably just keep my head down and try to live my life and hope to outlive the dictatorship, I'd be one of the first to celebrate and dance on the streets with the rest of the people if I ever lived through the overthrow and collapse of a dictatorship. Whether is was a left wing dictatorship or a right wing dictatorship, at least under a left wing dictatorship there would be government attempts to provide its citizens with its basic needs, while under a right wing dictatorship the government wouldn't care if you died hungry and homeless in a ditch somewhere

[Ters Althria]

I would move to a dictatorship if the ruler's conscience was governed by the catholic faith

[Tokora]

I would move to a dictatorship if the ruler's conscience was governed by the catholic faith

Hungary and Brazil will probably be available if your interested.

[Novus America]

I would move to a dictatorship if the ruler's conscience was governed by the catholic faith

Hungary and Brazil will probably be available if your interested.

Neither are dictatorships. Certainly Hungary has become somewhat authoritarian but is not a full blown dictatorship. Brazil certainly is not. Certainly the president has some authoritarian tendencies but he has not imposed a dictatorship.

[Thermodolia]

I would move to a dictatorship if the ruler's conscience was governed by the catholic faith

Hungary and Brazil will probably be available if your interested.

Orbán isn’t Catholic though

[Izaakia]

Because we've only got one life to live and sometimes it ain't worth losing, even for a good cause.

If you only have one life make it mean something.
You only die once, so it is better to die doing good then to live a life where you do not do good.

There is no need to needlessly die, but if you can do better risking your life than not risking it, it is a risk worth taking.

Why die for something you won’t benefit from?

[Novus America]

If you only have one life make it mean something.
You only die once, so it is better to die doing good then to live a life where you do not do good.

There is no need to needlessly die, but if you can do better risking your life than not risking it, it is a risk worth taking.

Why die for something you won’t benefit from?

Because others might benefit.
Narcissism is not a healthy philosophy.

[Izaakia]

Why die for something you won’t benefit from?

Because others might benefit.
Narcissism is not a healthy philosophy.

Dying forever seems like a steep price for other people, mot of whom you don’t like and will never know.

[Novus America]

Because others might benefit.
Narcissism is not a healthy philosophy.

Dying forever seems like a steep price for other people, mot of whom you don’t like and will never know.

You are going to die anyways. Might as well make your death mean something.
And you very well might know many of them.

But again everything is not just about you or me.
Doing the right thing is not a about what is doing what is personal best for yourself in the short term.

[Thermodolia]

If you only have one life make it mean something.
You only die once, so it is better to die doing good then to live a life where you do not do good.

There is no need to needlessly die, but if you can do better risking your life than not risking it, it is a risk worth taking.

Why die for something you won’t benefit from?

Great men plant trees who’s shade they know they will not lie in.

[Lanoraie II]

The problem isn't so much when, it's where; where will you go? Is anywhere truly safe and free anymore? Maybe, but I'm slowly running out of countries I'd flee to as freedom of speech gets obliterated worldwide. And I don't even really have much to say...

[The Slightly Madlands]

The problem isn't so much when, it's where; where will you go? Is anywhere truly safe and free anymore? Maybe, but I'm slowly running out of countries I'd flee to as freedom of speech gets obliterated worldwide. And I don't even really have much to say...

United States is my plan for freedom of speech, though not having freedom of speech is not really a good reason to abandon your fellow country men.

[UniversalCommons]

There is such a thing as democratic socialists, but the country has to be very homogenous with a strong singular culture like Norway or Sweden or else it won't work very well at all. The places with successful democratic socialist governments tend not to be very diverse in opinion or culture.

[Novus America]

There is such a thing as democratic socialists, but the country has to be very homogenous with a strong singular culture like Norway or Sweden or else it won't work very well at all. The places with successful democratic socialist governments tend not to be very diverse in opinion or culture.

Norway and Sweden are NOT democratic socialist and do NOT have democratic socialist governments.

They are social democratic.

The problem is that most people in the US use the terms social democracy and democratic socialism interchangeably, despite the fact these are different things.

Socialists only have 12 out of 169 seats in Norway and 28 out of 349 seats in Sweden. Socialism is a minor fringe in both countries, which are dominated by centrist, Christian Democratic and Social Democratic parties.

[Dushan]

To go back to the original question:

Whether or not it is time to leave a country depends entirely on one's individual situation. If you're a normie who has never been politically active then the bar is rather high as opposed to somebody who has been politically or otherwise active beforehand, especially even more so when those activities were opposed to the establishing regime. If the later is the case, you'd better pack your suitcases in time. Double down so when the country in question has a history of political violence in the past five years.

I've read plenty of accounts from people who had to flee Germany during the establishment of the Nazi rule, and there were a lot who were stubbornly (feeling the need to make a stand) or idealistical (it can't happen here) enough to remain and didn left while they still had time. That later cost them dearly, beginning from unable to transfer money aboard due heavy restriction (still an issue today in various country )to ending up in concentration camps.

tl;dr: That isnt so much a question of ethics or preferences as one of survival and avoidance of, sometimes, severe repercussions for your own life and that of your family.

[UniversalCommons]

There is such a thing as democratic socialists, but the country has to be very homogenous with a strong singular culture like Norway or Sweden or else it won't work very well at all. The places with successful democratic socialist governments tend not to be very diverse in opinion or culture.

Norway and Sweden are NOT democratic socialist and do NOT have democratic socialist governments.

They are social democratic.

The problem is that most people in the US use the terms social democracy and democratic socialism interchangeably, despite the fact these are different things.

Socialists only have 12 out of 169 seats in Norway and 28 out of 349 seats in Sweden. Socialism is a minor fringe in both countries, which are dominated by centrist, Christian Democratic and Social Democratic parties.

I thought they were socialists who were democrats. So tell me is it like the word liberal where it means one thing when you talk about trade and another thing when you talk about politics? Enlighten me.

If you feel the need to leave because you fear for your livelihood and life do it. Both of my sets of great grandparents left before trouble started. On one of my grandparents side, there is a patch of flat empty ground where there was once a town. There is nothing there. A lot of people want your property more than they want you, or they just don't like you and want you not to be there. It is usually the state which tries to kill you, it is very hard for an individual to kill without indoctrination or being part of a crowd.

When the state starts deciding to put you in camps, starts mass seizure of property from specific ethnic groups, organizes mass night attacks against your people, or starts being violent on a mass organized scale, it is time to go.

[Novus America]

Norway and Sweden are NOT democratic socialist and do NOT have democratic socialist governments.

They are social democratic.

The problem is that most people in the US use the terms social democracy and democratic socialism interchangeably, despite the fact these are different things.

Socialists only have 12 out of 169 seats in Norway and 28 out of 349 seats in Sweden. Socialism is a minor fringe in both countries, which are dominated by centrist, Christian Democratic and Social Democratic parties.

I thought they were socialists who were democrats. So tell me is it like the word liberal where it means one thing when you talk about trade and another thing when you talk about politics? Enlighten me.

If you feel the need to leave because you fear for your livelihood and life do it. Both of my sets of great grandparents left before trouble started. On one of my grandparents side, there is a patch of flat empty ground where there was once a town. There is nothing there. A lot of people want your property more than they want you, or they just don't like you and want you not to be there. It is usually the state which tries to kill you, it is very hard for an individual to kill without indoctrination or being part of a crowd.

When the state starts deciding to put you in camps, organizes mass night attacks against your people, or starts being violent on a mass organized scale, it is time to go.

You thought incorrectly then. Neither country is socialist, and again even democratic socialists make a small minority in those countries. They are democratic. But NOT socialist.
They are in fact both quite pro business and definitely capitalist.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydor ... c2c02474ad

Nordic style social democracy combines pro business policies, cooperative labor relations AND an extensive welfare state.

The false dichotomy that being pro business and pro welfare are mutually exclusive is not a real thing there. Because many Americans (such as AOC and Bernie) cannot comprehend that not everything is adversarial right v left and that you can be pro labor, pro welfare AND a pro business capitalist at the same time said Americans do not comprehend Nordic Social Democracy.

It is more than using an incorrect descriptive, it is a complete failure of comprehension regarding what those countries practice.

True there are times fleeing (like the Jews in Nazi areas is the only real option.
But if you are not being specifically targeted for genocide fleeing is probably not strictly necessary and fleeing will not make things any better for those remaining behind, it will make things worse.

[UniversalCommons]

I thought they were socialists who were democrats. So tell me is it like the word liberal where it means one thing when you talk about trade and another thing when you talk about politics? Enlighten me.

If you feel the need to leave because you fear for your livelihood and life do it. Both of my sets of great grandparents left before trouble started. On one of my grandparents side, there is a patch of flat empty ground where there was once a town. There is nothing there. A lot of people want your property more than they want you, or they just don't like you and want you not to be there. It is usually the state which tries to kill you, it is very hard for an individual to kill without indoctrination or being part of a crowd.

When the state starts deciding to put you in camps, organizes mass night attacks against your people, or starts being violent on a mass organized scale, it is time to go.

You thought incorrectly then. Neither country is socialist, and again even democratic socialists make a small minority in those countries. They are democratic. But NOT socialist.
They are in fact both quite pro business.

Nordic style social democracy combines pro business policies, cooperative labor relations AND an extensive welfare state.

The false dichotomy that being pro business and pro welfare are mutually exclusive is not a real thing there. Because many Americans (such as AOC and Bernie) cannot comprehend that not everything is adversarial and that you can be pro labor, pro welfare AND a pro business capitalist at the same time said Americans do not comprehend Nordic Social Democracy.

It is more than using an incorrect descriptive, it is a complete failure of comprehension.

True there are times fleeing (like the Jews in Nazi areas is the only real option.
But if you are not being specifically targeted for genocide fleeing is probably not strictly necessary and fleeing will not make things any better for those remaining behind, it will make things worse.

Even if it is not genocide, you can become part of a planned underclass with very few resources. Your schools can be shut down, your community torn apart, jobs become harder to find and menial, and it becomes harder to leave. The government zones you into districts which are poorer, have less property value, and are segregated.

[New haven america]

If you only have one life make it mean something.
You only die once, so it is better to die doing good then to live a life where you do not do good.

There is no need to needlessly die, but if you can do better risking your life than not risking it, it is a risk worth taking.

Why die for something you won’t benefit from?

Because others might benefit from it.

[Novus America]

You thought incorrectly then. Neither country is socialist, and again even democratic socialists make a small minority in those countries. They are democratic. But NOT socialist.
They are in fact both quite pro business.

Nordic style social democracy combines pro business policies, cooperative labor relations AND an extensive welfare state.

The false dichotomy that being pro business and pro welfare are mutually exclusive is not a real thing there. Because many Americans (such as AOC and Bernie) cannot comprehend that not everything is adversarial and that you can be pro labor, pro welfare AND a pro business capitalist at the same time said Americans do not comprehend Nordic Social Democracy.

It is more than using an incorrect descriptive, it is a complete failure of comprehension.

True there are times fleeing (like the Jews in Nazi areas is the only real option.
But if you are not being specifically targeted for genocide fleeing is probably not strictly necessary and fleeing will not make things any better for those remaining behind, it will make things worse.

Even if it is not genocide, you can become part of a planned underclass with very few resources. Your schools can be shut down, your community torn apart, jobs become harder to find and menial, and it becomes harder to leave. The government zones you into districts which are poorer, have less property value, and are segregated.

But in those cases while it will be tough, you can still live and try to make things better.
Running away in that case will just make things worse for those left behind and better for the dictatorship.

[UniversalCommons]

Even if it is not genocide, you can become part of a planned underclass with very few resources. Your schools can be shut down, your community torn apart, jobs become harder to find and menial, and it becomes harder to leave. The government zones you into districts which are poorer, have less property value, and are segregated.

But in those cases while it will be tough, you can still live and try to make things better.
Running away in that case will just make things worse for those left behind and better for the dictatorship.

The issue with that statement is that the dictatorship would need people to do the menial labor. Many want to leave, but they cannot get passports, and are not let out of the country. For example, in North Korea, you must get special permission to leave the country and you must have an exit visa. Ordinary people do not get to leave. They would flee if they could. You cannot even go to certain countries period. For example, admission is refused for both the United States and Japan. In some cases there is no trying to get better. Things would be problematic if everyone could leave that wanted to leave North Korea. Some countries require exit visas and abuse the people at the bottom terribly.