[mannykannot]

> Well if we're right about the free and open society being better, they won't vote that way.

It is entirely plausible that a free and open society is better than the alternatives on several different bases, despite the possibility that it could all go wrong and end up as becoming one of the alternatives. There is no evidence in human history that society has any stable points, let alone that it has desirable points of stability.

> Of course it can and has happened. You have to ask yourself whether those societies were actually free and open, which I know sounds like a cop-out.

... it also has elements of the No True Scotsman fallacy.