[BeetleB]

I'll bite. I lived in an authoritarian country.

People occasionally did disappear (usually temporarily).

A lot of things were worse, but a lot were better. You're definitely not going to be arrested or harassed for letting your kids walk alone. Not sure how good their record is for actual child abuse (bad cases would make the news, so there was some enforcement).

While they could prevent you from leaving the country, they didn't have no fly lists, and I believe many more were impacted from the latter than prevented from leaving that country.

No one is disputing things can get really bad in those countries. It's more about probabilities. One thing that becomes very clear in the US if you poke around: It's ridiculously easy to end up with felony charges, and I know plenty who faced them (some convicted). The number of people I knew in the authoritarian country who had a criminal record? Miniscule. Raising my kid here, the chances of him getting a criminal record is significantly higher here than there and is a source of worry.

And typically no one has to worry whether they'll find an apartment due to some crime they committed a decade ago.

And sorry, but no. No local oligarch/overlord. That's orthogonal to authoritarian governments (and is often more about ineffective governments).

> someone who moved to US (why moving if it is such a great place to live?).

Classic false dichotomy.

[giggles_01]

I'll bite too. I grew up and lived for ~25 years in an authoritarian country that was in comparison to others at that time relatively nice. It is now on its way to transform into true democracy.

> It's more about probabilities.

I totally agree.

>People occasionally did disappear (usually temporarily).

As long as its not me - it is ok. Do I read it correctly?

Let me ask a set of questions and I am curious what you'd pick.

>While they could prevent you from leaving the country, they didn't have no fly lists

What would you take: a higher chance to get on no fly list but still be able to drive to Mexico or Canada and fly from there or leave by boat or lower chance to not being able to leave the country at all for quite some time (potentially ever)?

>It's ridiculously easy to end up with felony charges...

What would you take: a higher chance to get felony charges or a lower chance to be in a wrong place and wrong time (killed for fun) with someone who paid their way out criminal justice (that's my explanation of a part of low criminal record)?

>And typically no one has to worry whether they'll find an apartment due to some crime they committed a decade ago.

The country were I lived a bit earlier would tell you were you can live. What would you take: a higher chance to have problems with apartments search or not being legally allowed to move cities without power tripping local bureaucrat giving you permission?

>And sorry, but no. No local oligarch/overlord. That's orthogonal to authoritarian governments (and is often more about ineffective governments).

That is how it works, you need to have loyal people in local places. You can call it however you want: mayor of the city, ruling party local political leader, etc.

Edit: formatting.

[BeetleB]

> As long as its not me - it is ok. Do I read it correctly?

To me this is a non-distinction. That reasoning applies in the US as well. As long as the cops are stopping the guys who don't look like me and beating/killing them and not me, it is OK, right?

> What would you take: a higher chance to get on no fly list but still be able to drive to Mexico or Canada and fly from there or leave by boat or lower chance to not being able to leave the country at all for quite some time (potentially ever)?

Given that I personally have known a number of people on the no fly list (which increases my chance of getting on it), but no one in that country who was prevented from leaving, I'll take the latter.

As I said, it's about probabilities.

> What would you take: a higher chance to get felony charges or a lower chance to be in a wrong place and wrong time (killed for fun) with someone who paid their way out criminal justice (that's my explanation of a part of low criminal record)?

In the country I lived in, paying your way out of criminal justice was not something that happened much - I'm not sure if it happens more in the US or not.

Remember: My country is not your country. And do not make the mistake of conflating authoritarian with corruption - these are separate vectors.

And speaking of killing, the homicide rate is much higher in the US (more than triple that country). And if I'm getting killed, I really don't care about the murderer's back story. There's not much to choose here - the US is clearly worse.

Don't conflate authoritarian with high crime.

> The country were I lived a bit earlier would tell you were you can live. What would you take: a higher chance to have problems with apartments search or not being legally allowed to move cities without power tripping local bureaucrat giving you permission?

My country could have had the same problem under certain circumstances. Yet I know more people in the US who have trouble finding apartments for prior crimes (or credit issues, or whatever) than I know people who had trouble moving cities. I can easily see identity theft really screwing up my credit history leading to this problem. Not a concern there. So yes, I would prefer the other country.

> That is how it works, you need to have loyal people in local places. You can call it however you want: mayor of the city, ruling party local political leader, etc.

Maybe in your country, but that's not how it worked in the one I lived in. As long as you yourself were not a threat to the top level staff (president, etc), the judiciary was relatively effective and didn't care about local oligarchs. And we just didn't have any overlords.