[adriancr]

> No, those 70% weren't just some privileged elite

You just cherry picked one number of one country, I can do the same to reach opposite conclusion if you want to argue in bad faith.

> In a 2017 survey, 75% of Estonians said the dissolution of the USSR was a good thing, compared to only 15% who said it was a bad thing.[10]

Mirroring your argument, 75% of people say it was a good thing for what happened. (to quote you those 75% are people who simply think differently than you might.)

> People value different things in life. And there's no single system that can really embrace and fairly represent all views.

Are you actually arguing that dictatorship and oppression should be respected because some people like them?, I'm sure everyone in NK absolutely loves Kim and their system.

> Emigration, as a component, works out of simple self interest. In this proposed system the cost of emigration would be relatively low, yet the benefits would not.

So what do you do if all 10B people living everywhere want to move to the US tomorrow?

[somenameforme]

I'm not cherry picking anything. The point I am making is that people see things differently. I was aware you obviously know there are plenty of people that have less than fond views of the USSR, and there are plenty which have extremely fond views of it. This is the nature of humanity, which is the point.

And tolerating these different preferences, desires, views, systems, values, and so on is the only possible way we might ever achieve something resembling a more stable and desirable world order. The right of emigration does not mean countries are forced to accept people. Accepting migrants would be up to the nation people are seeking to move to.

[adriancr]

> And tolerating these different preferences, desires, views, systems, values, and so on is the only possible way we might ever achieve something resembling a more stable and desirable world order.

How can one tolerate the abuses that went on behind the iron curtain and other dictatorships?

Even if some people are still fond of them, it's unacceptable for such systems to exist and those people are morally reprehensible.

[somenameforme]

Well the USSR no longer exists, and so I think that specific question is a nonstarter. But generalizing? This gets back to what we were talking about earlier. Look at any country with power and you're going to find quite a lot of the world would think the world would be a better place without that country, in many cases the majority of the world.

And this will never change, because people hold many views that are simply mutually exclusive, and we always will. So we can continue to fight and kill each other until the point somebody finally goes all the way and we end up nuking ourselves out of existence, or we can learn to tolerate one another - even when we really don't like the other guy.

[adriancr]

> Well the USSR no longer exists, and so I think that specific question is a nonstarter.

Russia still exists and is unchanged in behavior but much less powerful. So something went right, just not enough.

> Look at any country with power

Some are much better then others and always have been.

> And this will never change,

That's what they used to say about monarchies.

> so we can continue to fight and kill each other

Fighting back and forcing change is justified. It's not like the other side is standing still and not trying to destabilize us.

> and we end up nuking ourselves out of existence

We haven't in worse conditions.

> or we can learn to tolerate one another - even when we really don't like the other guy.

Tolerating abuses is unacceptable.