What exactly are you suggesting, other than "be a good person?"
I didn't say "be a good person", so what exactly are you taking issue with, other than what it "seems like" to you? I even stated that I'm not primarily concerned with outcome or others, this isn't advice to anyone, it's a statement of fact.
> "I know what's required for human dignity..."
This is a personal value statement, different people have different ideas of what dignity means. There are likely some universals but there's a huge amount of variance too.
Of course it is. What else could it be?
> different people have different ideas of what dignity means
Then they can come forward and state that theirs is compatible with being subject to totalitarian rule.
Even without trying, I find so many wise words in support to what I know to be true both in my heart of hearts and from decades of lived experience.
> I am well acquainted with all the arguments against freedom of thought and speech — the arguments which claim that it cannot exist, and the arguments which claim that it ought not to. I answer simply that they don’t convince me and that our civilisation over a period of four hundred years has been founded on the opposite notice.
and
> The fallacy is to believe that under a dictatorial government you can be free inside.
-- George Orwell
> the concept of “freedom and the pursuit of non-material goals” is incredibly important, but also incredibly fragile. Not only does it allow us to pursue our own lives, it also prevents us from becoming tools of crime. It is humanity’s first line of defense, or we should say the last. Actually, it’s the sole line of defense. [..] Freedom is not a handout, we need to earn it with our efforts. You can lock up my body but you can never imprison my will.
-- Qu Weiguo
> Suppose that humans happen to be so constructed that they desire the opportunity for freely undertaken productive work. Suppose that they want to be free from the meddling of technocrats and commissars, bankers and tycoons, mad bombers who engage in psychological tests of will with peasants defending their homes, behavioral scientists who can't tell a pigeon from a poet, or anyone else who tries to wish freedom and dignity out of existence or beat them into oblivion.
-- Noam Chomsky
In the meantime, the criticism is that "other people think differently", with not even a hint of what arguments they might have.
And the kicker is, if the arguments are for totalitarian rule, their content wouldn't even matter, I could simply kill or ignore or slander the people who bring them forward to win the argument -- while that would violate my own principles, it would not violate theirs. If being ruled by and deciding facts by force is okay, my force is as well as any -- but if that path is suggested in earnest, the hypocrisy instantly becomes visible. And preaching water and drinking wine isn't even a different set of values, it's nothing.
