You must log in or # to comment.
I mean, the Nazis had universal healthcare too…
The fucked up thing, is that is an incredibly low bar, and most dictators understand that they need at least some citizens healthy and educated to able to work to pay taxes.
So yeah…
A lot of horrible authoritarians who commit daily human rights abuses, still give some of their citizens healthcare and a good education.
I feel that more people should know that Gaddafi was a mass child rapist who had a personal corpse freezer.
Also, while NATO and Qatar backed the anti-Gaddafi forces, they didn’t create those forces.
Some of those forces were Gaddafi’s own military, who refused to follow Gaddafi’s order to crack down on protesters.
Most countries in the world already get this without having to have gadafi as a leader.
Mainstream media does love implying that the only way to get it is through autocracy, though. “We could never have that because it would mean the end of freedoms and also never look too hard at the shitshow we currently have!”
I do not get that impression at all from reading mainstream media. Most mainstream (democrat) media think this is very achievable and push for it.
Not to carry water for Gaddafi, but do they? Gestures at Western housing crisis.
You can have subsidized housing, free education and free healthcare and still have a housing crisis.
The housing crisis is largely a consequence of NIMBYism and also the result of centralisation which leads to more and more people wanting to live in a certain area while others get neglected. Even if you built a million new apartments in new York within a year, you’d have a couple of million more people live there but the housing situation would be just as dire. Meanwhile there are millions of empty houses in places with less demand.
You get a free apartment when you get married in your country?
Why condition housing on marriage that sounds awful. We have subsidized and free housing.
Israel has these things too. Doesn’t excuse its leadership of their crimes
no it doesn’t.
it doesn’t count if it only applies to a select subgroup.
Ok, and Gaddafi’s policies were only for the political subgroup of people who supported him, as you’d be imprisoned or worse otherwise?
There was also his sex slave guard.
Like, someone who guarded him and was a sex slave? Or someone who guarded his sex slave?
He had an all woman security force as his body guards who he forced to sleep with him. He also cruised around the cou try kidnapping and raping women he found attractive.
I mean, this was a rebel fighter. You’d kinda expect those guys to hate Gaddafi.
the post is about how the news article seems to equate or correlate free healthcare and housing with autocratic goverments
It doesn’t, though. It’s drawing a contrast between the two and explaining the context behind remarks made by the military president of Burkina Faso. It’s the BBC, it’s the state-funded news of a country that has universal healthcare
Troll grade: C-.
So we don’t even get the good parts of being under a tyrant? What a rip off.
Not all autocrats are bad, but it allows for too much bad behaviour generally to be acceptable, and humans are going to human all over it. Ghadafi was generally liked by his people because he provided for them and/but punished his enemies harshly. Western interests didn’t like him because he would not let their corruption come in and control their resources. End of story. Not saying he was a good person, but he was def a decent head of state. Unlike some orange faced buffoon.
