I’d say CCP and many other governments like Russia and Ukraine are FAR more corrupt than the US. Your argument really doesn’t make sense.
Feyerabend in particular would likely differ, and say instead that freedom and liberty are what emerge when mature adults democratically order their societies, irrespective (or in spite) of any ideologies used to bind them
> [i]n a free society there is room for many strange beliefs, doctrines, institutions.
> There is nothing in science or in any other ideology that makes them inherently liberating. Ideologies can deteriorate and become dogmatic religions. They start deteriorating when they become successful... their triumph is their downfall.
> A democracy is an assembly of mature people and not a collection of sheep guided by a small clique of know-it-alls.
> The reasons were explained by Mill in his immortal essay On Liberty. It is not possible to improve upon his arguments.
Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science, argued that true freedom and liberty arise when individuals actively and democratically shape their societies, free from the dominance of any single ideology, including science. He contended that science, often regarded as the ultimate path to knowledge, is merely one of many traditions and should not hold a privileged position in society. Feyerabend advocated for a “democratic relativism,” emphasizing equal rights for all traditions and proposing a separation between the state and any specific ideology, akin to the separation of church and state. He believed that this approach would allow individuals to live according to their own values and beliefs, fostering a more inclusive and liberated society.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0020174800860189...
Feyerabend, P. (1980). Democracy, Elitism, and Scientific Method. Inquiry, 23(1), 3–18.
He's plain wrong about that part. Science isn't another tradition, it's a way of putting the world to the test to figure out how things work. It's absurd and dangerous to maintain Feyerabend's view in the midst of a pandemic or climate change, for example, which we've seen with the alternate facts and conspiracy theories.
What if someone's values and beliefs are that certain other values and beliefs should not be allowed? Like what if a group believes that gay people shouldn't exist openly in society, or that certain racial groups should be genocided or stripped of their rights?
I think this is a fundamental issue of tolerance of beliefs - how do you tolerate intolerant beliefs without sliding into intolerance yourself?
> https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
Or the "speaking fees," the insider trading, etc. I could go on all day.
You think that sort of thing isn't corruption? The US has elevated official corruption into high art.
If you’re referring to actual instances of former politicians being paid exorbitant consulting fees by corporations that they helped regulate, though, I’d be interested in better understanding what’s going on there too.