The UK continues to exist because it was replaced by a democratic American hegemony.

If an authoritarian country like China achieves hegemony the continued existence of democracy is at risk.

I want to live in a democratic world, not an authoritarian one.

America's democracy is a flawed one but of the two choices -- American hegemony or Chinese hegemony it is the best path to a flourishing global liberal democracy.

Can you foresee Chinese hegemony leading to increased democracy, individual property rights, due process, and rule of law?

No, I do not, but I also do not much stock in America's policy of spreading democracy. I believe that America will do best by setting a good example at home, and it is failing in this regard. China is obviously not a democracy.

My fear is that people will look at China's might and economic success and conclude that democracy is overrated.

France and Spain continue to exist and they were former hegemons. China has stably existed with long periods of turning inwards after more regional hedgemony.

It's really straight forward -- Do you consider things like liberal democracy, property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of association, due process, and the rule of law to be essential features of society?

If you don't -- Chinese hegemony and the path it will lead the world down is the one for you.

If you do -- Then American hegemony with all its flaws is something worth fighting for.

Being ideals, all of those ideals in reality are implemented with different tradeoffs in different nations with different risks going forward. Discussing in more detail how one arrives at that particular choice of options is more interesting than an end presentation of what looks like a fallacy of false dichotomy.

People value freedom in different ways. Personally, I would ally myself with tomorrow’s bully, rather than today’s. I understand the implications, but it looks like most of nations are shifting in the same manner.

One note, some of the things you’ve listed has been proven as “mostly on paper, once people get their way, mental gymnastics will overcome the reason” in the past month. For a bastion of “freedom and democracy”, it’s really not looking like one from outside.

It's easier to fix a broken democracy than to turn an authoritarian state into a democratic one.

China hasn’t threatened to annex my country.

I'm Canadian as well.

Stop and think about this for a moment -- do you think that China doesn't spread authoritarianism across the globe because they don't want to or simply because they can't do it yet?

One is actively threatening, and one may threaten in the future.

Also, I am Canadian, but I could also be Panamanian, or Danish. Maybe it would be different if I were Taiwanese or Vietnamese or Japanese, but, China is far away and playing nice, and America is close and not.

It sounds like you agree with the premise that we need to see a return to democratic ideals and a rules based order in the United States?

It’d be amazing, but I don’t have a lot to do with that one way or the other. If it happens, I might reconsider my stance on US v China. Right now it looks unlikely.

Authorian to democracy transition happens more often than democracies come back from severe backslides, which... is basically never. I struggle to think of an example.

Recent events have showed that all that good American stuff doesn't really exist.

It’s hard to convince people to think the US is in any position to protect those principles when the current administration is attacking each and every one them head on.

>such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist

They were really close to not existing. France stopped existing, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, all stopped existing. China, Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Myanmar, New Guinea, Guam, East Timor, and Nauru all stopped existing.

Of your list I've been to France, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France (you seem to have it twice for some reason), Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore.

They all most definitely did not stop existing.

Also I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.

>I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.

Battle of Britain, Battle of France?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

>They all most definitely did not stop existing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired_b...

You didn't study WW2 in high school? It monumentally shaped the current world order.

I did. Austria, Belgium, France etc all existed during WW2. They were occupied, but they existed. Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon".

To pick another example, Singapore was a crown colony before the war, then they were occupied by Japan during WW2, then they were a single nation with what is now Malaysia, then in the 1960s they two countries became independent from each other. They didn't under any reasonable reading of the situation cease to exist and they also have never been a hegemon of any kind.

>They were occupied, but they existed.

So what's your criteria for existing, dirt in the same place? Their governments were dissolved. That means they don't exist anymore. Does the confederacy exist since the boarders are the same and the dirt is in the same place? I would argue not.

>Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon".

I agree, just pointing out countries that no longer existed.

That was in a pre-nuclear weapon world.

It certainly was. You think nuclear weapons are less or more likely to have countries not exist anymore? If you believe MAD works, then countries can easily not exist the conventional warfare way. If you think MAD won't work, countries can easily not exist the nuclear war way. The only difference is speed.