Scott examines the Metaculus Threat To Democracy Index, which uses crowdsourced forecasting to measure democratic health, discussing its advantages over traditional expert-based indices and its vulnerabilities to manipulation and selection bias.

Scott argues that Viktor Orban's election loss doesn't vindicate him or disprove concerns about democratic backsliding, since autocrats can do many undemocratic things and still lose elections.

Scott explains why true democracy requires more than just winning elections - it needs a complex system of checks and balances to ensure future elections remain fair and free.

Scott Alexander endorses Harris, Oliver, or Stein for the 2024 US presidential election, arguing against Trump's authoritarianism while acknowledging and countering arguments that Democrats may be more subtly authoritarian.

Scott Alexander reviews a book about Hugo Chavez, analyzing his rise to power, rule, and impact on Venezuela, while drawing parallels to other populist leaders.

Scott Alexander argues that misusing terms like 'democratic' and 'accountable' can inadvertently justify totalitarianism, and suggests more careful usage of these terms.

Scott Alexander discusses various perspectives on self-determination, addressing issues like status quo bias, group rights, and the complexities of applying consistent principles to secession cases.

Scott Alexander discusses reader responses to his review of Viktor Orban's leadership in Hungary, exploring debates around authoritarianism, democracy, and effective governance.

A critical review of Rutger Bregman's 'Humankind', analyzing its argument that human nature is fundamentally good, while highlighting both flaws and valuable insights in the book.

Scott Alexander reviews a book on Erdogan's rise to power in Turkey, analyzing the factors that led to democratic backsliding and considering lessons for other democracies.

Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his technocracy essay, clarifying his position and defending his arguments while acknowledging some limitations.

Scott Alexander describes three fictional and slightly absurd systems of government: an acausal democracy, a constitutional mobocracy, and a meta-republic with representatives from various governing philosophies.

Scott Alexander reviews 'Just Giving' by Rob Reich, criticizing its arguments against philanthropy by showing how they could also be used to condemn book-writing.

Scott Alexander responds to comments on billionaire philanthropy, addressing criticisms while ultimately defending its net positive impact and arguing to protect the most effective charitable efforts.

Scott Alexander argues against criticism of billionaire philanthropy, citing its efficiency, positive impact, and ability to support important causes that governments often neglect.

Scott Alexander explains a reactionary philosophy model distinguishing between culturally evolved (right-wing) and memetically evolved (left-wing) policies, exploring its implications and potential applications.

Scott Alexander presents multiple satirical scenarios of 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner' to critique various aspects of democracy and political behavior.

Scott Alexander explores the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics, reflecting on his own mistake theory bias and considering the merits of conflict theory.

Scott Alexander examines the relationship between economic development, social changes, and happiness, concluding that happiness levels can change over time but are more influenced by intangible factors than by economic growth.

Scott Alexander critiques the Reactionary concept of 'left singularity', arguing that reigns of terror typically follow repressive right-wing regimes rather than gradual leftward shifts in democracies.

Scott Alexander uses historical data to refute the Reactionary claim that modern society increases war, showing instead that violence has decreased significantly in progressive eras.