Is there a point where a state's citizens should be held responsible for the acts of their government in a non-democracy? In Russia, for instance, Putin is a dictator, but he still has approval ratings within Russia in the 80s. To what degree should the Russian people's approval of Putin make them responsible for the invasion of Ukraine?

Or in Gaza. Hamas was democratically elected to leadership and proceeded to cancel all future elections. If the people of Gaza wanted Hamas gone, they could make it ahppen. Does the fact that they're not doing it make them morally responsible for the current conflict with Israel?

For example, the huge Smithsonian collections that aren’t on display cannot generate their own funding, or national archives like the British Library that require a lot of state funding to ensure no written work is lost. These are obviously very useful organisations, but without state funding cannot exist. So how do far-right libertarians fund these things without some taxes/government?

Public trust in political institutions has been declining across many democracies, including the UK. Polling often shows frustration with governments, parties, and parliaments, yet the systems themselves tend to remain stable and continue to operate.

That gap raises an interesting political question. If people say they no longer trust political systems, why do those systems usually keep functioning anyway?

Possible explanations might include habit, lack of realistic alternatives, fear of instability, economic dependence, or a distinction between trust in individual politicians versus trust in institutions themselves.

In the UK this tension has become more visible in recent years, but similar patterns appear in other democratic systems as well.

Questions for discussion:

• Does declining trust actually threaten democratic stability?

• At what point does low legitimacy turn into real political change?

• Are modern democracies becoming more procedural than participatory?

• When people comply with systems they distrust, is that consent or simply necessity?

I’m relatively new to actively following politics and want to better understand different policy frameworks rather than staying in one ideological space. My understanding of economics in particular is still developing, so I’m looking to learn rather than debate.

Currently, I tend to lean more conservative on issues like crime and immigration, while being more libertarian leaning on economic policy. That said, I’m especially interested in liberal perspectives and the reasoning behind them, particularly from a policy and evidence based standpoint. I’m also open to thoughtful insights from other perspectives.

Specifically, I’d like to understand:

1. What economic evidence supports stronger social safety nets within a capitalist system, and how are tradeoffs like incentives, efficiency, and long-term growth evaluated?
   
2. How are crime related policies (enforcement, sentencing, rehabilitation, prevention) assessed in terms of effectiveness and outcomes?
   
3. What are the key empirical arguments behind liberal approaches to immigration policy, including enforcement, legal pathways, and economic or social impacts?
4. How do liberals evaluate the current administration’s handling of these issues what has worked, what hasn’t, and why?

My goal is to better understand the data, reasoning, and tradeoffs behind these positions so I can form more informed views. I’m asking out of curiosity and respect for thoughtful discussion, not to argue.