Well, I don’t know that nationalizing banks is “objectively good.” Considering that there are Nobel Prize winning economists who might agree or disagree with that indicates it’s more subjective, than objective.
I think there is, in a liberal society, a middle-ground between “hiring corrupt officials” and “executing corrupt officials.” Executing people for corruption (with or without trial), it seems to me, is absolutely not an “objectively good” thing.
I think Cuba’s approach to healthcare does have some objectively good things about it, but it still suffers from the same kinds of limitations one finds in a totalitarian regime. And science in general? How so?
I agree that this is objectively good, but it’s hardly unique to Cuba. And certainly it could have been achieved without so many people being unable to rise above the standard set by the Cuban government?
I think this might be “objectively good” if said autonomy didn’t include the regular imprisonment of dissidents, along with severe restrictions on free speech and travel (Soviet seduction was not so easily resisted, it seems). I think any good that has happened in Cuba could have been (and has been, elsewhere) achieved without the illiberal oppression seen there and in all other totalitarian dictatorships.
