NationStates Jolt Archive

Have recent events, such as the debacle in Iraq, changed your opinion to some extent or another on the matter of using foreign policy to spread democracy? Has it affected your opinion of democracy in general?

It has effected my personal beliefs. I used to believe in an interventionist foreign policy, and, while I had reservations concerning democracy (I've never believed in universal suffrage at any point in my life), I thought it would be better than what most states had. But with the intense suffering in Iraq and elsewhere and the basic refusal to end it (I posted a thread a while ago that said that the Democrats were planning to fund the war for another year and a half), I have not only decided that attempts to spread democracy is simply repackaged imperialism but that democracy, in its varying forms, is the worst kind of government.

that democracy, in its varying forms, is the worst kind of government.

Its the Best of the Worst. Would you rather have a country where the people control some of what and who is in power and what they do, or a country where the Millitary/Church/corporation/Hyponofrogs/Anarchists control everything you do?

democracy, in its varying forms, is the worst kind of government.
...Except for all others tried.

...Except for all others tried.

Tyranny worked for the Greeks.

Democracy works in places and fails in others. It is not inherently superior, it just happens to be prevalent in the West (which was powerful/wealthy/influential long before it was democratic).

Spreading democracy is, as you suggested, imperliastic dick-waving, with the exception that the US washes it's hands of any political responsibility once a democratic regime favourable to its bussiness interests is in place. It's happy enough to let comercial interests do the rest, so it isn't an empire in the strict meaning of the word (if we dismiss dependent territories like Puerto Rico).

If "spreading democracy" is the real aim of American foreign policy then it is holier than thou bull shit (and culturally imperialistic), which utterly disregards other peoples' rights of culture and political self-determination. If it is not, then they are hypocrites. Either way it's a lame excuse.

Its the Best of the Worst. Would you rather have a country where the people control some of what and who is in power and what they do, or a country where the Millitary/Church/corporation/Hyponofrogs/Anarchists control everything you do?

Anarchists can't control anything because they don't want to by definition.:p

Have recent events, such as the debacle in Iraq, changed your opinion to some extent or another on the matter of using foreign policy to spread democracy? Has it affected your opinion of democracy in general?

It has effected my personal beliefs. I used to believe in an interventionist foreign policy, and, while I had reservations concerning democracy (I've never believed in universal suffrage at any point in my life), I thought it would be better than what most states had. But with the intense suffering in Iraq and elsewhere and the basic refusal to end it (I posted a thread a while ago that said that the Democrats were planning to fund the war for another year and a half), I have not only decided that attempts to spread democracy is simply repackaged imperialism but that democracy, in its varying forms, is the worst kind of government.

What would you suggest as a better form of government? And are you willing to stand by as dictators and regimes oppress their populations, particularly those who have an 'undesirable' attribute, such as being a woman or homosexual?

Anarchists can't control anything because they don't want to by definition.:p

No shit. Thats the joke. :rolleyes:

Democracy works in places and fails in others. It is not inherently superior, it just happens to be prevalent in the West (which was powerful/wealthy/influential long before it was democratic).
Why shouldn't those outside the West have the right to decide who governs them?

We should not tolerate tyranny because a nation's 'culture' somehow allows its people to be subjugated by their government. The right to elect your rulers is absolute. When granted it, people value it greatly - hence the bravery of Iraqis who voted once they were allowed to and the queues at polling stations in Zimbabwe a few weeks ago.

Have recent events, such as the debacle in Iraq
Let's not get overly hasty here. Débâcle. There we go.

Anyway - not really. As soon as I got into any kind of power, the ego trip has made me ambivalent at best towards democracy, especially seeing as the last batch of SU elections has brought in a bunch of morons.

If there is a political culture to support democracy and people want help than interventionism would probably be the best way to go, however there rarely is and without the will of the people democracy won't work and you'll end up doing more harm than good.

that democracy, in its varying forms, is the worst kind of government.

So what's the best form of government?

I support an interventialist foreign policy- ie one where a country invades another (obeying international law by getting UN approval of course) in order to prevent the other from oppressing her people. The two greatest examples of this were the Vitenamese deposition of the American-supported dictator Pol Pott, and the Indian invasion of Kashmir, to end the attempted genocide being perpetrated there by the American-supported Pakistanis.

Iraq is in no way a humanitarian interventian. In fact, America has never been involved in a humanitarian intervention.

Democracy is the least terrible form of government. The only way a democracy can work, however, is if the media reports things in a way approaching reality. And if every vote counts, and everyone can participate in democracy equally. As neither of these provisos are existent in the US, democracy cannot exist.

So what's the best form of government?

He believes absolute monarchy to be the least bad government. He is an anarchist, though.

Why shouldn't those outside the West have the right to decide who governs them?

No one's suggesting that they shouldn't, just because they are outside the west. Rather they are suggesting the west shouldn't decide it for them in the guise of "spreading democracy" (i.e. installing rulers favourable to us)

The right to elect your rulers is absolute.

No it isn't. That bricks are heavier than air is absolute, the right to elect your ruler is not.

There's no arguing with the goal of establishing a liberal democracy somewhere. There is no cultural parameter of any sort that says "no, democracy doesn't or shouldn't work here". The argument for democracy isn't based on culture and there is no inherent connection with "the west", other than the coincidence that it was developed in what happen to be western countries.

However, can we trust any government or organisation to actually follow this goal effectively and without ulterior motives? History suggests that the answer is most likely "no". In practice I'm condemned to continue agreeing with the basic idea of humanitarian interventions, while being disappointed and angry with the way they're being done.

To save you we may have to kill you, for freedom you may have to die! #1 at liberation, liberating life from bodies!

Name the band whose lyric that is and you get a trillion cool points.

Government in general sucks...but its a necessary evil...Democracy is just the best way to go...

the real problem is that Democracy requires the support of the people, and you cant just force a government and its policies on someone else and expect them to support it...Democracy only works if the country in question sets it up on their own, Voluntarily...

To save you we may have to kill you, for freedom you may have to die! #1 at liberation, liberating life from bodies!

Name the band whose lyric that is and you get a trillion cool points.

Im not entirely sure...but im feelin Rage Against the Machine...its gotta very RATM feel too it, lol...

Think long and hard. Very long and hard.

Which current mature, developed democracy developed democracy based on pure foreign intervention alone?

"Imposing democracy" is another one of those oxymorons. "Democracy" by definition cannot be imposed. Even if foreign intervention topples a tyrant, the population itself must be willing to meet the foreign forces halfway.

Democracy is strongest if it is homegrown and gone through its trials and tribulations until it reaches maturity. You can't invade a country which has never been democratic, topple a dictator, give ballot sheets to its people immediately and tell them to vote for a new government. Democracy is not a natural habit of humans. In fact, if history is anything to go by, authoritarianism is the natural habit of humans.

Im not entirely sure...but im feelin Rage Against the Machine...its gotta very RATM feel too it, lol...

Anti-Flag! But hell yeah for Rage too!


You may appreciate this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKSm-24P9tU

Anti-Flag! But hell yeah for Rage too!


You may appreciate this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKSm-24P9tU

AAAH...close, so close, lol...

Very Kewl video, btw...

To a degree, all governments are democratic. If a majority of people truly do not want the current system, they can revolt until they either get a new one or lose their majority status. (The latter usually involves liquidating people.) For this reason, "democracy democracy" seems the best, as it is the most efficient way for the people to control their government.

President George W. Bush can spread democracy with a sneeze.
He is the modern day Conan the Barbarian.

I've always been against it. Neoconservatism and Trotskyism rub me the wrong way and largely for the same reasons; there's surprisingly little difference between the two ideologies and it should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with both that prominent neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rove were Trotskyites in their youth. It's part of the reason why I have a dim view of many NS posters; these pricks in power now were preaching nearly identical "liberal" platitudes in their late teens and early 20's, and now they're founding things like PNAC and pushing for war in Iran and elsewhere.

It's sometimes a tricky stance to take, but I believe that people (and cultures) have the right to be wrong, if that makes any sense. I don't think Democracy is "perfect," but it seems a lot friendlier to the populace than most if not all of the alternatives. Different areas of the world will make political progress at varying rates, and it's preposterous to assume we can foist these ideals over all and sundry.

People often ask me (well, okay they don't; but it's a question I'd like to be asked so I'll answer it) where America "Went wrong," and my answer is always the same: "World War One." Wilson set a dangerous precedent for us by attempting to make the world a "safer place for democracy;" and because of our involvement in WWI we ended up not only with a permanent income tax, but also with a foreign policy with a predilection for sticking its nose in places where it most assuredly does not belong. Also, frankly, the Constitution doesn't award our Commander in Chief the power or authority to spread our way of life.

I mean, I might really like lobster but I'm not going to be like "I'm going to shoot you in the face if you don't eat this." Same deal with ideologies.

What would you suggest as a better form of government? And are you willing to stand by as dictators and regimes oppress their populations, particularly those who have an 'undesirable' attribute, such as being a woman or homosexual?

None, actually, but if I have to choose I could imagine that I could far more respect for a king or other leader of an aristocratic extended family than for a president who rules by virtue of playing to hysteria and whoring themselves out to politically connected looters. And, since I hate war, I would try to find some other way to stop such people from harming innocents without the senseless violence that politicians create when they get involved.

So what's the best form of government?

He believes absolute monarchy to be the least bad government. He is an anarchist, though.

That's not entirely accurate; I am a polycentrist who believes in personal vicarious authority, as opposed to someone who believes in abstract collectives like 'America' and 'the will of the people.' Since absolute monarchy is halfway here and halfway there, (kings are leaders of extended families who descend from great leaders, whose realm is their patrimony, and who have certain personal reciprocal obligations, but simultaneously are considered to merely be the representation of a sort of independent sovereignty that is apart from his person, often playing to nationalism or proto-nationalism, hence calling a king 'France' or the like and thus the belief in 'fortunate helplessness' which says that a king should not be allowed to contradict his essence as the sovereign entity,) I prefer it to democracy which believes in the supremacy of the abstract collective such that one can parrot the fatuous line of "we are the government."

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

The kind of comment I would expect from someone who supports a criminal ideology.

schnip stuff about Kings

So when the King gets into a bad mood and orders your execution? Or are you only talking about some awesome King who is nice to everyone?

The kind of horrendous oversimplification I would expect from someone who supports a criminal ideology.

Fixed ;)

The kind of comment I would expect from someone who supports a criminal ideology.
It's not a criminal ideology, it's a CRIMINAL ideology.

It's not a criminal ideology, it's a CRIMINAL ideology.

I didn't want to scare the children.

Fixed ;)

Uhm.. he supports a CRIMINAL ideology.

Are you trying to get me killed?

I didn't want to scare the children.
They should be scared, because we Communists like to eat children.

They should be scared, because we Communists like to eat children.

Nothing better than "Chairman Mao's Chidlin'." (It's funny if you say it aloud. And if you know what chidlin' are.)

Nothing better than "Chairman Mao's Chidlin'." (It's funny if you say it aloud. And if you know what chidlin' are.)

I have no idea what 'chidlin' are. So I looked it up in google.. only I misspelled it 'chidlun' at first and only got one result (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=chidlun&meta=). Amusing.

Anyway, I spelled it right the second time and still have no idea what 'chidlin' are, though the word sounds vaguely familiar.

Anyway, I spelled it right the second time and still have no idea what 'chidlin' are, though the word sounds vaguely familiar.
Well, if you imagine what a Chinese stereotype might sound like when saying "children", you could get closer to the answers you seek...

Well, if you imagine what a Chinese stereotype might sound like when saying "children", you could get closer to the answers you seek...

I wasn't even thinking Chinese stereotype, I was thinking where-I-am stereotype.

As for chidlun'...ewww. That's not what I meant, I can say that for sure.

I don't really think we should use 'spreading democracy' as a cover for our neo-imperialist ways.

We should either

1. Not pursue imperialist policies

or

2. Pursue Imperial policies with full power, and do it right without deluding ourselves we are doing it to 'spread democracy'. You do something right or you don't do it. This half assed imperialism is destroying us...

Well, if you imagine what a Chinese stereotype might sound like when saying "children", you could get closer to the answers you seek...
Chingchoingchow?
I wasn't even thinking Chinese stereotype, I was thinking where-I-am stereotype.
*looks at location* And where are you?
As for chidlun'...ewww. That's not what I meant, I can say that for sure.
No one meant for that. Ever.

*waves*

Hello. Chinese person here. :sniper:

*waves*

Hello. Chinese person here. :sniper:

Hello.
I'm an American and I respect your right to bear arms (http://www.awionline.org/wildlife/q46-1bea.htm).

*looks at location* And where are you?

I am in that part of the United States where a pen is a pin, a guard is a god, and children are chidlin'.

I am in that part of the United States where a pen is a pin, a guard is a god, and children are chidlin'.

So... somewhere in the buttcrack of the nation?

So... somewhere in the buttcrack of the nation?

We prefer "the South," but yes, there.

We prefer "the South," but yes, there.

The fact that you know what I meant pretty much says it all.

Hello.
I'm an American and I respect your right to bear arms (http://www.awionline.org/wildlife/q46-1bea.htm).

Save the bear, the whale, and the shark, but it's okay to bulldoze large tracts of South American jungles to feed cattle that end up in McDonalds burgers in America.

Save the bear, the whale, and the shark, but it's okay to bulldoze large tracts of South American jungles to feed cattle that end up in McDonalds burgers in America.

It was a joke and a clever play on words and situations. (If I do say so myself, which I just did)

I am well aware of my own nations faults and in fact am more concerned about the destruction of rainforest than the deaths of bears, whales, or sharks. Kill off a species and one species goes extinct, but kill off a habitat and many species face extinction.

It was a joke and a clever play on words and situations. (If I do say so myself, which I just did)

I am well aware of my own nations faults and in fact am more concerned about the destruction of rainforest than the deaths of bears, whales, or sharks. Kill off a species and one species goes extinct, but kill off a habitat and many species face extinction.

Oh.

We prefer "the South," but yes, there.

Yep....something like that...Our attempt at democracy died awhile back...Meh, beggers cant be choosers, lol...

So what's the best form of government?

A sociocracy of rapidly exchanging officials from all of the people in which it dictates.

Have recent events, such as the debacle in Iraq, changed your opinion to some extent or another on the matter of using foreign policy to spread democracy?


Nope. A neoconservative who invokes "democracy" in defense his or her actions doesn't know what democracy is, doesn't believe in democracy to begin with, and certainly has no actual interest in "spreading" democracy anywhere. Have always believed that, and still do.

The present Administration is filled with two-faced liars. Thus, I see no reason to accept the contents of their propaganda as truth.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Thus rational (and free) people prefer ballots.

whatever is spread by pointing guns at people, whatever moral justification there might or might not be for doing so, is under no circumstances capable of being democracy in any honest sense and use of the word.

there may come times of neccessity for doing so, maybe, but the only thing "spread" that way, is more brutality.

=^^=
.../\...

whatever is spread by pointing guns at people, whatever moral justification there might or might not be for doing so, is under no circumstances capable of being democracy in any honest sense and use of the word.

there may come times of neccessity for doing so, maybe, but the only thing "spread" that way, is more brutality.

=^^=
.../\...

Unless 2/3s of the elected officials say it is.

whatever is spread by pointing guns at people, whatever moral justification there might or might not be for doing so, is under no circumstances capable of being democracy in any honest sense and use of the word.
Aren't Germany and Japan democracies? You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the removal of dictatorial governments by force of military arms didn't play a certain role in allowing democracies to be created there.

Aren't Germany and Japan democracies? You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the removal of dictatorial governments by force of military arms didn't play a certain role in allowing democracies to be created there.

But in these cases, the "removal" was a product of a defensive war. It wasn't so much "The people of Germany and Japan are being oppressed, so we must bring them freedom and democracy" as it was "Germany has invaded most of Europe and Japan has sunk most of the US Pacific Fleet, so we need to do something here."

Defeating the enemy war machine was certainly necessary and important, but I think one can make a far stronger case associating the cause of "spreading democracy" to the European Recovery Program, and similar measures in Japan, which occurred after the war. But even then, such things were really more about containing "communism" in the Soviet Union (in defense of "democracy," we're told, but you know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)...) At any rate the division of Germany between the United States and Soviet Union for decades of Cold War made the situation real iffy.

Things have certainly turned out for the better, but classifying the series of events as "spreading democracy" is problematic.

Aren't Germany and Japan democracies? You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the removal of dictatorial governments by force of military arms didn't play a certain role in allowing democracies to be created there.

The German people had wanted democracy. well before WWI there was a movement that Bismark put down for democratic representation (by being real poltik). SO the German restoration of democracy was embraced by the German people.

the key element of Japan democracy was the emperor. despite the likelihood of the emperor being involved in various war crimes both the allies and Japaneses military protected the emperor so that he could stabilize the area and tell the Japanese people to embrace democracy.

Why shouldn't those outside the West have the right to decide who governs them?

We should not tolerate tyranny because a nation's 'culture' somehow allows its people to be subjugated by their government. The right to elect your rulers is absolute. When granted it, people value it greatly - hence the bravery of Iraqis who voted once they were allowed to and the queues at polling stations in Zimbabwe a few weeks ago.

:rolleyes: Not all forms of undemocratic government are tyrannies and not all tyrannies et al. are oppresive mkay? The right to elect your rulers is not at all absolute - you may want not to have rulers.

So what's the best form of government?

Tyranny.

They should be scared, because we Communists like to eat children.At least you have the courage to admit it.

Tyranny.

Preferably one done by an incorruptible and benevolent line of tyrants.

But in these cases, the "removal" was a product of a defensive war. It wasn't so much "The people of Germany and Japan are being oppressed, so we must bring them freedom and democracy" as it was "Germany has invaded most of Europe and Japan has sunk most of the US Pacific Fleet, so we need to do something here."Not necessarily the people of Germany and Japan, no. But "Why We Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight)" is quite clear that it is for freedom and democracy and against slavery and dictatorship that Americans go to war.
Defeating the enemy war machine was certainly necessary and important, but I think one can make a far stronger case associating the cause of "spreading democracy" to the European Recovery Program, and similar measures in Japan, which occurred after the war. But even then, such things were really more about containing "communism" in the Soviet Union (in defense of "democracy," we're told, but you know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)...) At any rate the division of Germany between the United States and Soviet Union for decades of Cold War made the situation real iffy.

Things have certainly turned out for the better, but classifying the series of events as "spreading democracy" is problematic.True. "Making the world safe for democracy II" is more appropriate.

Preferably one done by an incorruptible and benevolent line of tyrants.

Are you familiar with the specifics of tyranny.

Tyranny.I agree that in theory, a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, but finding the right dictator is so hard that it makes the idea impractical.

I agree that in theory, a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, but finding the right dictator is so hard that it makes the idea impractical.

No no no. A tyrant need never be benevolent, beneficient or perceptive; they are an autocrat who wields power circumscribed only by their popular mandate. When they are no longer deemed necessary by the demos, they are removed, and a more popular form of government restored until a tyrant is deemed necessary once more.

No no no. A tyrant need never be benevolent, beneficient or perceptive; they are an autocrat who wields power circumscribed only by their popular mandate. When they are no longer deemed necessary by the demos, they are removed, and a more popular form of government restored until a tyrant is deemed necessary once more.That's not a good idea at all, actually.

No no no. A tyrant need never be benevolent, beneficient or perceptive; they are an autocrat who wields power circumscribed only by their popular mandate. When they are no longer deemed necessary by the demos, they are removed, and a more popular form of government restored until a tyrant is deemed necessary once more.
Two words.

Robert Mugabe.

I rest my case.

That's not a good idea at all, actually.

That's a wonderful idea. No democracy will ever take radical measures necessary at times, hence tyranny is necessary.

That's a wonderful idea. No democracy will ever take radical measures necessary at times, hence tyranny is necessary.


"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

That's a wonderful idea. No democracy will ever take radical measures necessary at times, hence tyranny is necessary.Of course, the likelihood of a democracy taking unneccessary, radical measures is also unlikely. Most tyrranies in the world today do abuse their power and avoid being overthrown by the demos. It fails to provide good results in this place called the real world. As has been stated before, Mugabe is a good example of your wonderful idea.

Are you familiar with the specifics of tyranny.

Rather. Unlike democracies, tyranny does not have to pander to the lowest common denominator of the populace. A person can be smart, but people, as a rule, are stupid. Just look at the things people vote politicians in for. Support for invisible men in the sky, racism, bigotry, idiocy in general.

And even worse, democracies are geared in such a way that perpetuating this idiocy is desirable for those who want power. All you need to be is the best liar.

Tyranny on the other hand, can be vastly abused, this is indisputable. But a benevolent tyrant can actually get things done without being stonewalled every step of the way by corrupt plutocrats. A tyrant doesn't have to pander to the dumbest majority in order to push things through.

Yes, this may sound elitist, but would you want some redneck bible/koran thumper who can't even find his country on the map dictating policy?

Democracy is a sham because it relies on an informed, intelligent populace to keep the workings smooth. This is impossible with a population of any significance that doesn't devote machines or slaves to every labor field not related to politics.

So what you get instead is a majority of dummies voting in the best shyster.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"."Power corrupts, and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."

Two words.

Robert Mugabe.

I rest my case.

Highly uninformed electorate. Franchise limited to either the educated or intelligent would resolve this.

I agree that in theory, a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, but finding the right dictator is so hard that it makes the idea impractical.

There have been benevolent dictators/tyrants/autocrats before. The problem is that whoever succeeds them tends to be utter rubbish. That's why it's so hard to make it work.

Tyranny works in instances liek ancient Greece.

Nowadays it would be perfect if you could ensure certain civil structures would stay in place: e.g. independent judiciary, independent press, independent army responsible exclussively to the people, independent education system and so on.

Personally I would incline towards a meritocratic technocracy with strictly defined and separated powers of state.

"Power corrupts, and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."

Nonsense! PowerPoint forever! Down with Apple and OpenOffice!!! :sniper:

Tyranny works in instances liek ancient Greece.

Nowadays it would be perfect if you could ensure certain civil structures would stay in place: e.g. independent judiciary, independent press, independent army responsible exclussively to the people, independent education system and so on.

Personally I would incline towards a meritocratic technocracy with strictly defined and separated powers of state.

Please justify how tyranny "worked" in Greece. It worked to do what?

Highly uninformed electorate. Franchise limited to either the educated or intelligent would resolve this.Electorates always are. Also, you'd be a lot less preachy if you realized you're not part of the educated or intelligent elite.
There have been benevolent dictators/tyrants/autocrats before. The problem is that whoever succeeds them tends to be utter rubbish. That's why it's so hard to make it work.Exactly. You need to find a new one every so often, so even if you manage to pick one of the good apples that doesn't become enamored with power, you'll need to ensure that the next one isn't either.

Please justify how tyranny "worked" in Greece. It worked to do what?Tyranny didn't have the negative connotation it has today. It merely meant that the Tyrant ruled alone, not necessarily that he ruled cruelly. Draco and his draconic laws pretty much cemented the negative image of Tyranny.

Please justify how tyranny "worked" in Greece. It worked to do what?

Athens was the only democratic polis and only for a while. It's haegemony was limited to sea-faring. Mainland Greece on the other hand was predominantly tyrannical and generally, except economically, stronger and more successful. Tyranny gave us Greek culture. How can you say it failed?

Exactly. You need to find a new one every so often, so even if you manage to pick one of the good apples that doesn't become enamored with power, you'll need to ensure that the next one isn't either.

The only thing that comes to mind is either an immortal, who may at some point become corrupt, in which case, bad idea. Or an AI government. Or maybe a genetically engineered breed of human bred specifically without the usual nasty traits of going on power trips.

I had an idea about this once, coming up with a caste of people raised from childhood specifically to rule with emphasis on fairness and just government, but the problem was that I couldn't make the damn system corruption proof. There was always an element of weakness that could compromise the whole thing.

The only thing that comes to mind is either an immortal, who may at some point become corrupt, in which case, bad idea. Or an AI government. Or maybe a genetically engineered breed of human bred specifically without the usual nasty traits of going on power trips.

I had an idea about this once, coming up with a caste of people raised from childhood specifically to rule with emphasis on fairness and just government, but the problem was that I couldn't make the damn system corruption proof. There was always an element of weakness that could compromise the whole thing.

Plato beat you to it. See the Republic:p

Highly uninformed electorate. Franchise limited to either the educated or intelligent would resolve this.
"Franchise limited" doesn't cut it. This is government we're talking about, not the organisation of a university student union. Not everybody knows what they need to know to make an informed decision on every possible political issue - political systems exist for that very reason.

Of course, we're missing the point here. Tyrants won't go down without a fight, and even if the oppression gets to the stage where the political mandate goes to someone else, there will inevitably be conflict, potentially on an enormous scale. You're in effect institutionally condoning an oppression - civil war cycle of government. And look how well Africa has pulled that off.

The only thing that comes to mind is either an immortal, who may at some point become corrupt, in which case, bad idea. Or an AI government. Or maybe a genetically engineered breed of human bred specifically without the usual nasty traits of going on power trips.

I had an idea about this once, coming up with a caste of people raised from childhood specifically to rule with emphasis on fairness and just government, but the problem was that I couldn't make the damn system corruption proof. There was always an element of weakness that could compromise the whole thing.I worked with something like this as well. It was basically a planet run by an immortal benevolent dictator, albeit the reason why he was immortal was unclear. It was a human only universe.

Athens was the only democratic polis and only for a while. It's haegemony was limited to sea-faring. Mainland Greece on the other hand was predominantly tyrannical and generally, except economically, stronger and more successful. Tyranny gave us Greek culture. How can you say it failed?
Na na na. I didn't say it failed. I asked you to justify how tyranny worked in Ancient Greece.

Okay guys. Let's stop talking about politics as if it's the solution to humankind's problems. Politics only exist because we recognise we are selfish and very prone to kill each other.

Tyranny, democracy, autocracy, anarchy...none of these can ever solve the real problems really plaguing us.

Okay guys. Let's stop talking about politics as if it's the solution to humankind's problems. Politics only exist because we recognise we are selfish and very prone to kill each other.

Tyranny, democracy, autocracy, anarchy...none of these can ever solve the real problems really plaguing us.Well, what are the problems facing us? Over straining resources plagues any country that has at least one city, and some form of organization is necessary to ensure that people don't starve.

Well, what are the problems facing us? Over straining resources plagues any country that has at least one city, and some form of organization is necessary to ensure that people don't starve.

That's administration politics, not strictly politics politics (philosophy politics).

Screw democracy! We need Empires!!!!!!

Screw democracy! We need Empires!!!!!!I love it how the most imperialist posters aren't even old enough to legally obtain alcohol in the United States.

Na na na. I didn't say it failed. I asked you to justify how tyranny worked in Ancient Greece.

I don't exactly see what's so gnostic about it?

Tyranny.

Thats the default form of government, and only succeeds when the people either A) cannot fix it or destroy it, due to Economic, or more likely, Military Forces, or B) like in America, or Ancient Rome and Greece, just dont give a shit, and would rather watch the national spectacle of Gladiators, or American Idol...:headbang:

Plato beat you to it. See the Republic:p

Plato couldn't come up with an incorruptible system that would stand the test of time either. And he didn't have any specific settings regarding people raised specifically to rule. Not in the royalty sense of raised to rule, but more like top of the class sense of raising. But the problem was keeping it current to events while avoiding corruption issues. There needs to be some sort of measure that completely isolates human interference between the ruling circle and the rest of the populace while allowing valid information to go through to prevent corruption.

In IT parlay, we call them firewalls. So far, there hasn't been an appropriate human specific version of it.

Plato couldn't come up with an incorruptible system that would stand the test of time either. And he didn't have any specific settings regarding people raised specifically to rule. Not in the royalty sense of raised to rule, but more like top of the class sense of raising. But the problem was keeping it current to events while avoiding corruption issues. There needs to be some sort of measure that completely isolates human interference between the ruling circle and the rest of the populace while allowing valid information to go through to prevent corruption.

In IT parlay, we call them firewalls. So far, there hasn't been an appropriate human specific version of it.

I was talking about the idea of having a separate "ideal" ruling class reared from infancy. And he did give an account of how they should be raised: children deemed physically fit and mentally keen would be taken from their parents from an early age and raised communally (pretty much kibbutz-like) and he set out a very specific program of training and education. Most intriguingly is the concept of gender equality in this particulat caste, which I found quite novel for the age/culture.

I don't really see why you need to isolate them. Qutie the contrary. Plato's solution was to prohibit any kind of private property, marriage, or any sort of commitment outside of the caste, which might illicit egoist impulses.

I can't quite understand what you mean by the concept of "corruption". Greed and the like aren't necessary traits, and a class that has enough to satisfy their needs would hardly want more if it never lacked anything. What people that have never had to strive for anything but wanted more do you know (if you remove influences such as competitiveness with mates, proving yourself to your parents etc. which would be redundant in a properly educated class)?

I don't really see why you need to isolate them. Qutie the contrary. Plato's solution was to prohibit any kind of private property, marriage, or any sort of commitment outside of the caste, which might illicit egoist impulses.

Who teaches the teachers? Who brings them information about the outside world? The Chinese Imperial court is a good example. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of cases where those in line for succession were either puppets through decades long machinations or duped into trusting people who had only their personal interests at heart.

That's why isolation and filtering is needed. Remove the human element, and you remove the possibility of the ruling system being subverted.

Think of the ruling circle as an OS, the kingdom as the hardware, and the power mongers as hackers looking for a vulnerability to exploit.

So... somewhere in the buttcrack of the nation?

Ah, yes the Northeast, America's Asshole...

im from the South, America's Dick...

but, because we dont condone Gender discrimination, we have a Pussy too, we call it, California...


but, sometimes they get pissed cause we fuck too hard..

but, remember, we also fuck assholes, and if we dont fuck the Northeast, then theyll shit all over our Chest area, in the Midwest...

[QUOTE=Venndee;13667927]Have recent events, such as the debacle in Iraq, changed your opinion to some extent or another on the matter of using foreign policy to spread democracy? Has it affected your opinion of democracy in general?

didn't saw it that way looks like the containment politics of president johnson in the sixties

Modern democracy seems to be something of a farce...

Athenian direct democracy of Athens seems to be much more democratic.

Tyranny.Preferably one done by Dyakovo.

Fixed
:D

Screw democracy! We need Empires!!!!!!

Who ever said the two are mutually exclusive? Athens was fiercely imperialistic, and the United States and her allies maintain an empire as well.

Who ever said the two are mutually exclusive? Athens was fiercely imperialistic, and the United States and her allies maintain an empire as well.

yeah, but we sacrificed our Democracy for it during the Mexican War...

and Athens during the War with Sparta...

Modern democracy seems to be something of a farce...

Athenian direct democracy of Athens seems to be much more democratic.Also much more idiotic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Criticism_of_the_democracy) Another instance I know of not listed there was when the Athenians wanted to punish an island for rebelling by killing every last man, woman, and child. The next day, they repented and luckily the ship with the second set of orders managed to catch up with the first one and the island was spared.

Athenian direct democracy of Athens seems to be much more democratic.
It was rubbish. People were executed because people couldn't be arsed thinking about the issues involved and just sticking their hands up to say "aye-os".

Who teaches the teachers? Who brings them information about the outside world? The Chinese Imperial court is a good example. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of cases where those in line for succession were either puppets through decades long machinations or duped into trusting people who had only their personal interests at heart.

That's why isolation and filtering is needed. Remove the human element, and you remove the possibility of the ruling system being subverted.

Think of the ruling circle as an OS, the kingdom as the hardware, and the power mongers as hackers looking for a vulnerability to exploit.

Well I'm guess Plato was teaching the teachers:p

Btw I'm not supporting this model I was merely pointing out what has been written.

Also for the sake of the argument I really think isolation of the ruling class is a really bad idea, because, as you pointed out, power is held by those who manipulate information flow towards the "ruling" classes. If anything, the ruling classes should be exposed to as much of what they are supposed to rule over as possible (*reminds me of the Nazis making students do roadworks for 6 months after graduation... not entirely a stupid idea), even to greed et al. and be taught to be above it (wishful thinking I know).

My point is that any sort of separation leads to ignorance and you get what you get at the moment: a ruling class that has no idea what the low and average is all about (except in your proposed system they would also not have to care).

yeah, but we sacrificed our Democracy for it during the Mexican War...

Last I checked, the US still believes in a variation of majority rule.

Last I checked, the US still believes in a variation of majority rule.

Oh yeah, we still do, the

Majority of the Money=Majority of the Win rule...

I remember that one, lol...

I meant that was the first time we intervened to 'Spread Democracy', Grant hated the whole war, and thought it was very unjust...

Oh yeah, we still do, the

Majority of the Money=Majority of the Win rule...

I remember that one, lol...

I meant that was the first time we intervened to 'Spread Democracy', Grant hated the whole war, and thought it was very unjust...

Well, not necessarily majority of the money = majority of the win, but rather the minority that has the most to gain from seeking privilege will dominate politics and siphon off everyone else's wealth (the California Correctional Officers of the Peace isn't made of rich people, but they exert an extremely high amount of power because of the obvious benefits politics gives them.)

And as for the Mexican American War, I would agree that it was rather imperialistic, but I think the most extreme change in American government was the Civil War which ushered in the Hamiltonian/Clay/American System's dominance.

Well, not necessarily majority of the money = majority of the win, but rather the minority that has the most to gain from seeking privilege will dominate politics and siphon off everyone else's wealth (the California Correctional Officers of the Peace isn't made of rich people, but they exert an extremely high amount of power because of the obvious benefits politics gives them.)

And as for the Mexican American War, I would agree that it was rather imperialistic, but I think the most extreme change in American government was the Civil War which ushered in the Hamiltonian/Clay/American System's dominance.

Oh, id agree, I was generalizing with the first statement...but yeah...

And id agree that the Civil War began the most extreme change in American Government, but, id say that the Mexican War was what facilitated the Civil War, The Acquisition of Territories from Mexico caused a renewed interest in Imperialist tendencies, and the fact that Northern States attempted to Dominate those regions was one of the, if not the, root cause of the Civil War...All the other reasons were just Political Tools used by the two sides to garner, and/or deny support for one side or the other...

Also for the sake of the argument I really think isolation of the ruling class is a really bad idea, because, as you pointed out, power is held by those who manipulate information flow towards the "ruling" classes. If anything, the ruling classes should be exposed to as much of what they are supposed to rule over as possible (*reminds me of the Nazis making students do roadworks for 6 months after graduation... not entirely a stupid idea), even to greed et al. and be taught to be above it (wishful thinking I know).

My point is that any sort of separation leads to ignorance and you get what you get at the moment: a ruling class that has no idea what the low and average is all about (except in your proposed system they would also not have to care).

No, no, you don't get what I'm saying. Information is needed for the ruling class, this is undisputed. But what needs to be done is a way to keep human influence out of that information. Unbiased, raw facts from which they can process. That's the weak link in the whole mess.

And id agree that the Civil War began the most extreme change in American Government, but, id say that the Mexican War was what facilitated the Civil War, The Acquisition of Territories from Mexico caused a renewed interest in Imperialist tendencies, and the fact that Northern States attempted to Dominate those regions was one of the, if not the, root cause of the Civil War...All the other reasons were just Political Tools used by the two sides to garner, and/or deny support for one side or the other...

I agree, since the expansion of slavery into the territories was a more important issue than slavery in and of itself (hence the Free Soil Party which feared both slaves and free blacks taking away land and jobs from whites and which would later form an important part of the Republican party, and attempts to conciliate with the South such as through the Corwin amendment, Fugitive Slave Act, and Lincoln's emphasis on collecting tariffs instead of slavery in his inagural address.) And it did have an effect of creating more militarism and more power for the Federal government that has allowed it to springboard into a world-spanning empire (though I think the Civil War had much more of a contribution.)

No, no, you don't get what I'm saying. Information is needed for the ruling class, this is undisputed. But what needs to be done is a way to keep human influence out of that information. Unbiased, raw facts from which they can process. That's the weak link in the whole mess.

I get what you are saying, it's just that it is nonsense. What you are saying is that the ruling class should be above and segregated and should be some sort of collective calculating machine. The problem with that is that raw facts cannot teach them humanity, and so they will never be able to comprehend what they are ruling over, cannot empathise with the ruled and thus they cannot have any sense of duty over the ruled. What you get is a disconnected oligarchy which experiments its social and economical theories on the mass of the population without fearing any reprecaussions.

Think of the British Empire C18th-C19th, particularly the Poor Law and Work Houses. The Educated British Ruling Class (which was completely removed from the realities of the rest of Britain) was experimenting its Malthusian ideas to the suffering of millions.

I get what you are saying, it's just that it is nonsense. What you are saying is that the ruling class should be above and segregated and should be some sort of collective calculating machine. The problem with that is that raw facts cannot teach them humanity, and so they will never be able to comprehend what they are ruling over, cannot empathise with the ruled and thus they cannot have any sense of duty over the ruled. What you get is a disconnected oligarchy which experiments its social and economical theories on the mass of the population without fearing any reprecaussions.

Think of the British Empire C18th-C19th, particularly the Poor Law and Work Houses. The Educated British Ruling Class (which was completely removed from the realities of the rest of Britain) was experimenting its Malthusian ideas to the suffering of millions.

The British Empire's ruling classes had a significant problem in that they utterly failed to have an understanding of their education in state and economic matters, if they even had any at all. The system I'm talking about limits power in the ruling circle only to the ones who can show the best understanding of the system and how to make it work properly.

On the flip side, if they mix in with the people so commonly, which has its own merits, how do you keep them from being influenced negatively by them? Imagine if it was a bunch of redneck mouth breathers they ran into. That has disaster written all over it, no matter which way it cuts.

Again, you advocate for those who would have the best understanding of socio-economical workings. My question is, who will establish how those things important to know in power actually work, and what effects they can have, if not your rulers through direct experience?

My point is this: Take for example Britain, and the chav subculture. A ruling class like yours would have no way to empathise with them, and considering their social deviance, what is a ruling class more likely to do? Genocide or Education? The crudely logical approach would be genocide in terms of expense and immediate efficiency. Bottom line is that you want to systemise ruling, and this takes the humanity out of ruling. A isolated ruling class cannot have the same values as the ruled, and if completely unaccountable, has no reason to work towards the interests and values of the ruled.