If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
ardeedee wrote: Asians are more attuned to being feudalistic which is inimical to democracy. That is very correct it seems! |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Pan wrote: On 14 Mar 2006 03:37:31 -0800, "Liam" wrote: Benjamin Franklin (I think it was) once said, in paraphrase, that "Democracy is a suitable form of government only for those who WANT to be ruled by it. For all others, it is wholly inadequate". I think that, in the end, the type of government that the people of any country accept is one that reflects their values. Dictatorship precisely _does not_ take into account the interests or values of the people. The people may or may not support a dictatorial government, but face very strong coercive pressure not to speak out or take other action. Thus Representative Republicanism reflects the values of freedom and self-determination (America, Great Britain, Australia and the like). Those people who rule others by tyrannical domination will in the end accept that type of rule themselves--witness Congo, Zimbabwe and the like. Where do you get off blaming the people of the Congo and Zimbabwe for being misruled? And when you bring in the Congo, are you aware of its history of being raped and murdered by Western imperialists (King Leopold et al.) and the extent to which that devastation made it very difficult for the land to recover? The Congo is one of the most egregious examples of genocide and largescale theft of resources in history. And now, it's somehow the people's fault that gangs have guns and shoot them. As for Zimbabwe, there's plenty of resistance to the depredations of the Mugabe regime, but so far, the coercive power of the state has staved off the opposition through brutality and election-rigging. Despotism--benevolent or otherwise--is successful only in places where patriarchism is inbred into the culture (Saudi Arabia, etc.). And so on. Absolute rule until fairly recently was a universal phenomenon in state societies. In the end America works because it reflects the values of the American people. To be sure, this is never unanimous nor even in most cases clearly defined. But the process allows for that value to be more or less paramount. It is not a clear guarantee against evil, incompetence or profiteering. But it DOES work--to the extent that no matter how much or how unfairly America is vilified, "the shining city on a hill" is still an irresistable draw to much of the rest of the world. America does not have border guards to keep people in, after all. That's mostly because the economy is still much stronger than most other economies. We hear less about immigration to relatively impoverished Costa Rica, though its democracy arguably functions better than America's. I do think that you make some good points, and you write well, but you are overgeneralizing, and apologies in advance if I'm being unfair, but some of your remarks seem to me to smack of the racist concept of "Oriental Despotism" as inherent of the "Orient," which is according to that fabrication ipso facto inherently backward and never subject to attaining the level of "Western Civilization." There is nothing inherently "non-Western" about despotism and nothing inherently "Western" about democracy, though in the latter case, I would readily admit that inspiration for today's concepts of democracy does mostly originate from Athenian democracy, the Roman Republic, and writings by people like Locke -- "Westerners" all. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. "I do think that you make some good points, and you write well, but you are overgeneralizing, and apologies in advance if I'm being unfair, but some of your remarks seem to me to smack of the racist concept of "Oriental Despotism" as inherent of the "Orient," which is according to that fabrication ipso facto inherently backward and never subject to attaining the level of "Western Civilization." There is nothing inherently "non-Western" about despotism and nothing inherently "Western" about democracy, though in the latter case, I would readily admit that inspiration for today's concepts of democracy does mostly originate from Athenian democracy, the Roman Republic, and writings by people like Locke -- "Westerners" all." Hmmmm. This is not about justice at all, but about values. Every government, no matter what the type, in the end derives it's powers from the consent of the governed, be that consent explicit (as in the form of elections every four years) or implicit. But in the end that consent can ONLY reflect the values of the society. Therefore a government implementing Shar'ia, for example, can only work where Shar'ia is accepted as a cultural norm. Such a government would never be accepted in places like America, Britain, etc. where such a practice is absolutely contrary to the values of the people. You might claim that a dictatorship precludes any kind of decision on the part of the people, but you'd be wrong. Dictators are a result, not a cause, and as such nearly always are a PRODUCT of the society or nation which they rule. Thus the decision is in effect made in advance of the dictator. Even the most despotic, tyrannical regimes in history have been thus. Do you think Hitler introduced the concepts of genocide and racial hatred to Germany? Or the desire to expand eastward? If so, you'd be wrong. Those "values" were part of the Teutonic culture long before Hitler appeared on the scene. He merely gave them focus. So too the rule of such people as Ahmadinejad, Khameini, Mugabe, etc. etc. These people REFLECT their societies and the values within. They did not shape them. People throw off governments that do not reflect their values all the time, by revolution or whatever means. Virtually every nation in history can point to multiple revolutions, either orderly (as per the ballot box) or violent (as per the gun). But in the end the people always get what they can relate to, even though they may claim that it's not what they want. They may not admit it, but that's the way it is. Liam |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On 15 Mar 2006 03:39:16 -0800, "Liam" wrote:
[snip] Every government, no matter what the type, in the end derives it's powers from the consent of the governed, be that consent explicit (as in the form of elections every four years) or implicit. That's arrant nonsense. Some governments derive their powers from very effective terror, not from consent of the governed. But in the end that consent can ONLY reflect the values of the society. Therefore a government implementing Shar'ia, for example, can only work where Shar'ia is accepted as a cultural norm. Such a government would never be accepted in places like America, Britain, etc. where such a practice is absolutely contrary to the values of the people. You're isolating a particular type of coersion, but that's not the issue. It's clear that if a dictatorship were to take over the U.S., it would claim to be upholding American values such as freedom, much as is currently happening with the "Patriot" Law and "Homeland Security" being used to justify illegal spying on the entire populace and the illegal use of secret evidence, secret blacklisting, and indefinite detention without trial in violation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Look at the way Nazism rose in Germany for a good example. You might claim that a dictatorship precludes any kind of decision on the part of the people, but you'd be wrong. Dictators are a result, not a cause, and as such nearly always are a PRODUCT of the society or nation which they rule. Thus the decision is in effect made in advance of the dictator. Even the most despotic, tyrannical regimes in history have been thus. Do you think Hitler introduced the concepts of genocide and racial hatred to Germany? Or the desire to expand eastward? If so, you'd be wrong. Those "values" were part of the Teutonic culture long before Hitler appeared on the scene. He merely gave them focus. So too the rule of such people as Ahmadinejad, Khameini, Mugabe, etc. etc. These people REFLECT their societies and the values within. They did not shape them. Wrong. They used propaganda opportunistically as a means to gain power. In the process, they both reflected and shaped it. People throw off governments that do not reflect their values all the time, by revolution or whatever means. That's very brave talk from you, considering that you don't have to pay a price for it. So, everyone who clung onto their life in Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, and Mao's China "consented" to living under a murderous dictator? Virtually every nation in history can point to multiple revolutions, either orderly (as per the ballot box) or violent (as per the gun). But in the end the people always get what they can relate to, even though they may claim that it's not what they want. They may not admit it, but that's the way it is. Your bons mots are simplistic and false. It apparently makes you happy to _believe_ that "in the end the people always get what they can relate to," but that doesn't make it true, unless the phrase "what they can relate to" is so meaningless it encompasses the most hated tyranny. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Is Democracy Fair?
Pan wrote: On 15 Mar 2006 03:39:16 -0800, "Liam" wrote: [snip] Every government, no matter what the type, in the end derives it's powers from the consent of the governed, be that consent explicit (as in the form of elections every four years) or implicit. That's arrant nonsense. Some governments derive their powers from very effective terror, not from consent of the governed. But in the end that consent can ONLY reflect the values of the society. Therefore a government implementing Shar'ia, for example, can only work where Shar'ia is accepted as a cultural norm. Such a government would never be accepted in places like America, Britain, etc. where such a practice is absolutely contrary to the values of the people. You're isolating a particular type of coersion, but that's not the issue. It's clear that if a dictatorship were to take over the U.S., it would claim to be upholding American values such as freedom, much as is currently happening with the "Patriot" Law and "Homeland Security" being used to justify illegal spying on the entire populace and the illegal use of secret evidence, secret blacklisting, and indefinite detention without trial in violation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Look at the way Nazism rose in Germany for a good example. You might claim that a dictatorship precludes any kind of decision on the part of the people, but you'd be wrong. Dictators are a result, not a cause, and as such nearly always are a PRODUCT of the society or nation which they rule. Thus the decision is in effect made in advance of the dictator. Even the most despotic, tyrannical regimes in history have been thus. Do you think Hitler introduced the concepts of genocide and racial hatred to Germany? Or the desire to expand eastward? If so, you'd be wrong. Those "values" were part of the Teutonic culture long before Hitler appeared on the scene. He merely gave them focus. So too the rule of such people as Ahmadinejad, Khameini, Mugabe, etc. etc. These people REFLECT their societies and the values within. They did not shape them. Wrong. They used propaganda opportunistically as a means to gain power. In the process, they both reflected and shaped it. People throw off governments that do not reflect their values all the time, by revolution or whatever means. That's very brave talk from you, considering that you don't have to pay a price for it. So, everyone who clung onto their life in Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, and Mao's China "consented" to living under a murderous dictator? Below is a thought provoking essay from Peter Hilts the winner of the Great American Think Off contest: "Is Democracy Fair?" "Democracy is so fair that it reveals the best and worst qualities of the people who practice it. As an adoptive parent of three orphaned children from Ethiopia, I have learned that democracy means much more than majority rule. Democracy is not just a political model. It is not simply a way of casting votes-and it is emphatically not a synonym for the American system of government. Because it simply means "rule of the people", democracy is fair if and when it lives up to its own definition. If the character and values of the people are correctly expressed in their decisions and institutions, then democracy is fair. Unfortunately, democracy is often fair to a fault. In the Ethiopian province of Wolo, in the late 1980's, fair democracy produced a modern tragedy. While her five children worked and grew around her, a starving mother tasted the bitter side of democracy. For more than two thousand years, Ethiopia has practiced self-rule. As an unconquered nation, rich in tradition, literature and philosophy, Ethiopians have had many generations to choose their preferred form of government. Their experience is democratic in the extreme. Ethiopia has developed a modern government with roots in monarchy, empire and tribal traditions. Their modern practice includes elections, courts and all the hallmarks of a modern democracy. Yet in the cradle of that democracy, a popular ruler tried to subdue a rebellion by starving the people of the Northern regions. During the resulting political famine, a mother died and five orphans were cast into a world ill-prepared to meet their needs. Without a family or local agency to keep them together, the siblings were split apart. How can it be that people would choose for themselves a government opposed to their needs? How could any nation of parents and children sit by while political leaders traded lives for territory and grain for guarantees? The painful answer hits closer than we think. Democracy is fair because participation in democracy is always optional. Political scientists claim that people always have the government they really want. However much we might complain about the president or our mayor, those complaints rarely generate a critical mass of participation in any given election. During the first major election of this new century, we can expect over half of eligible voters to stay away from the polls. From distraction, alienation or simple laziness, that silent majority will muzzle their own voice in the political process. It this fair? Absolutely! Is it desirable...? Those who participate decide. In America, of those who could vote, less than half will. Of those who vote, a simple majority will decide. Even then, the will of the voting majority is not secure. In U.S. history we have more than once let the electoral college override the will of the electorate. This seems wrong, but it is fair. If Americans truly wanted a different system, there are vast numbers of inactive citizens who could rise up and change the system. Their apathy is truly reflected in a political machine which rewards the active majority, placates the vocal minority, and ignores the rest. The people get the government they want. In the wake of that tragic famine, knowing their resources are limited, Ethiopians have adopted simple and elegant adoption laws. After a potential adoptive family is found, the government publishes a notice in national newspapers to give anyone with an interest in the child a chance to make a claim. After a short period of time, and absent any claim, the children are joined with their new family. This is what the people of Ethiopia want, and it is fair that they have it. Contrast this with the American system. Before Worku, Lubaba and Saada came to join our family in Minnesota, we spent nearly 36 months weaving through a maze of local, state and federal agencies, all of whom had a series of forms, regulations and processes to impose. Criminal checks by the city police, federal investigation by the FBI, international assessments by the CIA and the INS. $35,000 in fees and costs to help three children rejoin a family eager to give them a home. My wife and I will raise our new children to love democracy, but that love will not be blind. They will see that in Ethiopia and America, democracy honestly reveals our true human nature. We will teach them that democracy is fair; so fair that it can never be any better than the people who practice it." ____________________________ Noi Virtually every nation in history can point to multiple revolutions, either orderly (as per the ballot box) or violent (as per the gun). But in the end the people always get what they can relate to, even though they may claim that it's not what they want. They may not admit it, but that's the way it is. Your bons mots are simplistic and false. It apparently makes you happy to _believe_ that "in the end the people always get what they can relate to," but that doesn't make it true, unless the phrase "what they can relate to" is so meaningless it encompasses the most hated tyranny. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Tchiowa wrote:
Dave Baker wrote: On 7 Mar 2006 03:30:21 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote: I didn't make up the voting pattern, nor the analysis. You didn't make up the voting pattern but you certainly made up the analysis. Yawn - go & get yourself one of those pretty red & blue maps. Yes the people on the East Coast and some of the West Coast voted more Democratic. Oh, funny - now you want to agree? Given your history I expected a dishonest reply but this one was beyond even my wildest expectations. You snipped every bit of the detail; everything that proved you wrong; everything that exposed your snobbery, bigotry and elitism and left just enough to make it look like I said you were right. Stunningly dishonest. I wondered before when you were posting all the absurd stuff about Thailand and Unocal if you were lying or just dumb. I guess you answered that. Actually dumb due to dishonest inclination as a result of arrogance. But it gives us the opportunity to expose these idiocies shared by people like him. Unfortunately for you the others in Usenet are capable of reading what you snipped. Astounding! |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On 17 Mar 2006 17:41:06 -0800, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Ahmad"
wrote: Tchiowa wrote: Astounding! Haji & Tchiowa - what a combination! :-) Dave |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Ladies and Gentlemen; Thailand is a very peaceful kingdom, especially when compared to many of its' neighbors. And because it is a constitutional monarchy with a king that is revered by the citizens, it retains a great deal of stability even in the midst of the growning pains that are to be expected of a young democracy. Even though the kingdom and the culture itself is very old, Thailand is still comming to terms with the difficulties involved in self governance ie democracy. It is to be expected that the Thai people will make numerous mistakes while finding the best possible way to govern themselves and their country but the good news is that they have begun the journey and have by an large done a rather good job of it. There are of course culture differences between East and Western cultures which results in different governments, different types of democracies etc but that is good and to be encouraged. Not everyone needs to be alike.. I welcome your civil and literate comments. Cordially, Hunter |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
WILLIAM wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen; Thailand is a very peaceful kingdom, especially when compared to many of its' neighbors. And because it is a constitutional monarchy with a king that is revered by the citizens, it retains a great deal of stability even in the midst of the growning pains that are to be expected of a young democracy. Even though the kingdom and the culture itself is very old, Thailand is still comming to terms with the difficulties involved in self governance ie democracy. It is to be expected that the Thai people will make numerous mistakes while finding the best possible way to govern themselves and their country but the good news is that they have begun the journey and have by an large done a rather good job of it. There are of course culture differences between East and Western cultures which results in different governments, different types of democracies etc but that is good and to be encouraged. Not everyone needs to be alike.. I welcome your civil and literate comments. Cordially, Hunter 67.103.140.34 = [ h-67-103-140-34.lsanca54.covad.net ] network: Country-Code: US http://www.EarthLink.net |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:27:54 GMT, "WILLIAM"
wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen; Thailand is a very peaceful kingdom, especially when compared to many of its' neighbors. [snip] How many of them? Name the countries. OK, I'll start: Burma. And? Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Pan wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:27:54 GMT, "WILLIAM" wrote: Thailand is a very peaceful kingdom, especially when compared to many of its' neighbors. How many of them? Name the countries. OK, I'll start: Burma. And? and cambodia and indonesia and the phillipines... michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's True: Burma's Generals Suddenly Shift Capital | Burma Action Group | Asia | 0 | November 8th, 2005 01:39 AM |
Is an attack on Venezueala Imminent? | destiny | Latin America | 10 | September 30th, 2005 04:58 PM |
AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SPEAKS - More on BILLY Meier - Henoch Prophecies - UFOs - Space - Universe... | Ed Conrad | Europe | 4 | August 6th, 2005 08:56 PM |
Irish European Attitudes towards George Bush | Gerald Horgan | Europe | 37 | June 23rd, 2004 10:06 PM |
Detained at the whim of the president | Polybus | Air travel | 143 | December 28th, 2003 09:54 PM |