- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you think the USA should promote democracy globally or not give a shite?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:01 pm to kingbob
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:01 pm to kingbob
quote:
Seems like an inspection regime and an accreditation process.
Again, do you realize the type of oversight that will have to be implemented? Your suggesting global governance, albeit in a proto-form.
0
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:04 pm to cokebottleag
If countries and cultures can't come up with Democracy on their own, it's highly unlikely that forcing it upon them will result in anything but authoritarianism. In South America, this is just run of the mill corruption. In the Middle East, this is religious nut jobs running the show. Either way, frick even trying, it hasn't worked.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:05 pm to TrueTiger
quote:this sophistry is SO very tiresome. No, we are NOT a direct democracy. We ARE a form of representative democracy. Take the childish “gotcha” nonsense elsewhere.
We aren't a democracy.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:06 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Democracy is faced with the constant choice of expanding its franchise and losing its national identity to differing interest, or forcefully repressing those who want franchise under the law.
Which is why I think a decentralized system would work best. I'm so skeptical of that system developing that I'd prefer a status quo.
One of my favorite myths is that under the old imperial system interests weren't represented. The best example I can think of is the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Effectively there were two administrations parallel to one another in the empire. The Austrian side did not attempt to "Germanize" its inhabitants, showcased by the prominent role that Czechs played in its administration, supported by an aristocracy made up of Germans, Croats, and ethnic Poles, in addition to Hungarian Magyars. In contrast, the Hungarians attempted to "Magyarize" their portion of the empire, effectively following the Westphalian system of one nation, one culture, one language. Obviously this caused lots of tension with ethnic minorities, who felt disenfranchised. Modern governments, even in repressive states, have to be much more cosmopolitan than in previous eras, as outside of some isolated groups in places like Afghanistan, the average subject in general has much more information. Hence why Assad was popular with minorities and resented by Syrian Sunni Arabs, because cosmopolitanism decreases their access to power, despite the fact that many Sunni Arabs .
So much good stuff here. The questions are why is it so hard to explain this to people, and how did we get to the point where basic facts about historical systems are all but extinct?
There seems to a general ignorance about human power structures that are enabled by the degree of comfort that most of the west lives in. Maybe that's why I usually get more straight talk from the upper middle classes abroad than I do in the west.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:11 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Globalization isn't a bad thing, as it eases burden of doing business. I always took Globalism to mean that the world was still controlled by elites.
I used to think of globalism to mean that the global economy is open. In that sense I'm all about it. What I understand it to mean now is that there is a "global imperative" to consider the best outcomes for the entire globe, rather than any particular interest group. Which is of course, a ruse to allow an interest group obtain their best outcomes.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:24 pm to MrCarton
quote:
There seems to a general ignorance about human power structures that are enabled by the degree of comfort that most of the west lives in. Maybe that's why I usually get more straight talk from the upper middle classes abroad than I do in the west.
People seem to think the imperial age ended a long time ago. It ended less than 100 years ago, and within the lifetime of lots of people still living if we are discussing Western European colonial empires.
I honestly don't think we can have an honest discussion about how power works anymore, which is the heart of the matter. Republicanism is entering the sphere of ideology, which means people cannot see its faults. Somehow this myth perpetuates that imperial systems were always repressive. They certainly could be, but generally, especially the Ottoman, Austrian, Persian and Mughal systems weren't. They are degrees less oppressive than the communist and fascist regimes that developed in the early part of the century, while at the same time, the underclasses in colonial regimes and in representative republics (such as minorities in America) were far more oppressed. Fascist and communist regimes attempted to streamline interests, either by repressing minority interests, or by repressing majority interests (like the Soviets repressing Russian nationalism).
Republicanism works best when it accounts for the cosmopolitan nature of its populace, but transitioning to a system of cosmopolitanism within a republican framework is going to be difficult. In an idealist sense, there is no problem with republicanism and minority or majority interests. The problems appear when interests groups want special recognition, as the whole project threatens to fall apart.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:26 pm to cokebottleag
Strong dictators and authoritarian governments are what’s keeping the hounds of hell at bay. I wish everyone had an opportunity to live in a peaceful democracy / republic but that’s not the real world. Sometimes monsters are needed to stop the other monsters from gaining power.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:29 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Which is of course, a ruse to allow an interest group obtain their best outcomes.
Or rather, it's done in a top-down, inorganic fashion. If two countries, blocs, groups, whatever, decide to streamline the process by which they communicate, more power to them. I'd argue that the origins of the EU had that organic nature, but it became too big too fast, with too much inequality between members, which meant that it developed a new system in which Germans were again dominant. A Franco-German partnership, which is at the heart of the EU, makes sense. Including countries like Greece and Poland does not, nor is the use of a single currency.
I like making the globalism/globalization distinction, as one is an inorganic process, while the other is what the world has been trending towards since instantaneous lines of communication have been developed.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:31 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Republicanism works best when it accounts for the cosmopolitan nature of its populace, but transitioning to a system of cosmopolitanism within a republican framework is going to be difficult. In an idealist sense, there is no problem with republicanism and minority or majority interests. The problems appear when interests groups want special recognition, as the whole project threatens to fall apart.
It seems to me the republican system would be better if allowed to continuously fracture. It's not that simple I suppose.
quote:
People seem to think the imperial age ended a long time ago. It ended less than 100 years ago, and within the lifetime of lots of people still living if we are discussing Western European colonial empires.
It's crazy that this information would be shocking to most.
quote:
Somehow this myth perpetuates that imperial systems were always repressive. They certainly could be, but generally, especially the Ottoman, Austrian, Persian and Mughal systems weren't. They are degrees less oppressive than the communist and fascist regimes that developed in the early part of the century, while at the same time, the underclasses in colonial regimes and in representative republics (such as minorities in America) were far more oppressed.
Have you read Hoppe's Democracy: the god that failed? Or A Short History of Man?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:32 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
like making the globalism/globalization distinction, as one is an inorganic process, while the other is what the world has been trending towards since instantaneous lines of communication have been developed.
Makes sense.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:34 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Have you read Hoppe's Democracy: the god that failed? Or A Short History of Man?
I believe I downloaded it somewhere at your last recommendation. I just have no idea what the file is named. It's on my list though.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:39 pm to MrCarton
quote:
I used to think of globalism to mean that the global economy is open. In that sense I'm all about it. What I understand it to mean now is that there is a "global imperative" to consider the best outcomes for the entire globe, rather than any particular interest group. Which is of course, a ruse to allow an interest group obtain their best outcomes.
When I think of globalism, I think of free trade and the US helping developing nations bring more people out of poverty. I’m not against that at all, but there comes a tipping point when global companies (GM perfect example) maneuver away from manufacturing in the US. One part of me hates that GM is doing this and feels bad for the workers, but the other side of me believes they have a right / obligation to create the most profits possible for their shareholders. GMs stock shot up $3-4 on the news yesterday. Let me break the news to everyone that those tariffs are not the reason GM is leaving. They are leaving because people are not buying their crappy cars which is primarily what those plants are used for. GM is doing fine on crossover vehicles and trucks. The margins on their cars is very small to begin with and the have inferior car products to begin with.
Still, this entire debate is about American jobs vs Americans buying power for goods and services.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:50 pm to cokebottleag
Some people just prefer to embrace living in caves and taking a dump in a coffee can. Let them. Lots of people who have lived in adjacent caves have also probably woken up and decided; its the twenty first century, I'm sick of this shite, and I'm not going to take one more day of stewed goat. I'm leaving for a more promising future.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 2:36 pm to BoulderReb
quote:
Some people just prefer to embrace living in caves and taking a dump in a coffee can. Let them. Lots of people who have lived in adjacent caves have also probably woken up and decided; its the twenty first century, I'm sick of this shite, and I'm not going to take one more day of stewed goat. I'm leaving for a more promising future.
This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, other than maybe the fact that many looselydemocratic systems have extremely poor populations.
Much of America's history was spent in a system of extremely limited political franchise. When we say "America was a white male dominated society", that's actually very true. White, male, land owning, protestant dominated society.
The idea of democracy as we see it now would have been laughed at for the absurdity that it is. In fact, it was never absolutely certain we wouldn't just have another monarchy. I think a monarchy would have likely been much better for the US, but there is no real way to know.
The west, under a burgeoning system of democratic republics, suffered two of tje most devastating and destructive man man catastrophes of all time, and multiple world wide depressions were interwoven into those world wide conflicts. I'd wager than there existed more destruction in the formative era of democracy in the west than the previous 500 years combined. We almost bombed ourselves back into caves, and if we are honest, we are still running extremely destructive policies while our domestic policies are literally on the edge of crisis constantly.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 2:41 pm to cokebottleag
Why is it on America to fix the rest of the world? Why should a single American life be sacrificed for some third world shithole on the other side of the planet? If your 'government' is a dictatorship of some kind, either grow some fricking balls and fight against them, or shut the frick up and die off. Either way, leave my country out of it.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 3:30 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Personally, I don't give a shite what government another country has. I don't care what they do to their people. It's not the USA's eternal problem or mission to save everybody everywhere, or even anybody anywhere.
Paul Volcker book is worth a read. He speaks to this topic. He's old enough to remember Hitler days. He served in the administration when we were working hard to get Europe back on its feet, establish democracies and establish trade agreements.
That has been slowly undone. Today we are a dysfunctional republic controlled by special interest groups with a president that prefers visiting with dictators, the worlds second largest economy is controlled by a communist party that we are now engaging in a trade war, far right nationalist parties are being elected all over Europe, a totalitarian islamic Saudi Arabia is killing journalists and imprisonin dissidents and Russia is annexing old Soviet states.
Point being last time this happened we lost many young guys in a world war. It definitely matters.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 3:49 pm to cokebottleag
Depends on what 'promote' includes in your question.
Also does one think the US would be better off in the long run if every other country was a democracy?
Also does one think the US would be better off in the long run if every other country was a democracy?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 3:49 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
The United States works under the arrogant assumption that everyone around the world wants Democracy and even worse, that they want the type of democracy that we think they should have.
Maybe they don't
Because they can't support it.
It requires civility and not throwing a murderous temper tantrum if you don't get what you want.
What we see from the left today against Trump is about 1/10th of what occurs all the time in Central and South America.
Lose an election? Time for a coup.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 3:55 pm to AggieHank86
You didn't read the very next sentence.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 3:57 pm to cokebottleag
no. i do not and never will GAF what other countries do just as long as they don't threaten or impact the interests of our country
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News