Stop the spread of Democracy?

There has been a pretty startling amount of democracy insemination in the world lately. What with Condoleeza Rice's missions to Asia, the invasion of two middle-eastern countries, and an overall sense of "Free Man's Burden" in the news (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/technology/12filter.html).

Is this expected from a country with a ripened Constitution and a head of pride, or is there a little more than meets the eye to all our worry? Is it the zest of freedom that's leading the country to this, or is it financial gain that's leading the government?

>>1

Both answers, if interpreted as complete representations of the truth, and undeniably false. Reductionist approaches which suggest that complex systems composed of hundreds or thousands of people can be moved with a single, simple motive or individual authority are always wrong, and indicative of a hopelessly sophmoric level of naivete.

tl;dr? all of the above, and even more reasons yet.

It's a little hard to determind the attitude of your thread...
But surely you don't see the love of freedom a problem?

democracy is highly overrated, and hardly the only government which allows 'freedom'.  pushing it as the be-all and end-all of the world's problems is just a case of "i am right and you are wrong.".  some kids won't be happy until everyone agrees with them.

>>4

Well... I might just disagree with you. But I gotta explain myself first.

premise0: democracy is an adjective to describe an organizing process, NOT a complete description of a style of organization.

...that is to say, many things are democratic, but have no other similarities. ALL that is meant by democratic, is that participants have a say in the policies of their system of organization.

premise1: freedom is defined as the ability to choose which of the available options you embark upon.

conclusion: therefore, in non-democratic systems of organization, there is no freedom. It's simply definitional. If you don't have a say in the policies of the system which organizes your behavior, then you are not free.

I hold all these things to be true. Obviously you do not. How so?

>>5

"freedom is defined as the ability to choose which of the available options you embark upon."

If the option you choose to embark upon happens to go against the majority of voters in a democratic society, that freedom will be stifled.  Just having a say in the policies of the system doesn't mean your say will end up meaning anything -- unless you happen to follow the majority in all regards, your freedoms will be limited in one way or another.

How is this conceptually any different from living in a non-democratic society, where policies are determined by whatever methods the governing body chooses to employ?

>>6

That is precisely why I never said that in a democracy everyone is free all the time; my point was exclusively that in a non-democracy you ever never free, because you never get your choice, because you never get the opportunity to opine for your choice.

On the other topic you bring up though, I would say that by a happy coincidence, most people are members of the majority. :P

But all silliness aside, it's elementary logic. not-democracy = ~freedom. The opposite of ~X is "there is at least one X", not "everything is X". That's all I meant to say... democracy is the formal opposite of 0 freedom (aka, freedom for some).

Freedom for everybody all the time? Anarchy is still democratic... its just a democracy of one.

>>7

So, even if a non-democratic society, just by randomly flipping coins, ends up just /granting/ you any or all of the freedoms you would otherwise get in a democratic society (minus the pesky voting thing, of course), you still wouldn't consider it a true 'freedom' because you don't get to say you want it?  I'm sorry if I don't quite understand your position...

>>8

No, you do... you summarized it adequately well.

Freedom is the ability to make decisions, not a guarantee that you will get your way. I hold that to be true... do you agree with me?

The inability to make decisions is therefore a lack of freedom.

Your problem is, you're conflating liberty with democracy. Democracy simply means that you are a partner in sovereignty. Liberty means that the sovereign body agrees to restrict its power and not fuck with you.

Liberty is awesome, don't get me wrong... but it is not a strictly necessary component of democracy. I don't know why some people seem unable to keep from conflating the two; why do so many people on this message board always assume that liberty and democracy come in a package instead of being sold seperately, as it were? Perhaps because so many of them are Americans, and liberty and democracy are America's cardinal virtues (oh, and don't forget capitalism).

In a just-conceived democratic state, does anyone necessarily want liberty after for so many years of living in an anti-liberal culture that believes in a single opinion? No, they want a democratic anti-liberal majority rule, a government that contorts the minority and any true freedom of speech.

In that sense, many military states have a much better democracy than North America or Europe could ever have because they are ruled by a military led by the majority, consisting of the majority, and enforcing the majority opinion upon the people. Whileas in “free” countries well over half the population is making a compromise in their vote, lifestyle, and opinion and a very small minority is fully content.

So what exactly are we trying to do with democratization? Legalize tyranny?

>>10
Sounds about right for Wankland.

>>9

But freedoms can still easily exists in a non-democratic state.  One can still have the freedom to make decisions, they just don't have the freedom to make decisions regarding state policy.  Claiming that the only true freedom is the ability to decide state policy is the part that doesn't make sense to me.

If I, for example, live under a theocratic dictatorship, but one that allows freedoms of speech and conscience similar to the USA, I would still have the freedom to voice my opinion without punishment, even if it disagreed with that of the state.  However, my opinion would still have no legal sway, so I don't have the freedom to vote.

These are both, in my mind, freedoms in and of themselves.  The inability to make decisions regarding state policy is admittedly a lack of /a/ freedom, not a total lack of freedom altogether.

I'd say that the ability to change government isn't even a very important freedom.
It's important in cases where you're lacking in other, more basic freedoms, but on its own it's pretty worthless.

Changing a government is easy.  Iraq was hardly a free country before, but with a bit of careful negotiation and a lot of things-that-go-boom, it's on it's way to being a proper democracy.

Does Iraq equally have the freedom to change the USA government?  Probably not.  But if Iraq's a democracy now, they have no reason to.  Democracies are always happy with other democracies.

it's on it's way to being a proper democracy.

More like theocracy, amirite?

I agree with the point that the ability to influence policy is only the definition of _political_ freedom. Indeed, that is what I'd always meant.

I disagree with the assertion that this isn't that important. Political power is the _only_ guarantee of _any_ freedoms.

>>16

Political power only guarantees freedoms insofar as the majority supports said freedoms.  When the majority decide to use their vote to limit their own freedoms for a sense of safety or whathaveyou, your freedoms as a result are also limited.

Germany was a democracy when Hitler convinced 'everyone' (read: the majority) to give him absolute power.  I doubt anyone would call that a shining example of 'guaranteed' freedoms.

>>1

i doubt it's so much the zeal for freedom or the profit motive that drives these pro-democracy attitudes, at least not primarily.

"If you're not with us, you're against us" sums it up pretty nicely -- if you're not a democracy, you're an enemy.  period.

democracy is a polar opposite of theocracy (fallible people shouldn't have the ability to make their own governments, only God Almighty can do it right).  thus, it's only natural that a theocracy sees a democracy as little more that a festering cesspool of selfish desires and evil whims, similarly to how a democratic society considers a theocracy as an oppressive society based on outdated concepts.  it's only a matter of time before people start throwing planes at buildings.

if everyone's a democracy, there's nothing to worry about, since we're all ideologically on the same side.

>>1
Stop the spread of American democracy. People who know about that style of democracy will know it is not a good example to follow when creating democracies.

>>18
You do realize that there have been wars between democracies in the past, right?
There's always going to be something to worry about.

>>20

it's easier to negotiate with another democracy when you don't want to kill each other anymore.  theocracies aren't as reasonable.  just like communists.

>>21
Why? What makes theocracies and communists inherently less likely to negotiate?
I just can't think of anything.

>>22
Theocracies are less flexible, since the rules are passed down by God.  Even if the common people don't like them, they're stuck with them.

Democracies have policies set by the people's majority vote.  Once war's gone on a bit, people will get tired of it and demand peace.

Ability to change and compromise is often a key factor in negotiations.

>>Once war's gone on a bit, people will get tired of it and demand peace.

lol just like in iraq's democracy. bute oh wate, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT IRAQI OPINION BECAUSE ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY ITS A PUPPET GOVERNMENT IN MASK OF A COLONY.

So which is better for the people? A theocracy which represents them and their values or a democracy which doesn't- even if they voted for it? Democracy sucks, that's why America votes for preachers, not presidents. The US is an inflexible theocracy waging wars with religion and passing laws with the Bible.

And what about in non-demotheocracies like the UK, where the entire nation expresses its opposition to something and yet the government continues on, completely ignoring public opinion with a little "what's best for you" tip of the hat? Is that true democracy? If a government can't even negotiate with its own people, how can it negotiate with another's? It can't- negotiation is a buzzword they made up after World War I when they sent the losers into abject poverty and started manufacturing refrigerators.

Mmmm, refrigerators.

mmmm... homocidal refrigerators.

Homocidal toasters are better.

I don't get what the problem is. Why do people think it's ok to be above the law and be able to tax everyone into the ground, rape anyone they want and execute anyone they disagree with?

Furthermore, why do people attack democracy, for supposedly implementing "A PUPPET GOVERNMENT IN MASK OF A COLONY." instead of a democracy, even though they've said they're implementing a democracy and Iraqis are going to vote in a new government and form a constitution etc under UN supervision? What exactly do they think the coalition should do? If they leave then it will be anarchy, there would be civil war and the country would turn into a patchwork of warlords. Do they want despotism? Whut?

Do they want despotism?

Sometimes I honestly don't think I want to know the answer to that.

They probably do want despotism because having a non-corrupt democracy means that they will have to change their entire way of life

>>1
"Is this expected from a country with a ripened Constitution and a head of pride"

Yeah, it's also expected of a country which is dominantly Christian (as Christians seem to feel the need to push all their believes on everybody)!

>>31
Yeah, I mean, maybe people /want/ to be oppressed by despots and oligarchies.

>>31
not just christian. two words: extremist islam