United DEMOCRATIC Nations

[gdstark]

The events of recent times are only correlationary evidence against non-democracies, but not actual causal relationships (at least not proven just by their existence). You can take another correlationary example in China where you would probably agree with me that there is little coup risk right now. Not saying democracies don't promote peace, but I am also saying I don't know if they do. Not something that is intuitive most likely. Also, the question arises with this on when a coup is justified. Sucession (which might be seen as some sort of overthrow) was justified by the founding fathers and anyone for self-determination will possibly be open to it.


That is not the point I was making with free trade- instead that the benefits of trade (and subsequent loss of those benefits upon a declaration of war [should trade be deterred which it almost always is]) between two countries increases the costs of war. Your example here might actually not promote peace if people realize they want democracy instead of communism, dictatorship, etc. and revolt. Arguably not a bad thing, but it isn't an argument against an overthrow or for domestic peace.

You said...
> ...in China where you would probably agree with me that there is little coup risk right now

I can't help but to believe that you're not really understanding who whole Arab Spring thing. This isn't about just the middle east. This is about the influence of the internet on the entire planet. This is quickly becoming a world where repressive governments can no longer hide from their misdeeds. And that's ESPECIALLY true of the granddaddy of them all...China. So no, I disagree strongly with your assumption. I would say the Chinese dictators (and ANY other dictators left) are not sleeping easy. And they are attempting to tighten their grip on the internet. But the nature of the technology is such that they will always fail. All of them are just a single bad news story...a girl being murdered in the streets...a young boy mutilated by the police...away from extinction. This dictator stampede is already underway. Just read the news.

I can't help but think we're getting lost in the rhetoric here. Allow me to ask you a simple question....which is better? Dictatorship or democracy?

gary

 

[myp]

You said...
> ...in China where you would probably agree with me that there is little coup risk right now

I can't help but to believe that you're not really understanding who whole Arab Spring thing. This isn't about just the middle east. This is about the influence of the internet on the entire planet. This is quickly becoming a world where repressive governments can no longer hide from their misdeeds. And that's ESPECIALLY true of the granddaddy of them all...China. So no, I disagree strongly with your assumption. I would say the Chinese dictators (and ANY other dictators left) are not sleeping easy. And they are attempting to tighten their grip on the internet. But the nature of the technology is such that they will always fail. All of them are just a single bad news story...a girl being murdered in the streets...a young boy mutilated by the police...away from extinction. This dictator stampede is already underway. Just read the news.

The internet allows for organization and the sharing of ideas. People act for drastic change not only because of that but because they are afraid to starve, lose their jobs (or already have), etc. A lot of this is economic.

China is not in such a position and it is very stable still. You can take your pick at this- take the UAE if you wish. And again to show that a lot of this is economic and not necessarily due to representation- look at the instability in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland. All of these places have representative governments, but have greater revolt risk right now and more riots and protests than say China or UAE.

But I don't know why you are bringing this up. My point was that the risk of a coup can be present in a democracy just as much as in a dictatorship. Sure risk factor might be lower in a democracy, but you have to prove that with causal or at least very strong correlationary data, which you haven't (not sure it even exists).

I can't help but think we're getting lost in the rhetoric here. Allow me to ask you a simple question....which is better? Dictatorship or democracy?

gary

What is "better"? That is subjective. Some will say democracy, others will say dictatorship. You already know I prefer a republic to either.

 

[gdstark]

The internet allows for organization and the sharing of ideas. People act for drastic change not only because of that but because they are afraid to starve, lose their jobs (or already have), etc. A lot of this is economic.

China is not in such a position and it is very stable still. You can take your pick at this- take the UAE if you wish. And again to show that a lot of this is economic and not necessarily due to representation- look at the instability in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland. All of these places have representative governments, but have greater revolt risk right now and more riots and protests than say China or UAE.

But I don't know why you are bringing this up. My point was that the risk of a coup can be present in a democracy just as much as in a dictatorship. Sure risk factor might be lower in a democracy, but you have to prove that with causal or at least very strong correlationary data, which you haven't (not sure it even exists).

Really? Even given the violence you see daily in Syria and Libya, you can't see that in a democracy people have more choices for response than in a dictatorship? Like I keep saying, democracy does not guarantee wisdom. It only guarantees that the people own their situation.

And btw, how did you determine how many riots occur in China? Are you saying that the Chinese dictator's strict control of the media is not working?

What is "better"? That is subjective. Some will say democracy, others will say dictatorship. You already know I prefer a republic to either.

Like the US republic? Do you prefer your republics to be representative democracies?

 

[myp]

Really? Even given the violence you see daily in Syria and Libya, you can't see that in a democracy people have more choices for response than in a dictatorship? Like I keep saying, democracy does not guarantee wisdom. It only guarantees that the people own their situation.

The violence in those nations is largely due to economic problems the people face. And of course people have more choices in response in a democracy. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about revolt risk and a tremendous amount of revolt risk still exists in democracies that have poor economic situations- again I point to PIIGS.

And about people "owning their situation"- again, not the topic at hand, but even that is arguable (in a true democracy 51 people might own their own situation and the other 49 don't as we went through already).

And btw, how did you determine how many riots occur in China? Are you saying that the Chinese dictator's strict control of the media is not working?

I am talking about revolt risks, unhappiness, etc. Despite their controlled media (which I admit makes it harder to tell), I think it is almost obvious that they don't have the sort of discontent you currently have in a country like Greece. If they did, we would know regardless of how much they try to control the media.

Like the US republic? Do you prefer your republics to be representative democracies?

I prefer the old US system of checks and balances with a constitutional republic. But the whole point in much of my argument is that my opinion does not necessarily matter. It is for people to decide what they want and if I am not a member of said region, country, tie, it is not really my place to say what they should do.

 

[David]

And how does a republic fix that? Those same stupid, uneducated, illiterate fools are supposed to somehow temporarily achieve wisdom just long enough to vote for a representative? All forms of governance are vulnerable to ignorance.

You're assuming I'm a proponent of liberal-democracy. You assume wrong. In my system economists would decide economic policy, diplomats would decide foreign policy, teachers would decide educational issues, etc.

 

[myp]

You're assuming I'm a proponent of liberal-democracy. You assume wrong. In my system economists would decide economic policy, diplomats would decide foreign policy, teachers would decide educational issues, etc.

I hope your system still has checks and balances because power can corrupt anyone- doesn't matter if they are a teacher, economist, or whatever.

 

[David]

I hope your system still has checks and balances because power can corrupt anyone- doesn't matter if they are a teacher, economist, or whatever.

Well yes, this system (if applied as I envision it) would still function as part of a constitutional republic. The democracy would remain, it would simply be restricted so that people could only vote on what they're actually qualified for. This also offers a major incentive for a better education, the more you know, the more say you have.

 

[myp]

Well yes, this system (if applied as I envision it) would still function as part of a constitutional republic. The democracy would remain, it would simply be restricted so that people could only vote on what they're actually qualified for. This also offers a major incentive for a better education, the more you know, the more say you have.

They can only vote for what they are "qualified" for? Two words: moral hazard.

Also, who decides who is and is not qualified? When it comes to something like education there is a strong argument that parents are the most qualified when it comes to determining where their children should go to school, learn, etc.

 

[David]

They can only vote for what they are "qualified" for? Two words: moral hazard.

Also, who decides who is and is not qualified? When it comes to something like education there is a strong argument that parents are the most qualified when it comes to determining where their children should go to school, learn, etc.

Moral hazard is your answer to everything.

Qualifications means having a degree (from a reputable school).

 

[myp]

Moral hazard is your answer to everything.

It is an extremely prevalent issue and one that doesn't get the attention is deserves. Having only financial degree holders vote on financial sector policy or only teachers vote on school policies can be extremely dangerous. You think special interests is bad now when they have to buy policies from politicians? In this situation they can not only buy them, but have a monopoly on voting for those policies. No more politicians who say "no" (although there are admittedly few that say no anyway)!

Qualifications means having a degree (from a reputable school).

Very scary.

 

[David]

It is an extremely prevalent issue and one that doesn't get the attention is deserves. Having only financial degree holders vote on financial sector policy or only teachers vote on school policies can be extremely dangerous. You think special interests is bad now when they have to buy policies from politicians? In this situation they can not only buy them, but have a monopoly on voting for those policies. No more politicians who say "no" (although there are admittedly few that say no anyway)!


Very scary.

Liberal-democracy where the idiot masses have a say in things they don't understand (more spending and lower taxes, ya that'll work out ) is what's scary.

 

[myp]

Liberal-democracy where the idiot masses have a say in things they don't understand (more spending and lower taxes, ya that'll work out ) is what's scary.

I don't support that either. Constitutional republic with checks and balances FTW (prefer our old system to the current one even in that choice).

 

[David]

I don't support that either. Constitutional republic with checks and balances FTW (prefer our old system to the current one even in that choice).

I'd prefer a republican dictatorship where the people had some say (as I've already described) and a civil rights/liberties constitution.

 

[gdstark]

The violence in those nations is largely due to economic problems the people face. And of course people have more choices in response in a democracy. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about revolt risk and a tremendous amount of revolt risk still exists in democracies that have poor economic situations- again I point to PIIGS.

So let me understand this. You think democracies like Greece may wind up with thousands of deaths from riots, equivalent to the unrest we're witnessing in Syria or Libya? I don't see them as comparable at all. I don't see freedom of the press and freedom of speech as threatened in Greece. I can't imagine the Greek government shutting down the entire internet for instance.

And about people "owning their situation"- again, not the topic at hand, but even that is arguable (in a true democracy 51 people might own their own situation and the other 49 don't as we went through already).

51 is worse case. In a representative democracy, it gets much worse. Look at the United States right now...a growing majority of Americans see the Iraq / Afghanistan occupations as lost causes, yet the leader of our republic increased the troup level. 51% is sounding good right about now.

Speaking of the topic at hand, I believe the topic is the proposal for a United Democratic Nations. So is it your opinion that it's a reasonable idea as long as it is a republic / representative democracy? If that is the case, I'm not sure this is worth all the typing. We agree to disagree. The website however is mine and my version of the UDN will not be a republic. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a charter - it's just that the charter would subject to change by a simple majority. I only tolerate pure democracy in this particular vision.

I am talking about revolt risks, unhappiness, etc. Despite their controlled media (which I admit makes it harder to tell), I think it is almost obvious that they don't have the sort of discontent you currently have in a country like Greece. If they did, we would know regardless of how much they try to control the media.

Like I said, this alledged stability of China is not obvious to me at all. I don't think Syria and Egypt were obvious to most people. What IS obvious to me is that the internet is in the process of tearing these brutal dictatorships apart and I see no sign that the process will somehow stop at China's borders. Obviously just my opinion. Time will soon tell.

I prefer the old US system of checks and balances with a constitutional republic. But the whole point in much of my argument is that my opinion does not necessarily matter. It is for people to decide what they want and if I am not a member of said region, country, tie, it is not really my place to say what they should do.

Understood. I keep talking about how the internet is changing the world. I'm trying to prove that with the United Democratic Nations website. I sincerely believe that the individual has never in the history of the world had such a great potential for changing the world. All the more so when our own politicians are doing such a lousy job.

gary

 

[gdstark]

I'd prefer a republican dictatorship where the people had some say (as I've already described) and a civil rights/liberties constitution.

A republican dictatorship? I think you're abusing the term dictatorship.

gary

 

[David]

A republican dictatorship? I think you're abusing the term dictatorship.

gary

A dictatorship only requires that a single person hold the top jobs (wheres in a democracy the people rule and in a democratic-republic the people hold ultimate power [in theory]). In a republican dictatorship a strongman rules but the people (at least some of them) still have a secondary level of gov't to represent them. The Commonwealth of England, the Roman Republic during dictatorial rule, the 1st French Republic, etc. are all examples of this.

 

[gdstark]

A dictatorship only requires that a single person hold the top jobs (wheres in a democracy the people rule and in a democratic-republic the people hold ultimate power [in theory]). In a republican dictatorship a strongman rules but the people (at least some of them) still have a secondary level of gov't to represent them. The Commonwealth of England, the Roman Republic during dictatorial rule, the 1st French Republic, etc. are all examples of this.

Thanks for the education. I hadn't heard that term before. I still wouldn't want it. I firmly believe in the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" idea and a strongman tends to have absolute power, or at least enough to be a corrupting influence.

gary

 

[David]

Thanks for the education. I hadn't heard that term before. I still wouldn't want it. I firmly believe in the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" idea and a strongman tends to have absolute power, or at least enough to be a corrupting influence.

gary

Absolute power corrupts absolutely...
...Which is a bad thing...
... If you're powerless.

The trick is the be the strongman or in the strongman's inner circle.

 

[gdstark]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely...
...Which is a bad thing...
... If you're powerless.

The trick is the be the strongman or in the strongman's inner circle.

My apologies. I thought you were on the side of good.

gary

 

[myp]

So let me understand this. You think democracies like Greece may wind up with thousands of deaths from riots, equivalent to the unrest we're witnessing in Syria or Libya? I don't see them as comparable at all. I don't see freedom of the press and freedom of speech as threatened in Greece. I can't imagine the Greek government shutting down the entire internet for instance.

I didn't compare to Libya. I compared to China or UAE, both which are also not democracies. You made a blanket statement- it takes 1 example to break that. And look at Greece's prospective today- it's going to default. The game's up and it will probably end up leaving the Euro and revert back to the drachma which will be inflated.

51 is worse case. In a representative democracy, it gets much worse. Look at the United States right now...a growing majority of Americans see the Iraq / Afghanistan occupations as lost causes, yet the leader of our republic increased the troup level. 51% is sounding good right about now.

There are checks and balances in a system like our original republic. 51 does not sound good because it screws the rest. In a republic, at least one representative might have to look after poor people, rich people, minority members, and majority members all in his district.

Speaking of the topic at hand, I believe the topic is the proposal for a United Democratic Nations. So is it your opinion that it's a reasonable idea as long as it is a republic / representative democracy? If that is the case, I'm not sure this is worth all the typing. We agree to disagree. The website however is mine and my version of the UDN will not be a republic. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a charter - it's just that the charter would subject to change by a simple majority. I only tolerate pure democracy in this particular vision.

I am just saying that if you want it to be a serious suggestion in two regards (fairness, which I admit is subjective and reality, which isn't [outside of perception but in this case I dont think you are arguing that most of Europe, America etc is a democracy, but instead republics).

Like I said, this alledged stability of China is not obvious to me at all. I don't think Syria and Egypt were obvious to most people. What IS obvious to me is that the internet is in the process of tearing these brutal dictatorships apart and I see no sign that the process will somehow stop at China's borders. Obviously just my opinion. Time will soon tell.

Moreso than Greece. But again, take another pick- UAE.

Understood. I keep talking about how the internet is changing the world. I'm trying to prove that with the United Democratic Nations website. I sincerely believe that the individual has never in the history of the world had such a great potential for changing the world. All the more so when our own politicians are doing such a lousy job.

gary

Well good for you, I just don't think your idea of "fairness" is actually fair.