Is there such a thing as a superior human goverment? The west believes it’s democracy. But is democracy right for every society?
And do you guys feel one nation has the right to impose its ideas and beliefs upon another? This is also broader then just Iraq. I would just like you guys to share your ideas and opinions with me, I’m very interested in what everyone here thinks.
Edit: grammar, punctuation.
Firstly, Democracy is not best for ANYONE. No society benefits from true democracy, as herd mentality can lead the lemmings over the cliffs.
However, dictatorship is not desirable either, as it can lead to excessive pride in the one leading, causing him to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (I’m reading the Satanic Sins right now, so I’m using their interpretation of excessive pride religiousforums.com/parkweb/ … .php?t=643 ).
The people cannot keep perspective as the majority of them are stupid. They are too quick to belive in the pretentious politicians and what they say. They’re quick to deceive themselves into believing that complacency is happiness. Plus, they don’t seem the retain the historical perspective and have the knowledge to lead others in the right direction.
I don’t belive democracy or true dictatorship is right. I believe a philosopher king is best, but that’s waaaay too unreliable as you can have poseurs as kings.
In the end, a Republican form of government seems best to me. It’s a divide and conquer technique that seems to be working rather well for the U.S. and certainly worked well for Rome. (if you consider, Greece was at their peak with a philosopher king… but then he died and the empire fell). However, I don’t think there should every be an office held by one individual. There should be 5-7 presidents, not one.
democracy - the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
the concept of the vote leads to the tyranny of the majority
im a relativist and believe there is no good or evil. hence there is no human nature. if there is no human nature, men are neither good nor evil. if there are good, they do not have to be ruled. if man is evil, the last thing i want would be to elect a bunch of evil people to control me.
my bad is with the fact that democracy does not represent the minority vote. the majority vote can abuse anything, this is mob rule.
of course democracy is for everyone, statements that think otherwise are ignorant…both in the concept of democracy and the concept of peoples’ government. sorry to be so dismissive, but this is one of my areas of concentration in my studies.
rafa wrote:
which would that be? achiliabias? rafa, the only ‘philosopher ruler/king’ was marcus aurilleus, and he was roman. the greeks had no such system. also, as to the whole 5-7 presidents idea, a system like that is in force in most western european countries; it’s called parliamentary system with proportional representation (electoral system).
jedi pocky wrote:
yes my dear, that’s why deomcracies have constitutions, to put guidlines on majority rule to therefore protect the minorities.
singapore’s a funny place, democractically speaking. one of my fave profs is writing a book about it, compared to south korea and tiwan…its a comparative analysis of the state of democracy btw the 3 countries. i went to a reading, and i got to tell you, singapore’s not looking so good. their persepctive for what democracy is and how to implement it is a little off the mark. so, ulitmately, its the ideas that matter, not the people, when it comes it impleemtning any kind of regime (including a democracy)
Ever hear of Alexander the Great? Greek guy, trained by Aristotle to be the “philosopher king”. He wound up conquering most of western and eastern Europe? Ring a bell?
Whether he actually was a philosopher king is up for interpretation. He was rather merciless to his enemies, however, he was kind to them once conquered. His people loved him and Greece itself was extremely prosperous during that time. He employed MANY intellegent men below him and was very open to advice. While he may not have had the same style of philosophy as Marcus Aurelius (who was MUCH more of a stoic), he was, nonetheless, in my eyes a philosopher king of epic proportions.
EDIT: Thanks for the education about parliments. I can’t believe I didn’t see it before! Oh em gee! rolls eyes Recall, I live in the U.S. where our president is currently approaching dictator status. I am sure to make a CLEAR distinction between a democracy, a dictatorship, and a republic. It’s a very key issue to me. Democracy != Dictatorship. Dictatorhip != Republic. Republic != Democracy.
Why am I so adamant about it?
Dictatorships:
The pluses - Coherency and long term stability. One man can sepcialize in what a nation is ignorant of.
The minuses - Lack of balance, abuse of power.
Democracy:
The pluses - The majority will always be appeased.
The minuses - The minority gets shat all over. The people don’t know what’s best for them…voter complacency.
Republic:
The pluses - Majority representation with minority appeals.
The minuses - A few men in a great deal of power.
Rafajafar stands for socialist republican liberal.
motherfucker! i spent the last 2 minutes frantically searching for info on alex the great b/c in class my prof mentioned in passing that one philosopher travelled with alex. aristotle did teach a young alex, but he didn’t really listen…aristotle’s politics clearly shows the strong political opposition aristotle was to empire. believed a MODERATE democracy could only work in small city-states. anyway, the philosopher that traveled with alex the great was Pyrrho. someone you should identify with strongly, rafa. also, being interested in philosophy doesn’t make one a philosopher, and while alex might be the former, this doesn’t make him the latter.
republicanism is what america is built on. it was madison that resurected this dead regime concept in the ‘federalist’ papers to drum up support for the constitution. anyway, i kindly and rather timidly suggest that you read aristotle’s politcs, it makes the similar conclusions but with different arguements.
EDIT: yes, marcus aurielius was a stoic. yes, but he was a practicing stoic. which makes him a philosopher
This is a silly argument. It’s clear that (like I said) it boils down to opinion as there is no clearly defined philosopher king.
I guess, in the end a philosopher can be as ruthless as a sadistic authoritarian. It all depends on your personal philosophy. Just because one believes one philosophy to be more right than another does not mean that he is any less correct.
Alex was pretty much a hedonist in personal affairs and an epicurean in matters of the state. Overall, he was rather consistent, in my opinion. But, you have every right to disagree.
I can’t stand reading Aristotle. I’d rather read Tolstoy.
It’s very easy to get caught up in the mindset that what is good for us is good for everyone. “Democracy” is also a misnomer in some cases. Iraq, for example, is supposed to be an intervention for “democracy.” Yet, How democratic was this intervention conducted on the international level?
Say for example, the Iraqis have democratic elections and decide they want Saddam Hussein (or someone similar) as their leader?
In my opinion, we backed into Iraq without a real motive other than to overthrow Saddam Hussein and throwing around some nationalism as we back out.
So is democracy right for everyone? I don’t think we are really sure what “democracy” really is and what it is supposed to do.
I’m going to pretend for the moment that the question doesn’t imply the second gulf war is about ideals or creating democracy. That can of worms is best left in a different thread. So in regards to the actual question…
Is there a superior human government?
Maybe. What makes a government superior? A tyrant with a firm grasp over his country may sneer down his nose at the crime rate in the democracy that criticises the tyrant’s opressive rule. Like so many things this is a matter of opinion and which is superior depends entirely upon your definition of a “superior government”.
Do I consider democracy the superior form of government?
No. Why? In the interests of honesty I’ll ask that you excuse the arrogance of this statement, I find most people around me to be relatively slow and incredibly irrational. Any system that depends on giving each person an equal say in matters means that its decision making capacity will be roughly equivalent to the average member of the population. And I quite simply wouldn’t trust the average member of the population to determine the best policies for my (or anyone else’s) country.
Do countries have the right to impose their ideals upon another country?
That’s a tough question, especially seeing as I don’t believe in any universal or absolute “rights” per se. What rights each person should have is not only again a matter of opinion but also a moot point as people will then continue to violate whatever rights are agreed upon.
However I do find it increadibly amusing that America is forcing the right for people to choose their own government at gunpoint. Mandatory self-determination is quite a paradox.
— Yet another question of rights and wrongs meets the resistance of moral relativism. —
Good points Michael. You seem to be the only one here who has actualy read my questions let alone attempted to awnser them.
Rafa and Trix seem to have gone into debate mode upon what form of goverment is superior and I have no interest in that question in this thread.
Michael, do you think every society should be left on its own to decide what form or system of goverment works best for them? Or should the world at one point ever have the right to infringe their ideals, democraticaly, upon individual nations.
If i may weigh in,
Democracy is right for everyone!
Democracy refers only to government by the governed,
SELF DETERMINATION
If a small radical socialist group overthrougs the constitutional monarchy (as we seem to be approaching here in the States, sans the constitution) of a hypothetical country and impose its millitant socialist/communist (i know there is a difference and often argue with people about it) on that country that would be democracy in action
If the people of the country were to take this sitting down, that would be democracy because they CHOSE not to resist or join the movement
all of mankind is free to make their own choices, whether they like it or not.
by the way hate to be a smart a** (no i don’t) but Phillip the Third, or Alexander the Great was Macedonean(spelling), not Greek
What is a nation? Is it a flag, a government or even a catchy anthem? Nope. It’s just a group of people. There’s one guy, or a group of guys in charge of these people for just one reason. Those people believe he’s in charge, some of them so strongly that they are willing to enforce his edicts upon those who do not believe.
The world is a natural democracy, power mostly comes from the willingness of other people to give you this power. It’s not just government, money is only valuable because we all agree that it should be.
Let’s take Iraq as a handy example. Saddam hussein was in charge there for just one reason, the people there believed it. The soldiers and police supressed those who disobeyed his laws because they believed that they should.
George Bush didn’t like this situation for various reasons irrelevant to our discussion, he believed that he should be in control of Iraq (if only to bring someone else to power there). Bush was in charge of America because the people believed it and the soldiers and police supressed those who disobeyed his laws. He decided that he would set certain laws for Iraq and thus sent soldiers and police into the country to supress those who disobeyed these new laws.
It’s not about one nation influencing another, it’s about groups of individuals making decisions about what they would do and these individuals then interacting with other individuals.
In some cases in this Iraq debarcle various individuals threatened other people with violence if they did not obey the orders given to them. This isn’t unusual, it happens in every country where a police force exists.
Blah, that was complicated, wasn’t it? But see, the thing is that any situation can be analysed from many different levels, I could look at the same situation in terms of the interactions of atoms or in terms of movement of galaxies. I just happen to see it in terms of individuals.
It’s a common foundation of most western thought to see things in terms of societies, nations, tribes… whatever names you give to groups of individuals. This is why everyone has so much trouble applying any consistent scale of morality to events.
On an individual scale my standard of morality (which I do not believe is any more accurate or valid than anyone elses, it is merely the one I choose) is based upon a merging of hegel’s moral philosophy with maslow’s hierachy of needs.
An individual should have absolute liberty in acting to either preserve or end his own life (as they see fit), up to the point of interfering with other people’s ability to preserve or end their own lives.
An individual should have absolute liberty in acting to prevent or cause their own suffering (as they see fit), up to the point of interfering with other people’s ability to prevent or cause their own suffering; or to preserve or end their own lives.
An individual should have absolute liberty in owning and using their property (as they see fit), up to the point of interfering with other people’s ability to own and use their own property; or prevent or cause their own suffering; or to preserve or end their own lives.
An individual should have absolute liberty in acting as they damn well please, up to the point of interfering with other people’s ability to act as they please; or own and use their own property; or prevent or cause their own suffering; or to preserve or end their own lives.
This functions fine up until you get a clash between two points of the same level, e.g. committing murder to save your own life. At this point the severity of the violation combined with the number of people being violated is used to determine which is worse.
Clearly many of the American soldiers in Iraq are currently violating my code of morality. Then again so is the entire world, but it’s my morality not theirs.
— Have you learned to stop asking me right/wrong questions yet? —
good points, Michael
But isn’t owning property by definition interferring with another’s right to own that property?
Whose to say who has claim to a piece of property? The one who gets there first? The one who has more of what is agreed to be a valuable commodity? Or the one(s) who are agreed/assumed to be in charge?
And what recorse do nations, as groups of people, have against stronger or richer nations that interfere with their rights as individuals? Guerrilla warfare? Terrorism? Or civil disobedience?
Or is your theary: “An ye harm none, do what thou whilt”?
Good questions.
But isn’t owning property by definition interferring with another’s right to own that property?
Hence why I specified that it only applied to their own property, though frankly I don’t particularly like that clause and may reconsider my use of property within that code.
Basically the reason why I slotted owning possessions in there was for it’s negative, as in you’re not allowed to own/use something if in doing so you kill or cause suffering to other people.
In other words stealing is wrong, unless you’re stealing to save lives or end suffering.
Whose to say who has claim to a piece of property?
Well since this is a code of morality, rather than a political system it’s up to the beholder really here. So for me I get to decide who is justified in owning something, someone else using the code would make up their own mind.
And what recorse do nations, as groups of people, have against stronger or richer nations that interfere with their rights as individuals? Guerrilla warfare? Terrorism? Or civil disobedience?
Again, this is a code of morality, not a political system. However by this code an act of violence can be considered moral if it is done to prevent a greater act of violence. An act of theft or sabotage can be considered moral if it is done to prevent violence. Civil disobedience is moral unless doing so would cause suffering, death or loss of property (yeah, I’m really not liking the property bit I put in. May need to adjust it.) with the exception that such is performed to prevent a greater act of violence, etc.
This obviously leaves a certain ammount of guerilla warfare, terrorism and civil disobedience as possible moral courses of action for such individuals, whilst providing a cut off point beyond which it is unreasonable and unjustified.
For example by this code the acts of Ghandi would be considered entirely moral whilst the IRA would in most cases be found immoral. The french resistance would have a reasonable level of morality though frankly (no pun intended) I don’t know the specifics well enough to judge precisely.
Other problems
There are other problems with this moral code that I have not yet resolved. E.G. how do these rights change for the insane or mentally deficient? How does it apply to other animals? etc, etc, etc.
I’ll figure it out eventually.
thank you for your insightful answers, Micheal
if i may pose another question to the forum, which has been hinted hat and skirted around…
What of UN, or some other international Senate/Court being responsible for holding unjust rulers and human rights violations accountable?
If we were to become citizens of the world, which is what we are slowly becoming with global economies, free trade agreements and telecommunications, then do we not need a group that will act with the world’s best intentions in mind, as opposed to those of certain countries and multination corporations.
I feel that a new World Senate needs to be organized, where each country is represented equally and is situated in Switizerland(only suggested because of neutrality). I think that the UN is far to corrupt to serve any purpose other than advancing the western money machine (what with any country on the security council being able to shoot any resolution down)and was built with keeping Germany and Japan in line so its current orginization is obsolete.
With a well organized international court and representative system we can more effectively fight corporte crime and ensure fair wages, health and safety care for workers and control pollution. Perhaps our leaders will become better diplomats than war mongers. Perhaps.
What do you guys think?
I’m all for world government, but there are a lot of problems with it in regards to dealing with diversity.
Back to the question “Is Democracy right for everyone?”
Isn’t this a bit like manifest destiny? If we impose that expansion of our ideals are the best for everyone, then isn’t that empiricism?
When you back this up by actually invading a country for weapons of mass desruction, er, I mean to establish democratic principles then how can it not be?
Pope Lanky Wanky KSC wrote:
Yes this is what I’m getting at, good question. Is not humanity and society (yes Michael made up of individuals who generally have more in common with one another inside each individual society; and also have individual moral and ethical codes that differ from society to society) not too diverse and unique in order that we may all unite under one system or code. In a subjectivly moral world as michael implies we are a part of, may we ever be able to infringe one moral, or ethical code upon the world? Or are we limited to merly setting humanitarian standards that every nation should be enforced to be obliged too?
Another way of looking at it would be state power vs federal power in the United States. The federal goverment is not in total control for each individual state has a certain degree of power in that the United States reqocnizes the individuality and unqiness of every state. Perhaps this might be a good model for world politics as well? What do you think?
btw Michael thanks for sharing your moral code it’s very thought provoking. I myself have only recently recognized and steped away from moral absolutes so this is something I’m really focusing and trying to make sense of right now.
World government, I like the idea. I’ve always disliked nationalism as an artificial seperation of humanity.
But… did the U.S. take the least notice of the U.N. before turning around and invading another sovereign country or two? Before world government can work there will need to be a world army, and it will have to be larger than the army any single country can provide. Obviously there are huge problems with this (e.g. ex-american troops being asked to invade america) but they’re the kind of detail that can be solved.
To make the U.N. less of a joke you’ll have to remove the U.S.'s right to veto. The security council is nothing more than a “looking after the interests of the dominant countries” mechanism.
— keeping this one short —
Your view of
I do not know if I fully agree with. Every society determines the ethics and morality of itself. We view cannablism as wrong but in a subjectivly moral world we do not have the right to say cannabalistic societies are wrong now do we?
The society, culture and tradition heavly influence the moral code the society ends up adopting. In this sense I see societies, tribes, nations. They are as individualistic as individuals are they not? Yes culture, religion, tradition are all human contructs that divide us. But we cannot merly ignore them for they play a vital role in world affairs.
Should we be striving to elminate the cultural and traditional constructs of society? If so, why do you think so?
I agree that nationalism is an unnecessary schism in human affairs. But I believe that we should define what each of us mean by “nationalism”. To me nationalism is separate from an individual’s or a group’s culture, tradition and heritage but instead refers to a belief that their culture, tradition and heritage are better than others or should be separted from other peoples’ culture, etc.
Though nationalism can cause cohesivness among a group of people it causes far more separation with every other group. In my opinion the only result of nationalism is jingoism and the only result of jingoism are wars of ego that can only be resolved by genocide.
“I stand not by my country, but by the people of the world” anyone know who that quote is credited too?