USA's Moral Obligation to Spread Democracy: Thoughts?

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
  • Tags
    States
In summary: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity/Brotherhood.- Obviously, the primary “Democratic ideal” is that of voting. With voting, people express their views, wants and needs, so spreading “democratic ideals”, does not mean spreading American ways of life, only spreading the ideal that people should manage their own government, have it represent their own views and decide what is best for themselves. However, intrinsic to all people (besides... not being dictators) is the belief in Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity/Brotherhood. Efficiency - Democracies are more efficient than other forms of government because they are participatory. This means that the people have a say in what
  • #106
jai6638 said:
well its clearly a mistake... the world sees it as a mistake but a good number of US citizens refuse to agree... call me immature but majority wins imo... it is evident that its a mistake that has made the world even more unsafe..

But if you want to say that for the sake of debating then sure..


Well, I would say it depends on how well the rest of the world can organize itself in polarizing the US. For as long as the US remains stronger than any other entity or coalition, I wouldn't call it a mistake. A bit like a politician with 35% of the votes, 65% support someone else, but if it's all divided in different parties, the end result is that the 35% is the majority.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Canute said:
Perhaps our idea of democracy needs updating now that industry has taken over politics.

An idea: how about "swap-democracy" ?

During the first round, the people of a nation elect a friendly other nation as their "great elector nation". Nations can apply or not. The winner cannot apply next time. The winning nation then organises an election amongst ITS population, in order to elect a candidate from the original country as its president.

So, say, there are swap elections in the US. First round: Canada, Spain and France apply as 'friendly nations'. Spain wins (closely followed by Canada).
Second round: the Americans propose their candidates (say, Bush, Kerry, ...).
The people of Spain elect the president of the US.

This system retains most of the advantages of a democracy (in that you can kick out a merciless, bad leader), and avoids much more all elective corruption and influence from pressure groups. You just get a candidate a friendly nation thinks is good for you.


:-p
 
  • #108
vanesch said:
An idea: how about "swap-democracy" ?

During the first round, the people of a nation elect a friendly other nation as their "great elector nation". Nations can apply or not. The winner cannot apply next time. The winning nation then organises an election amongst ITS population, in order to elect a candidate from the original country as its president.

So, say, there are swap elections in the US. First round: Canada, Spain and France apply as 'friendly nations'. Spain wins (closely followed by Canada).
Second round: the Americans propose their candidates (say, Bush, Kerry, ...).
The people of Spain elect the president of the US.

This system retains most of the advantages of a democracy (in that you can kick out a merciless, bad leader), and avoids much more all elective corruption and influence from pressure groups. You just get a candidate a friendly nation thinks is good for you.


:-p

:smile: I was going to reply until I realized you were joking. :smile:
 
  • #109
kawikdx225 said:
:smile: I was going to reply until I realized you were joking. :smile:

JOKING ?? ME ?? :smile:
 
  • #110
Burnsys said:
Hi. i am from argentina...
Our history was always shaped by America interventionism.. in the 70' an us backed military dictatorship overtrown OUR DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED goverment... 30.000 "Comunist" killed tortured and disapeared by the military. This military dictatorship started a process called neoliberalism.. a set of economic policies comming from america, our external debt duplicated, international banks were given rigths to transfer all the money the wanted outside the country. and international corporations were welcome...

In the 90' with president carlos menem, who was very obedient to USA, the imf, and the bid.. in the 90' acording to the imf we was the example to follow to all south america.. after his period we have this crisis... in year 2000, we have a masive withdrawl of money from the country, most of it, electronicaly transferred to usa by the banks... our economic minister,, Domingo Cavallo (Member of the trilateral comision) decided to froze and confiscate all people savings in the banks... yes. the international banks (Citibank , bbva, HSBC, ETC.) robed all our savings.. simple as that...

Thanks for giving us your first-hand experience of this, Burnsys. Sadly, I bet that many intelligent Americans will read your post and totally discount it, as it doesn't fit in with their preconception of how the US deals with other nations. Its a
'US = Good. Critics of US policy = bad' mentality. Anything that doesn't fit into this world view is distorted, if it registers at all.

One of my favourite films is Easy Rider. I like what they said about being feared by ordinary people not because they were on motorbikes and had long hair, but because their freedom showed up the ordinary folks' 'freedom' (tied to conservative views, corporations etc) as a sham.

Hope things are getting better over there now.
 
  • #111
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
 
  • #112
Are you saying that Dennis Hopper was terribly wasted at the time? I think you're right, and I don't think he was acting :rolleyes:

I didn't think of it before, but the conversation they had was a bit like the Adbuster quote:
Smurf said:
"I've visited a lot of countries, I've lived in many places around the world, and believe me there arn't many places with as many lonely, alienated, paranoid, narcissistic, frightened and trapped people as the US. So why are US citizens so proud of their country? Because they deny being its victim." -Adbuster Magazine

Of course Captain America and Billy the Kid (and Jack Nicholson) were the ultimate victims, but victims of people lashing out because the felt threatened.
 
  • #113
The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.


In order not to confuse the republican constitution with the democratic (as is commonly done), the following should be noted. The forms of a state (civitas) can be divided either according to the persons who possesses the sovereign power or according to the mode of administration exercised over the people by the chief, whoever he may be. The first is properly called the form of sovereignty (forma imperii), and there are only three possible forms of it: autocracy, in which one, aristocracy, in which some associated together, or democracy, in which all those who constitute society, possesses sovereign power. They may be characterized, respectively, as the power of a monarch, of the nobility, or of the people. The second division is that by the form of government (forma regiminis) and is based on the way in which the state makes use of its power; this way is based on the constitution, which is the act of the general will through which the many persons become one nation. In this respect government is either republican or despotic. Republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the executive power (the administration) from the legislative; despotism is that of the autonomous execution by the state of laws which it has itself decreed. Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.

Immanuel Kant 'Perpetual Peace',

The United States also according to the world fact book is a Constitution-Federal Based Republic, WITH strong democratic traditions.

Im basing my affirmative allot to do with this, however I've researched 5 other books, and found that it is highly difficult to run this, the negative has many chances to argue the United States as a democracy or Republic.

The proper Value and Criterion will make a huge difference and how you define moral, not abusive, and promote, again not abusive, the democratic ideals can be defined as thos who are ignorant and define it as just plain democracy, or you can go deeper within that, PLZ I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE SAPPY CX CASES stfu with this wmd, nuclear wars, if your arguing war use war in general don't say the world is going to blow up if we don't use democracy. and if your negative don't take all the chances to be abusive.

This quote is allot like I am "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead"
 
  • #114
Mr. Justin,
I appreciate your kind intention for the well being of the rest of the world that has not had the good fortune of enjoying American Democracy. But I have to urge you NOT to impose it on any of us because I find that arrogant and insufferable. Have a good life in whatever province you are in and try not to come out bothering us.
 
  • #115
Once again, just because Americans think their Democracy is better than someone else's government, does not mean that they should go over there and make it democratic.
The problem with Media today is it's brainwashing people into thinking their opinions are fact and so they people begin to think like that.
 
  • #116
If USA invade my country and try to bring their supposed "Democracy" i will be one more "terrorist".. COuse i know usa GOV don't wan't democracy they want puppets goverments so their friendly corporations and banks can make profits with our resources and labor force... That is call imperialism...
 
  • #117
Americans do not seem to realize how much disdain the rest of the world have of it. This is extrapolation of course, but most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.
 
  • #118
Polly said:
Americans do not seem to realize how much disdain the rest of the world have of it. This is extrapolation of course, but most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.
Yes, the Chinese government has gone to great length to replace communism with nationalism. And seems to have succeeded partly. Here are some information about human rights in China. Since you are from Honk Kong, you may be fortunate enough to be able to read it without censorship.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/china.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-chn/index
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=china
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
Let me begin by saying I am as detached from the PRC government and as politically indifferent as the next Hong Kong person. So do not mistake me for a Chinese patriotic. I have remarked thus far as an earthling, as a human being who is outraged by the senseless killing your government has been fond of doing in different parts of the world. Turning back to your post, if you fail to see how the HR and Taiwanese issues are repeatly used to leverage the best bargaining position by your government, I have nothing to say.
 
  • #120
Polly said:
...most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.
That's the anthropoic principle at work: you won't meet many American-educated Chinese who like America because if they liked America, they likely would have stayed.

And getting an opinion on America from a Chinese student in France or England is as useless as getting an opinion of chocolate iced cream by eating vanilla.
 
  • #121
Burnsys said:
If USA invade my country and try to bring their supposed "Democracy" i will be one more "terrorist"..
So, if the US tried to overthrow a murderous dictator in your country, you'd respond by murdering your own countrymen? I'm confused... :confused:
 
  • #122
Smurf said:
Once again, just because Americans think their Democracy is better than someone else's government, does not mean that they should go over there and make it democratic.
Smurf, what is the purpose of the UN's council on civil rights?
 
  • #123
Polly said:
Let me begin by saying I am as detached from the PRC government and as politically indifferent as the next Hong Kong person. So do not mistake me for a Chinese patriotic. I have remarked thus far as an earthling, as a human being who is outraged by the senseless killing your government has been fond of doing in different parts of the world. Turning back to your post, if you fail to see how the HR and Taiwanese issues are repeatly used to leverage the best bargaining position by your government, I have nothing to say.
According to the last link in my previous post, human rights are deteriorating rapidly in Hong Kong. So indifferent seems to be a poor choice. If for no other reason than that Chinese agents are reportedly monitoring what its citizens are doing and saying on the Internet in other countries.

I would not deny that the US have done many mistakes or outright crimes in it foreign policy. But arguably much less compared with its ability than any other great power before. For example by voluntarily withdrawing and installing democracy in Japan, Germany and Italy. Or by paying for oil, the typical historical patten for the stronger power would have been taking natural resources with force. And Pax Americana has seen the greatest reduction of poverty in world history.
 
Last edited:
  • #124
russ_watters said:
So, if the US tried to overthrow a murderous dictator in your country, you'd respond by murdering your own countrymen? I'm confused... :confused:


nono.. in the 70' america suported a murderous dictatorship in my country... thanks to god i wasnt born yet... for that regime i would have been a terrorist...

The same happened all across latin america, PINOCHET in chile. VIDELA in argentina,RIOS MONTT in guatemala, ARNOLDO ALEMAN nicaragua, VLADIMIRO MONTESINOS Peru, etc. etc.

All murderous dictators supported and trained by America in "The school of americas"...

Like in the 80' america SUPORTED SADAM HUSEIN in irak... i am sure those who oposed sadam in the 80' where called terrorists too...
 
Last edited:
  • #125
russ_watters said:
I'm confused...

The world is complex. We all get confused from time to time.
 
  • #126
The world knows America.

America does not know the world.
 
  • #127
Burnsys said:
nono.. in the 70' america suported a murderous dictatorship in my country... thanks to god i wasnt born yet... for that regime i would have been a terrorist...

The same happened all across latin america, PINOCHET in chile. VIDELA in argentina,RIOS MONTT in guatemala, ARNOLDO ALEMAN nicaragua, VLADIMIRO MONTESINOS Peru, etc. etc.

All murderous dictators supported and trained by America in "The school of americas"...

Like in the 80' america SUPORTED SADAM HUSEIN in irak... i am sure those who oposed sadam in the 80' where called terrorists too...
See my previous post. The support of dictatorships was wrong. The US should have supported democracy and capitalism which it in many cases failed to do. Especially during the cold war. But slowly starting with Carter, the US have been increasingly more active in its support for these ideals, using everything from silent diplomacy to cutting military aid.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr65.html
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
I disagree aquamarine, I do not believe the US is becoming any more supportive of Democracy that it was during isolation, however the US has always been a strong supporter of Capitalism.
 
  • #129
Smurf said:
I disagree aquamarine, I do not believe the US is becoming any more supportive of Democracy that it was during isolation, however the US has always been a strong supporter of Capitalism.
As usual, you present no facts. Read the links. Present evidence.
 
  • #130
I'm at a loss as to what you want me to present aquamarine. My perception of US Foreign Policy is that it cares little about the form of government its dealing with provided its economy will allow them to reap the profits of American consumerism.
 
  • #131
Smurf said:
I'm at a loss as to what you want me to present aquamarine. My perception of US Foreign Policy is that it cares little about the form of government its dealing with provided its economy will allow them to reap the profits of American consumerism.
Your perception and opinion is uninteresting without some facts. The US has clearly tried to strengthen democracy and human rights in Latin America in the last two decades.
 
  • #132
Aquamarine said:
The US should have supported democracy and capitalism which it in many cases failed to do.

I think that that is a ridiculous thing to say. While I can think of some arguments for democracy, and even there one should be careful, I don't see what is so specially good about capitalism that you should try to impose it upon others. Let us make the distinction please between a free market economy and capitalism. The first one is a tool to organise economic activity, of which there are indications that it works. The second one is a simplistic ideology, namely that ALL THINKABLE PROBLEMS THE WORLD MAY HAVE are solved by a complete free market system. Of course, through binary goggles most Americans think that there is capitalism and communism (just as stupid an ideology) and that's it, so if you're not a die-hard capitalist, you must be a commie. This is fed in with a spoon since they were kids. But there are many different ways of organizing your economic activity ; most sensible ways give a large part to the free market economy in one way or another. Most sensible ways also realize that not EVERYTHING can be done that way. Even the US itself doesn't apply capitalism fully, because they know that it doesn't work in certain fields.

The US citizens are of course free to choose their own way of organizing their economic activity, but I fail to see completely why you should promote that in other nations (apart from self interest to put other nations in a competition where you are sure to win) as an indispensable good to have and go kill if necessary to do so. You could just as well try to promote, say, your health care system or your way of doing gardening for that matter. The Germans could then export (with guns if necessary) their way of making beer.
 
  • #133
Aquamarine said:
Your perception and opinion is uninteresting without some facts. The US has clearly tried to strengthen democracy and human rights in Latin America in the last two decades.

It depends who is funding/promoting the research behind the 'facts'. History is written by the victor, right? You'd do well to listen to the voices of the people who are affected in the regions concerned, rather than stare at a spreadsheet of facts written by their boss. After all, isn't the idea of democracy to take people's views into account?
 
  • #134
vanesch said:
I think that that is a ridiculous thing to say. While I can think of some arguments for democracy, and even there one should be careful, I don't see what is so specially good about capitalism that you should try to impose it upon others. Let us make the distinction please between a free market economy and capitalism. The first one is a tool to organise economic activity, of which there are indications that it works. The second one is a simplistic ideology, namely that ALL THINKABLE PROBLEMS THE WORLD MAY HAVE are solved by a complete free market system. Of course, through binary goggles most Americans think that there is capitalism and communism (just as stupid an ideology) and that's it, so if you're not a die-hard capitalist, you must be a commie. This is fed in with a spoon since they were kids. But there are many different ways of organizing your economic activity ; most sensible ways give a large part to the free market economy in one way or another. Most sensible ways also realize that not EVERYTHING can be done that way. Even the US itself doesn't apply capitalism fully, because they know that it doesn't work in certain fields.

The US citizens are of course free to choose their own way of organizing their economic activity, but I fail to see completely why you should promote that in other nations (apart from self interest to put other nations in a competition where you are sure to win) as an indispensable good to have and go kill if necessary to do so. You could just as well try to promote, say, your health care system or your way of doing gardening for that matter. The Germans could then export (with guns if necessary) their way of making beer.
There is no evidence for a better alternative than capitalism.

And free trade will not and have not made nations poorer.
 
  • #135
The media ignores most of the violations of human rights that takes place in the world. Their coverage is disproportionate on the US and Israel. There can be no excuse for a lower standard for dictatorships. And this avoiding is dangerous since it gives the impression that dictatorships are preferable.

Here are some of the regimes that are usually ignored.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/040204.htm

The crimes of these regimes can be found here:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/engworld
http://www.hrw.org/countries.html
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/

The media ignores the crimes because they are not allowed by the dictatorships to film and make interviews. And reading some facts is not good television.

Another reason is that the journalists are dominated by the left. That is because they are educated in liberal arts department with little knowledge of the scientific method or economics.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184

Similar patterns and bashing of the US can be found in other countries at least since the hippies of the sixties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
Aquamarine said:
There is no evidence for a better alternative than capitalism.
And free trade will not and have not made nations poorer.

I will give you a simple example of where the applications of capitalism didn't work out: railroads. Look at British railroads, and look at continental Europe's railroads.
Another one: look at the power supply in California, and in Europe.
Another one: look at healthcare in France versus healthcare in Britain.
Look at the state aids to agriculture, both in Europe and the US.

But that's not the point. I'm not fighting "free trade" or the "free market".
I'm fighting the ideology that this is the BEST SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING.
The funny thing with die-hard capitalists is that they DEFINE what is best as that what is done by capitalism. But then your statements are tautological.

The political question to be solved is what kind of society you want. The economical question is then how to implement an organisation of economical activity that brings you as close as possible to that society.

Now, most (capitalist) economy courses start explaining you that the main problem to solve is the matching of the scarceness of resources with the infinity of desires by consumers. Then they go to demonstrate that the free market approach always maximises the sum of satisfied desires (which comes down to maximise productivity).

But that's begging the question of whether in all matters, it is maximal productivity (maximal wealth) that is to be the political goal. It might have been, years ago, when essential resources were indeed scarce. But now, MOST of western economy is essentially based on entertainment and the desire for it is artificially held high by publicity. Is it politically desirable to maximise entertainment for all, at the expense of more basic resources for poor people ? Should society optimise its production resources to make 3th generation mobile telephones (because, through a feedback system of publicity, that is the expressed "need" felt by the market), while some people are starving, have no house to live in, have no healthcare ?

So it might be a political goal to sarcrifice part of the potential maximal wealth, in order to define a minimum level of living standards for all members of the society. Then you are still using the tool of the free market and free trade, but you're not applying capitalism.
 
  • #137
Stupidity, thy name is ego.

P.S. Sorry Vanesch, our posts apparently got there at the same time. My post is in response to Aquamarine's.
 
Last edited:
  • #138
Aquamarine said:
Their coverage is disproportionate on the US and Israel. There can be no excuse for a lower standard for dictatorships. And this avoiding is dangerous since it gives the impression that dictatorships are preferable.

I think you miss the point. The US is not taken equal to those dictatorships. You wouldn't want to be on the same list, would you ?
It is a bit like saying that it is unfair that federal judges are helt to higher standards of integrity than average thiefs. Of course they are ! So that's no US bashing, on the contrary.
 
  • #139
vanesch said:
I will give you a simple example of where the applications of capitalism didn't work out: railroads. Look at British railroads, and look at continental Europe's railroads.
Another one: look at the power supply in California, and in Europe.
Another one: look at healthcare in France versus healthcare in Britain.
Look at the state aids to agriculture, both in Europe and the US.
You give no evidence for any market failure. And the US is not the perfect capitalistic society.

What is your point about railroads? Helthcare is socialized in both Britain and France. The state aid to agriculture is bad in both Europe and the US. Regarding California and energy:
http://www.rppi.org/electricity/ebrief011001.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
vanesch said:
Now, most (capitalist) economy courses start explaining you that the main problem to solve is the matching of the scarceness of resources with the infinity of desires by consumers. Then they go to demonstrate that the free market approach always maximises the sum of satisfied desires (which comes down to maximise productivity).

But that's begging the question of whether in all matters, it is maximal productivity (maximal wealth) that is to be the political goal. It might have been, years ago, when essential resources were indeed scarce. But now, MOST of western economy is essentially based on entertainment and the desire for it is artificially held high by publicity. Is it politically desirable to maximise entertainment for all, at the expense of more basic resources for poor people ? Should society optimise its production resources to make 3th generation mobile telephones (because, through a feedback system of publicity, that is the expressed "need" felt by the market), while some people are starving, have no house to live in, have no healthcare ?

So it might be a political goal to sarcrifice part of the potential maximal wealth, in order to define a minimum level of living standards for all members of the society. Then you are still using the tool of the free market and free trade, but you're not applying capitalism.
You fail to see that the need for capitalism is greatest in the third world were there is little capitalism but great poverty.

And regarding wealth in general, more money will probably not make you more happy if you are healthy and are able to earn a modest amount of money. But if you have any serious disease, mental or physical, money will make you happier. It can buy outstanding psychotherapy, steadily more expensive medications, the best surgeons and fabulous care. Not to mention food and shelter. And we will all need this we when get old, if not before.

More wealth in a society increases the average length of life, decreases infant and mother mortality and makes it possible for people with diseases like diabetes to survive. It allows adequate nutrition, preventing previously common diseases like rickets, blindness and goitre. It probably increases intelligence (The Flynn effect).

And more wealth allows shorter working hours, more holidays and allows children and the elderly to avoid working. It gives better and less dangerous working conditions. It allows choice in work. And better housing, protecting for example from cold and heat. Dental care so not most people have lost their teeths by the age of forty. And at the end of life, it can make death painless instead of the painful misery that was earlier the fate of, for example, cancer patients.

And more wealth in society in the future will allow more of these benefits.

So money will probably not make you much more happy when you are in good physical and mental health and enjoy your work and the people around you. Otherwise, money can buy happiness.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
53
Views
15K
Replies
10
Views
12K
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Back
Top