The United States has a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations

[wasteofo2]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general.

[dekoi]

Because democracy is the most efficient and productive political system out there. Not to say of course, that it is a very good one.

Christianity teaches to "spread the Good News" because Christians believe their belief is good. Therefore, if we believe, or know, that Democracy is the best political system, is it not natural for us to preach it?

[wasteofo2]

Because democracy is the most efficient and productive political system out there. Not to say of course, that it is a very good one.

Christianity teaches to "spread the Good News" because Christians believe their belief is good. Therefore, if we believe, or know, that Democracy is the best political system, is it not natural for us to preach it?
What is Democracy most efficient and productive in?

It may be our nature to want to spread the good news, but why are we morally obligated to do so? What moral code would we be violating if we didn't?

[dekoi]

What is Democracy most efficient and productive in?

It may be our nature to want to spread the good news, but why are we morally obligated to do so? What moral code would we be violating if we didn't?

Democracy is efficient in general terms. Although forgive me for being misleading, it is not the most efficient. Most efficient is of course, a society led by a totalitarian government. Either way, democracy, like any other political system, is in its own nature efficient. If it was not efficient, little people would follow it.

By not spreading the "good news", i believe we are actually going against our own morality. If our morality leads us towards the good (or our conscience, which is founded on moralit), and teaching others what is good and what is bad is itself good ... then obviously by not teaching others what is good, we are in fact doing what is wrong.

In other words: like you said, spreading the good news is our nature. Going against our nature is not good -- common sense shows us this.

I expect counter-arguments. :smile:

[Kerrie]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general.

interesting that you bring this up when America is considred a Republic:
Republic vs. Democracy (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

the major difference this site points out is a democracy is a whole body of citizens that acts as the sovereignty while the republic is all about individuals. i think we need to define exactly what is "democratic".

[russ_watters]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general. I agree, but I'm surprised you can't figure out why. You do know about the Moral Imperative, right?

edit: well, now you have - that's what dekoi's post is about. Put more simply, the Moral Imperative says that if you see an immoral situation and have the power to correct it, your own morality mandates that you do so. Its the good Samaratin morality.

And not to change the subject, but the Moral Imperative is one of the ways to test your own morality to find out if it can be applied universally - if it fits with the Universal Morality.

[wasteofo2]

interesting that you bring this up when America is considred a Republic:
Republic vs. Democracy (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

the major difference this site points out is a democracy is a whole body of citizens that acts as the sovereignty while the republic is all about individuals. i think we need to define exactly what is "democratic".
Well, I made this post because it's the Lincoln-Douglas debate topic for Nov/Dec, and it was pathetic how easily the pro-democracy cases were being crushed by the anti-democracy cases. In the debate format, the person who takes the affirmative stance (we do have a moral obligation) gets to define the terms. The way I've defined democratic ideals are:

Democratic Ideals - 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 those who wish to subjugate others) are certain ideals, such as the right to Life, Liberty, Property, Freedom, Security and Stability. This can be proven by the universal inclusion of these rights in the constitutions of truly Democratic nations.

[Bystander]

Moral obligation to whom? Posterity, perhaps, but not much of anyone else. Spread the principles? Sure --- it's smart, good business, and saves a lot of haggling with the unlike cultures. Call it what it is --- don't drape a lot of handwaving (morality) over it --- it's survival.

[cyfin]

Your answer can be found in our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

America, and all People, have an obligation to help one another. Not to start a flame war, but take Iraq for example. America would be obligated to help them become a democracy when the majority of the people desire to abolish their current government for the reasons above. This does not mean the need to stay a democracy. If a country is ruled by a "dictator", and the people are happy, then thats perfectly fine. The dictator has the "consent of the governed". After Iraq becomes a democracy, they are free to choose a different type of government. America's obligation has been fulfilled. The people's choice has been made. Democracy can be a stepping stone to other governments. All democracy does is give the people the choice. That is the moral obligation of mankind: To ensure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[russ_watters]

Moral obligation to whom? Posterity, perhaps, but not much of anyone else. To yourself, of course (unless you believe in God...)!

Really, this is a separate question though: why be moral in the first place? This thread assumes that we should be moral, though doesn't ask why.

[Kerrie]

To yourself, of course (unless you believe in God...)!

Really, this is a separate question though: why be moral in the first place? This thread assumes that we should be moral, though doesn't ask why.

why be moral? so others do not steal from you or kill those you love. morals aren't just a set of standards for yourself, but how your actions affect others.

[russ_watters]

why be moral? so others do not steal from you or kill those you love. morals aren't just a set of standards for yourself, but how your actions affect others. Again, I don't consider this relevant to the initial question, but now that we're on it...

How does my being moral prevent someone else from stealing? I make my choices, they make theirs. I choose to be moral - how does that choice make them moral unless I also choose to enforce my morality upon them? This sounds like the Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's fine, but how does my following it in any way cause other people to follow it?

My reason for asserting that only you can choose to be moral (only you can prevent forest fires... :biggrin: ) is that no one can control what is going on inside your head. Locking a murderer up in jail doesn't force him to be moral, it only restricts his ability to act on his morals.

edit: I didn't answer the question...

So why would I choose to be moral? Three reasons (in no particular order):

1. Its the Right thing to do.
2. It makes me feel good.
3. If others choose to follow my lead (and this is the one relevant to this thread...), the world will be a better place.

[Bystander]

WO2, sorry 'bout knocking this off on a tangent. I'll bow out with a couple preference statements that may,or may not, be useful to you: 1) I do not believe there is any absolute moral standard, therefore, no absolute moral obligations; 2) internal moral standards (can I face myself in the mirror?) are irrelevant (consider what Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, J. Dahmer, et al can/could tolerate); 3) "what makes sense" in any situation (to me) is to conduct myself in a manner that results in minimum unintended consequences that have to be dealt with subsequently (10 commandments minus religion make a very useful set of rules of thumb). Morality? Nah --- just common sense, good business, "work smarter, not harder" type stuff.

[Integral]

Actually, the most efficient and arguably the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. That is were the SINGLE ruler with all of the power only wields the power for the benefit of the populace. The closest that our civilization has ever seen of this form of government was Prussia under Frederic the Great.

Unfortunately it is simply impossible guarantee that a dictator will be benevolent.

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I would rephrase Winston Churchill and say Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

I think the United States has an obligation to contribute to the world in a positive amount that outways negative things done by the U.S. as a whole.

Since logically the future will be better with more Democracy, I think the United States should spread Democracy, but is not obligated. I think the obligation has been created to make up for the lack of contribution to humanity by other countries and the individuals in every country that don't do their part.

[the number 42]

Your answer can be found in our Declaration of Independence...

It is self-evidently true that the sun revolves around the earth, and it is self-evidently true that some Americans think the earth revolves around the US. Export democracy? Try getting it right yourselves first, please. Ever heard of PR?

[Kerrie]

I would rephrase Winston Churchill and say Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

I think the United States has an obligation to contribute to the world in a positive amount that outways negative things done by the U.S. as a whole.

Since logically the future will be better with more Democracy, I think the United States should spread Democracy, but is not obligated. I think the obligation has been created to make up for the lack of contribution to humanity by other countries and the individuals in every country that don't do their part.

the pledge of alligiance specifically refers to our country as a republic, not a democracy. i think we need to explore and understand the difference in this topic as well.

[russ_watters]

Since a Republic is a form of democracy, I don't think the distinction is all that important for this thread.

[dekoi]

I thought more about this statement.

It seems pretty awkward to say that 'we' [America] have "a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations", when we ourselves are not part of a democracy.

If you call the Unites States a democratic government, then my uncle's name is Mickey Mouse.
1.) Probably half of the voters in America base their decisions relative to this constructed reality that they have been mislead to believe by the media.

2.) Both of the potential presidents are sophists to the lowest level.
"...a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations..."
If only there were any Democractic ideals to begin with...
3.) democracy, republic, commonwealth -- (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
Let's go down the list shall we?
A political system: Yes
Supreme Power in the body of citizens: Do floundering, mislead citizens count?
People who are elected to represent [leaders]: Do leaders who make contradictions, and are politically correct to the next level, count?

4.) Didn't my old friend Karl once say that a democratic government is only filled with memebers who are messengers of their corporate owners?

[kouga]

What is MORAL in your definition? how can we judge if we have an obligation without defining what is and isn't MORAL?

[kouga]

wat of the negative side??

[Kerrie]

Since a Republic is a form of democracy, I don't think the distinction is all that important for this thread.

Russ, I am surprised you say this since we are a nation now divided by the red and blue...did you read my link?

[russ_watters]

Russ, I am surprised you say this since we are a nation now divided by the red and blue...did you read my link? Your link spins it, but still says it right: a republic is a democracy, but a democracy isn't necessarily a republic. From the definitions:


Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation[emphasis added]

Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.[emphasis added] Notice how they overlap. Frankly though, the definition of republic there is a poor one for showing the distinction - it almost looks like its the definition of democracy, mislabeled. Ie, there is no such thing as a "direct" republic, but a republic is an "indirect" democracy.

Two synonyms for "republic":
"Indirect democracy"
"Representative democracy"

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) does an adequate job with the distinction: Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests..... Modern liberal democracies are important examples of representative democracy. It could be argued that this term is synonymous with "republic".[emphasis added]

[Rader]

There seems a contradiction to this question.

The United States has a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations

The question implies that either Democratic governments are moral or the United States spreads inmoral ideas.

[russ_watters]

There seems a contradiction to this question.

The question implies that either Democratic governments are moral or the United States spreads inmoral ideas. How does it implly that the US spreads immoral ideas? Democratic governments are moral (as a form of government) and the US spreads democracy. I see no contradiction.

[the number 42]

1/ Just because YOU think something is good, does this give you the right or obligation to impose it on everyone else? Why can't we 'do unto others as THEY would have us do unto them'.

2/ The US is hardly a shining example of the will of the people being reflected by its government. Leaving half of the population of the States seething for want of a decent president hardly demonstrates the spirit of democracy.

3/ PR means 'proportional representation'. I get the impression that nobody in the US has ever heard of this voting system, let alone sersiously consider it.

[Burnsys]

How does it implly that the US spreads immoral ideas? Democratic governments are moral (as a form of government) and the US spreads democracy. I see no contradiction.

America is not a democracy it's a two party dictatorship, and both partys share the same interests...

And since when can you "Spread Democracy" by the use of brutal force???
That is not democracy, that is military dictatorship.. like in irak. or afganistan, or every country america goverment decide to invade... of courseeee. they get in the countrys and kill becouse they are good and want democracy for us... Let me tell you something, the so called democracy your goverment want to spread is called bussineses.. for them and for the corporations who support them.

What kind of democracy are you talking about when you need millons of dolars to be president.. or when corporations pay for political campaings.... and when you can olny chose between 2 people out of 120 millons??????

Thanks.. here in latin america don't wan't your democracy... pleaseee, stay out from here!!!!!!!!!

[Ludwig]

Come on guys, don't you realize that this "moral duty to spread democracy" is only an excuse to invade other countries for economic reasons? Besides, has any American president ever bothered to ask the poor peoples of invaded nations, such as Iraq, whether they were really willing to have their houses bombed and their children killed so that they could vote for president? I have a hard time understanding why people believe this shallow piece of demagogy.

What about the real moral duty to help spread wealth? Do you think it's fair that people in the so-called developed nations spend so much money on meaningless consumerism, while billions around the earth barely manage to survive? Isn't it immoral for a person to buy a SUV when they could just as well drive a small car and use the money to save lives in poor countries?

The truth is, we don't really care. I'm not ready to give up my comfortable way of life, and neither are you, so let's cut the nonsense and assume that we are immoral, period. We can't pretend to spread democracy or wealth when we're not ready to first spread honesty.

[Aquamarine]

The US and other democratic countries should spread democracy if for no other reasons than pure self-interest. Democracies never goes to war against each other. If the whole world was democratic most military spending could be cut. Not to mention problems like attacks by nukes or other WMD.

[Burnsys]

The US and other democratic countries should spread democracy if for no other reasons than pure self-interest. Democracies never goes to war against each other. If the whole world was democratic most military spending could be cut. Not to mention problems like attacks by nukes or other WMD.

nonesene.... i have allready post a list with all America military interventions in democratic countrys.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47519&page=4

America was the only country who used nuclear weapons, and against civilians... 100.000 kills.

America has the largest stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world.

[Aquamarine]

nonesene.... i have allready post a list with all America military interventions in democratic countrys.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47519&page=4

America was the only country who used nuclear weapons, and against civilians... 100.000 kills.

America has the largest stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world.
No countries of those mentioned were democratic and in war with the US.

Regarding the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, I suggest you think about the alternative cost in lives of Japanese civilians and Japanese and American soldiers, if there had been an invasion of Japan.

Look here for some borderline cases were two democratic countries have made war, none convincing:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM

[Ludwig]

America was the only country who used nuclear weapons, and against civilians... 100.000 kills.

A few years ago I visited the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima. I was quite surprised to notice that the Japanese do not hate the Americans for what they did. Although the nuclear bombs brought unbelievable suffering and destruction to a lot of innocent people, the Japanese were no saints either. I suppose their feeling of guilty over Korea and China makes them see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki under a different light.

As a visitor to the museum though, I felt quite relieved I'm not American. I wouldn't be able to bear the shame.

America has the largest stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world.

And thank God it's them and not somebody else! Can you imagine all that stuff in the hands of a nation with a bad need for land or natural resources, like most countries in Asia, the Middle East, or even Europe?

To be fair, as a people Americans are quite peaceful and full of good intentions. The only problem with them is their romantic view of international politics, which their leaders exploit as much as they can. So a guy like Bush presents America both as a source of goodness to the world as well as the target of evildoers spread in every corner of the globe, and finds a lot of support for such a simplistic, deceptive vision. That I have a hard time understanding.

[Ludwig]

Regarding the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, I suggest you think about the alternative cost in lives of Japanese civilians and Japanese and American soldiers, if there had been an invasion of Japan.

I have heard this argument a lot of times, but I never saw anyone offer the actual number they have in mind. So instead of 100,000 farmers, students, and housewives, how many soldiers would have died had the US invaded Japan?

By the way, your statement is part of that romantic vision I spoke about in my previous post. It is a well-known fact that Japan had already lost the war before the bombings, but the Americans (the government) needed to show off their military might to assert their position of leadership in the world. But Americans (the people) are led to believe the bombing was a good thing, because it saved lives not only of Americans but of Japanese as well. That is silly beyond belief.

[russ_watters]

1/ Just because YOU think something is good, does this give you the right or obligation to impose it on everyone else? Why can't we 'do unto others as THEY would have us do unto them'. Do what our enemies want us to do? They want us to die. Sorry, I'm not inclined to obey that. But further, can your edict be extended universally? I mean - if everyone did what the US does (instill democracy), the entire world would look like western europe. I consider that a good thing, and I wager the vast majority of those in 3rd world countries would like a piece of that prosperity as well. 2/ The US is hardly a shining example of the will of the people being reflected by its government. Leaving half of the population of the States seething for want of a decent president hardly demonstrates the spirit of democracy. Excuse me? That's the definition of democracy! 3/ PR means 'proportional representation'. I get the impression that nobody in the US has ever heard of this voting system, let alone sersiously consider it. Have you heard of the US House of Representatives?

[Aquamarine]

It is of course difficult to estimate the number of dead and wounded from an invasion. One can look at Okinawa, 100 000+ dead civilians, 100 000+ dead Japanese soldiers, 12 000 dead American soldiers, 38 000 wounded American Soldiers.

For some arguments for both sides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Supporters of the bombing also argue that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. The conventional bombardment and blockade were killing tens of thousands each week in Japan, directly and indirectly, and the US Navy's 'Operation Starvation' was aptly named. Also, as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of ~200,000 per month. Supporters also point to an order given by General Tojo before his resignation as premier in July of 1944, that all Allied POW's, numbering over 100,000, to be executed at the first sign of an invasion of the Japanese mainland.
Regarding the cost of an invasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
A study done for Navy Secretary Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 – 4 million American casualties, including 400, – 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

[russ_watters]

The US and other democratic countries should spread democracy if for no other reasons than pure self-interest. Democracies never goes to war against each other. If the whole world was democratic most military spending could be cut. Not to mention problems like attacks by nukes or other WMD. This is true, but I also really do care about the genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the people lowered into plastic shredders in Iraq, the genocide in Rwanda, the famine and war in Somalia, the current genocide in Rwanda (that the UN is ignoring), etc.
Come on guys, don't you realize that this "moral duty to spread democracy" is only an excuse to invade other countries for economic reasons?

I have a hard time understanding why people believe this shallow piece of demagogy.

The truth is, we don't really care. I'm not ready to give up my comfortable way of life, and neither are you, so let's cut the nonsense and assume that we are immoral, period. Speak for yourself, Ludwig - you don't speak for me and you don't speak for the leaders of our country (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Hati, etc contain no economic interests for the US) Sure, I care about my money - but I honestly do care about the people I listed above. And as a former member of the military, I was willing to fight and risk my life to help them. As a visitor to the museum though, I felt quite relieved I'm not American. I wouldn't be able to bear the shame. I'm going to ignore Burnsys's irrelevant distraction, but I couldn't let this go. Shame of what? Winning a defensive war with tactics that overall were more humane then our enemies? Causing Japan to, in less than 30 years, become a top economic power and a stable democracy? No, I'm proud of our overall actions in WWII and the atom bombs cause me no shame - they don't stand out as any worse than other bombings. You do know how many died in Tokyo the night it was fire-bombed, right...? Dresden?? London? I have heard this argument a lot of times, but I never saw anyone offer the actual number they have in mind. So instead of 100,000 farmers, students, and housewives, how many soldiers would have died had the US invaded Japan? Your characterization is misleading, since both cities were industrial, but the answer is the projections were in the millions - that's soldiers and civilians, as well as half a million American soldiers. Remember, the Japanese were none too protective of their own civilians (and indeed, many civilians comitted suicide rather than be captured).

[selfAdjoint]

The House of Representatives in the US is not chosen by proportional representation. The two requirements, that the number of representatives be capped at 500, and that every state have at least one representative, means that the single representative from a thinly populated state is elected by far fewer voters than one of the several representatives from a populous state. Futhermore the states have nearly absolute control over the detail of the electoral districts, leading to gerrymandering which further distorts the one-man-one-vote principle.

Proportional representation is used in various European countries, and notably in Israel, where it has had rather poor results (amplified power to splinter parties). But I don't think it's used at all in the US. One form of it is that the various parties each field a slate of candidates for the legislature. In the election each slate captures a certain fraction of the votes. Then the parties can return a number of candidates from each slate in proportion to the fraction of the vote they took. So minority parties get some representation from every district.

[the number 42]

Originally Posted by the number 42
1/ Just because YOU think something is good, does this give you the right or obligation to impose it on everyone else? Why can't we 'do unto others as THEY would have us do unto them'.

Do what our enemies want us to do? They want us to die.

So you think all others are enemies of the US?


Originally Posted by the number 42
2/ The US is hardly a shining example of the will of the people being reflected by its government. Leaving half of the population of the States seething for want of a decent president hardly demonstrates the spirit of democracy.

Excuse me? That's the definition of democracy!

Lets talk about the spirit of democracy, not a mathematical definition. I'm not a political scientist, but as far as I can tell democracy was designed as an alternative to kings, popes, & their henchmen. The idea was that the will of The People is represented by those who govern them. Note: not HALF The People. Call me naive for thinking that you can get, say, two thirds of voters to agree on having a single party as leader, but the fact that many elections that use a 'first past the post' system have yeilded governments which a minority of voters have endorsed suggests that this system fails to represent The People. After the Bush/Kerry election a slim majority of the people are deliriously happy, but a large minority of the people are very unhappy. I don't think this fairly represents the will of people i.e. thwarts the spirit of democracy.


Originally Posted by the number 42
3/ PR means 'proportional representation'. I get the impression that nobody in the US has ever heard of this voting system, let alone sersiously consider it.

Have you heard of the US House of Representatives?

The HoR also uses the first past the post system, merely reproducing the problem state-by-state instead of nationally. I take it that you are refusing to consider PR as a better way of representing the will of the people?

[Ludwig]

Speak for yourself, Ludwig - you don't speak for me.

So have you considered trading down your car and sending the money to a few desperate African families? No? Why not?

And as a former member of the military, I was willing to fight and risk my life to help them.

So you are willing to risk your life, that's very noble. How about donating 30% or your net income to help poor people around the world? It's much less of a sacrifice than giving your life, don't you think? You could still buy a lot of useless stuff with the 70% left, while a few families would be able to have two nutritious meals a day for the first time in their lives.

Shame of what? Winning a defensive war with tactics that overall were more humane then our enemies?

I do not have anything to add to this. My country was never involved in wars of any kind, so I can't really relate to this feeling that winning a war is something to be proud of. In my country, we are very proud of the fact that we never engaged in one.

if everyone did what the US does (instill democracy), the entire world would look like western europe. I consider that a good thing, and I wager the vast majority of those in 3rd world countries would like a piece of that prosperity as well.

Now do you know that the fastest-growing economy in the world is China, a communist dictatorship? And did you know that many Latin American countries experienced tremendous growth in the 70's, under strict military dictatorship, and when democracy was installed in the 80's they went down a slump from which, to this day, they have not yet recovered? Being interested in wars, perhaps you might recall that Germany emerged from a deep economic crisis after Hitler's ascension to power? You certainly learned in school that the Soviet Union changed from a rural society into an industrialized one in less than a decade, a real miracle, during Stalin's regime?

Oh, you didn't know those things? Well, that would explain your senseless remark above.

[Rader]

How does it implly that the US spreads immoral ideas?
If you examine the quote: The United States has a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations, this has one very fundamental implication to examine. Morality is choice to do good, to others, in consideration, as if you would make that choice to act upon yourself. A moral obligation implies, that what you are spreading is moral. A moral obligation to spread immoral principles besides being illogical, is a contradiction.

So are democratic ideas morally correct? A democracy is a system where, all individuals have equal rights, within the system good and evil, is tolerated, so long as a manmade set of laws, by that system, is not broken. Therefore morality and immorality coincide within the system. A democracy is not a "Utopian Moral Code."

Morals are like logic, It seems they have a value from 0 > 1, and everything in between, depending on which human interprets them. But if you read much history, you will notice a subtle change, over what appears to us, as a long time. If you could graph this change in knowledge you would see a valley of cycles, that when a strait line might be drawn through them, you would find a slight increase in good over time. This is the way we perceive the world, the way it ought to be.

Democratic governments are moral (as a form of government) and the US spreads democracy. I see no contradiction.

I hope you understand now where the contradiction is. Cause from your posts it seems that we are in agreement, how the world ought to be, but not in agreement how governments interpret how the world ought to be.

[Aquamarine]

Now do you know that the fastest-growing economy in the world is China, a communist dictatorship? And did you know that many Latin American countries experienced tremendous growth in the 70's, under strict military dictatorship, and when democracy was installed in the 80's they went down a slump from which, to this day, they have not yet recovered? Being interested in wars, perhaps you might recall that Germany emerged from a deep economic crisis after Hitler's ascension to power? You certainly learned in school that the Soviet Union changed from a rural society into an industrialized one in less than a decade, a real miracle, during Stalin's regime?
.
Regarding democracy and economic growth, studies give conflicting results between no effect and a positive effect. But not a negative effect. There have been democracies that have become less capitalistic and therefore have had lowered growth, like in some countries in Latin America. But in general, democracies are more capitalistic than dictatorships.

Regarding Germany, the economic miracle was essentially that Hitler put all unemployed into the military or into making weapons. At the time of WWII, the German state was essentially in bankruptcy due to enormous debts.

Regarding Soviet, the communists built an industry and military with the use of slave labour, tens of millions of dead, starvation and declining living standards. Stalin may have increased production in a few areas like steel and tanks but at the cost of the rest of the economy.

Regarding China, the country is certainly no less democratic than before. And it is not communistic dictatorship anymore, it is a capitalistic dictatorship.

[Aquamarine]

So have you considered trading down your car and sending the money to a few desperate African families? No? Why not?

So you are willing to risk your life, that's very noble. How about donating 30% or your net income to help poor people around the world? It's much less of a sacrifice than giving your life, don't you think? You could still buy a lot of useless stuff with the 70% left, while a few families would be able to have two nutritious meals a day for the first time in their lives.

I do not have anything to add to this. My country was never involved in wars of any kind, so I can't really relate to this feeling that winning a war is something to be proud of. In my country, we are very proud of the fact that we never engaged in one.
Which country is that?

Regarding foreign aid, here are some interesting links:
http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy.html
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/302.html

[russ_watters]

So you think all others are enemies of the US? We don't just invade countries because we don't like their governments, you know.... we envade because the governmentss are our enemy or the enemy of people we care about (such as the people of those countries). Lets talk about the spirit of democracy... Your understanding of "the spirit of democracy" is incorrect: it is accepted in a democracy that you can't make everyone happy all the time. The HoR also uses the first past the post system, merely reproducing the problem state-by-state instead of nationally. I take it that you are refusing to consider PR as a better way of representing the will of the people? The way the House is populated is a hybrid of proportional representation. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you can have two winners in an election or that the result of a vote can make all the people happy. That isn't real life. Even if we went with the popular vote for president, there can be only one president - up to just under half of the population will have voted for the loser. Every vote has a winner and a loser.

For representatives, the best way to approximate proportional representation is to chop up districts homogenously. That way, you could end up with more people being happy about the outcome of each election for a representative - but you still won't please everyone.

[russ_watters]

So have you considered trading down your car and sending the money to a few desperate African families? No? Why not? Get off your high horse. You don't know me. Greed may be the only thing driving you, but it isn't the only thing driving me.
I do not have anything to add to this. My country was never involved in wars of any kind, so I can't really relate to this feeling that winning a war is something to be proud of. In my country, we are very proud of the fact that we never engaged in one. Are you Swiss? You are aware the Swiss neutrality is a lie, right? Now do you know that the fastest-growing economy in the world is China, a communist dictatorship? Quite right - since it has moderated to embrace capitalist ideals. See: Hong Kong. And did you know that many Latin American countries experienced tremendous growth in the 70's Any government can cause short-term growth. The only way to sustain stable, long term growth is capitalism. Read this carefully: No other form of government/economics has produced the prosperity/stability that capitalism/democracy has. ...perhaps you might recall that Germany emerged from a deep economic crisis after Hitler's ascension to power? You certainly learned in school that the Soviet Union changed from a rural society into an industrialized one in less than a decade, a real miracle, during Stalin's regime? Yes, and how did things work out in the long-term for those countries? There is a reason neither exist today.

[russ_watters]

So are democratic ideas morally correct? A democracy is a system where, all individuals have equal rights, within the system good and evil, is tolerated, so long as a manmade set of laws, by that system, is not broken. Therefore morality and immorality coincide within the system. A democracy is not a "Utopian Moral Code." Interesting interpretation, but I see it a different way: democracy (as practiced in the west) is the form of government that enables the protection of individual rights, and that is what makes it the most moral.

You're talking about the morality of the people, I'm talking about the morality of the government.

[Ludwig]

Get off your high horse. You don't know me. Greed may be the only thing driving you, but it isn't the only thing driving me.

So are you going to make that donation to Africa or not?

I'm trying to make a point here, but you think I'm riding a high horse. Perhaps I'm being too sarcastic; what I'm trying to say is that you don't have to worry about the problems of the world. But if you are going to help people in need, I think giving them money to help them with their basic needs is far more important than bombing their cities to free them from their governments, only to subject them to your own.

But don't take my word for it; ask them! Ask a few Iraqis whether they would prefer if the "coalition of the willing" had donated the billions of dollars they spent "promoting democracy" to help poor Iraqi families. I'm quite sure of their answer, but perhaps you have a different opinion.

Are you Swiss? You are aware the Swiss neutrality is a lie, right?

The world has 258 countries. Try again.

(hint: don't take "Ludwig" as a clue, it's not my real name, just the name of someone I admire)

Quite right - since it has moderated to embrace capitalist ideals. See: Hong Kong. Any government can cause short-term growth. The only way to sustain stable, long term growth is capitalism.

I find it ironic how capitalists resort to mindless propaganda just as often as communists did. No wonder they hated each other so much: two of a kind!

Read this carefully: No other form of government/economics has produced the prosperity/stability that capitalism/democracy has.

I read it carefully. Thanks for the one-line lesson in history, sociology, and macroeconomics. Can I go back to my books now?

Yes, and how did things work out in the long-term for those countries? There is a reason neither exist today.

A thousand years from now, the United States will probably no longer exist. Maybe it will be split into several nations, maybe it will be conquered or destroyed by fanatical Muslims, maybe it will simply collapse on its own weight, like the Roman Empire did. Surely that implies the American system is not good, right? It might seem good for you, but historians of the future will definitely disagree.

But the real issue is, how come your piece of capitalistic propaganda found its way to a discussion of morality in a philosophy forum?

[hitssquad]

After the Bush/Kerry election a slim majority of the people are deliriously happyBush received votes from 58.6 million people, which is 20% of the population of the United States. A slim majority would have been 150 million votes.

[the number 42]

We don't just invade countries because we don't like their governments, you know.... we envade because the governmentss are our enemy or the enemy of people we care about

You invade countries because you care about the people there? Very idealistic. I don't suppose you can think of any exceptions to this?

Anyway, you miss the point. I was attempting to hightlight the fallacy of presuming that just because YOU think something is right for you, that it therefore follows that it is right for and desired by others. The term 'others' (as in 'do unto others') seems to have been confused with the word 'enemy'. To clarify, by others I mean anybody outside the US, friends/foes/gardeners etc.

Your understanding of "the spirit of democracy" is incorrect: it is accepted in a democracy that you can't make everyone happy all the time.

A much less idealistic response this time. I didn't say EVERYONE; I mentioned a figure of two thirds, but that's just off the top of my head. But if you really think that 51% of people being happy and 49% feeling angry is a good system, I think your understanding of what makes for a stable society is well off the mark. But where was the third alternative to Bush or Kerry? Nobody would vote for this person as this might 'split the vote' - how are people going to get satisfaction from this sort of system?

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you can have two winners in an election or that the result of a vote can make all the people happy.

:rolleyes: This one again. The day I say that everyone can be happy is the day I invent a way of making Prozac come out of your computer screen.

Every vote has a winner and a loser.

This sounds like something you would tell a child. A bright child might answer: "Only if its a two horse race, Daddy". The average kid just rolls over and sleeps like a baby.

[the number 42]

Bush received votes from 58.6 million people, which is 20% of the population of the United States. A slim majority would have been 150 million votes.

Good point.

My figures are very approximate
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/united_states_people.html
but if you adjust for voting population you get more like 100 million for the slim majority of voters. I guess if you look at it in terms of voters only, its a only 60 million Bush voters to 140 million non-Bush voters, about 80 million of whom can't have voted in this election?

But if these figures are roughly correct, then what is all the talk about a large voter turnout? I presume I have got it wrong here somewhere. "There are lies, damn lies, and soundbites", as they say.

[kouga]

This sounds like something you would tell a child. A bright child might answer: "Only if its a two horse race, Daddy". The average kid just rolls over and sleeps like a baby. r u implying that there can only be one winning 'free' country and the rest should be ignored and left to fend for themselves???

[kouga]

LUDWIG STATED THAT: I'm trying to make a point here, but you think I'm riding a high horse. Perhaps I'm being too sarcastic; what I'm trying to say is that you don't have to worry about the problems of the world. But if you are going to help people in need, I think giving them money to help them with their basic needs is far more important than bombing their cities to free them from their governments, only to subject them to your own.


so ur telling me that if thousands of thousands of people are being killed by the government that, we should give the government killing them more money do u really think that a government that is killing its own people will use that money for them or for its weapons? :mad: :surprised

[Ludwig]

This sounds like something you would tell a child. A bright child might answer: "Only if its a two horse race, Daddy". The average kid just rolls over and sleeps like a baby.

Internet forums are funny. You get PhDs talking to high-school dropouts, seniors talking to adolescents, computer programmers discussing philosophy, ex-soldiers discussing morality... what a zoo :tongue2:

[kouga]

Internet forums are funny. You get PhDs talking to high-school dropouts, seniors talking to adolescents, computer programmers discussing philosophy, ex-soldiers discussing morality... what a zoo :tongue2: so wat would u fit in with this forum u call a zoo??

[russ_watters]

Ludwig, if you want to have a reasonable discussion, start making reasonable arguements. I won't play your games and won't respond to your rhetoric. You invade countries because you care about the people there? Very idealistic. I don't suppose you can think of any exceptions to this? Certainly there are exceptions. The US isn't perfect (I'm not in charge yet :wink: ). Anyway, you miss the point. I was attempting to hightlight the fallacy of presuming that just because YOU think something is right for you, that it therefore follows that it is right for and desired by others. The term 'others' (as in 'do unto others') seems to have been confused with the word 'enemy'. To clarify, by others I mean anybody outside the US, friends/foes/gardeners etc. Fair enough, but I base my opinion on some pretty objective critereon: economic prosperty, security, stability, and protection of individual rights. If you can provide an historical example (preferably one that exists today) that tops the US/the West in those categories, please do. This sounds like something you would tell a child. A bright child might answer: "Only if its a two horse race, Daddy". The average kid just rolls over and sleeps like a baby. Ok, you've said the same thing half a dozen times in several different ways. I know what you're tying to say - how about substantiating it? Give me an example (hypothetical is fine).

Elections and votes are binary. Your horse race example, as you imply it, is an inaccurate description of a horse race and an inaccurate description of politics: in a horse race, only one horse wins. The rest lose. This presidential election, for example, had 5 horses in it (on my ballot, anyway). Only one is can be president next year, no matter how the votes are counted.

Perhaps you are talking about a system of representatives where maybe 6 people run and the top 3 get elected: well, that's still binary. Each candidate either gets elected or s/he doesn't. Or how about an olympic trial - the top 3 move on to the next round. But that's still binary: either you move on or you don't. The top 3 are winners, everyone else, losers. But if these figures are roughly correct, then what is all the talk about a large voter turnout? Its relative: It is "large" compared to the last election, the election before that, the election before that, the election before that, the election before that, the election before that, the election before that, the election before that, the election before that, and the election before that.

[russ_watters]

Bush received votes from 58.6 million people, which is 20% of the population of the United States. A slim majority would have been 150 million votes. That's some great rationalization. Saying it that way implies the other 62% of the country (including the children) would have voted for Kerry. How did you spin it when Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote?

[Canute]

The only way to sustain stable, long term growth is capitalism. Read this carefully: No other form of government/economics has produced the prosperity/stability that capitalism/democracy has.
This is so far from the truth I had to comment. Try reading Marshall Salins at Uni. of Chicago. Modern industrial societies are nowhere near as successful at creating prosperity and stability as primitive ones. The US model cannot be sustained long-term, and is only sustainable now by continual intervention, very often armed, in the affairs of other nations. Mind you, I suppose if by prosperity you mean money, and by stability you mean the impossibility of wresting back political power from the major corporations, then you may be right.

[the number 42]

r u implying that there can only be one winning 'free' country and the rest should be ignored and left to fend for themselves???

Uh, no. I have no idea how you got the impression that I meant to say this.

[the number 42]

I base my opinion on some pretty objective critereon: economic prosperty, security, stability, and protection of individual rights. If you can provide an historical example (preferably one that exists today) that tops the US/the West in those categories, please do.

Economic prosperty, security, stability, and protection of individual rights cannot be spread by the US to other countries, as these things exist in the US at the expense of other countries. Think about this before you reply.

Your horse race example, as you imply it, is an inaccurate description of a horse race and an inaccurate description of politics: in a horse race, only one horse wins. The rest lose. This presidential election, for example, had 5 horses in it (on my ballot, anyway). Only one is can be president next year, no matter how the votes are counted.

Serves me right for working with children and animals to make my point. No matter what metaphor you use, its a simplistic winner takes all system. This is probably great for groups where an alpha male is all that is needed, but for more developed cultures, how about a system in which the aspirations of all are represented, at least to some degree. What we have at present is a situation where a minority of the voters (though a majority of the voters who turned out to vote) have all the say. This wouldn't be such a big deal execpt that almost as many voters (and perhaps many of the people who didn't vote) are really unhappy about this. Seriously, don't you think there is something even a little bit problematic about this?

Perhaps you are talking about a system of representatives where maybe 6 people run and the top 3 get elected: well, that's still binary. Each candidate either gets elected or s/he doesn't. Or how about an olympic trial - the top 3 move on to the next round. But that's still binary: either you move on or you don't. The top 3 are winners, everyone else, losers.

Binary shminary. I'm not talking about anything of the sort. Try to clear your mind of this 'winners Vs losers' fixation before you reply.

[Ludwig]

No matter what metaphor you use, its a simplistic winner takes all system. This is probably great for groups where an alpha male is all that is needed, but for more developed cultures, how about a system in which the aspirations of all are represented, at least to some degree.

It's my impression that a truly representative system, such as Parliamentarism, would not fit well with the American mind. I may be speaking out of ignorance, but Americans seem very enamored of heroes and superheroes. They like to see one man, one individual, fight a personal battle for the common good. It's part of their culture, from the early days of the pilgrims who had to face a hostile environment without much help, and prospered doing it.

Which is probably the reason most foreigners don't understand how an uneducated and ignorant man like Bush can be elected President. Most foreigners can't relate to his facial expressions and verbal utterances of defiance against what he perceives as evil. Many Americans, it seems to me, see a lot of heroism in it.

(this is in no way a criticism of anything, just a passive observation)

[selfAdjoint]

The Kiersey personality breakdown predicted the election. Here is quote from their newsletter:
Each person develops a self-image and habits appropriate to his or her temperament. Thus, Artisans like George W. Bush base their self-image on grace, audacity, and adaptability to circumstance. Or, Idealists, like John Kerry, base their self-image on empathy, benevolence, and authenticity

The other two basic types are Guardian and Rationalist. They note that in US presidential elections, Artisans beat every other type, and the next best, assuming there's not a major party artisan running, is Guardian. Kerry is the only Idealist to make it past the primary in modern times.

[russ_watters]

the number 42, if you have an argument to present, please do. You keep asserting that I'm wrong, but you have yet to explain and support your position. I won't keep discussing this on an uneven playing field: you have to give a little bit too. Economic prosperty, security, stability, and protection of individual rights cannot be spread by the US to other countries, as these things exist in the US at the expense of other countries. Think about this before you reply. [this applies to Canute too] I recognize that a lot of people believe this. Well, a lot of people are wrong. The facts simply do not support it: the global GDP is not fixed, it is increasing. Global poverty levels are not fixed, they are decreasing. The number (percentage) of people living in prosperous, secure, stable countries (a la western Europe or the US) is not fixed, it is increasing.

A lot of people see the fact that a lot of progress remains to be made and mistakenly conclude that that means no progress has been made. It doesn't.

[russ_watters]

The Kiersey personality breakdown predicted the election. Here is quote from their newsletter: Do you have a link to that? It looks intriguing

[the number 42]

You keep asserting that I'm wrong, but you have yet to explain and support your position.

I'm not sure that I have kept asserting that you are wrong, but it strikes me that we sometimes seem to be discussing different points.

I recognize that a lot of people believe this. Well, a lot of people are wrong. The facts simply do not support it: the global GDP is not fixed, it is increasing. Global poverty levels are not fixed, they are decreasing. The number (percentage) of people living in prosperous, secure, stable countries (a la western Europe or the US) is not fixed, it is increasing

Hmmm. The poor are getting richer? The poor are more free, happier? If you feel obliged to export democracy, bear in mind that the current US brand relies on making profitable deals with other countries. We can't all be rich - who'd mow the lawn or take care of the kids? Who'd grow our coffee and make our trainers? And is there any such thing as democracy when our minds are used to dealing only with slogans not policies, and when the only things we feel are knee-jerk responses to media manipulation? Do you really think the rest of the world want to have a slice of what passes for democracy in the US?

Seriously Russ, take some time out and have a think about these things.

[russ_watters]

Seriously Russ, take some time out and have a think about these things. Quite frankly, it appears to me that you're spending too much time thinking you're right when you should be looking at the facts that show that you aren't. The things you say sound logical and reasonable to someone with your worldview, but they bear little relation to reality.

[bross7]

Every country is "democratic" is some fashion. If you are saying that everyone should be like the US then no, I do not agree with that whatsoever. Europe is significantly different than North America, should we impose American ideals on England? Sweden? Finland?

[Smurf]

This thread is bugging the hell out of me

[the number 42]

Quite frankly, it appears to me that you're spending too much time thinking you're right when you should be looking at the facts that show that you aren't. The things you say sound logical and reasonable to someone with your worldview, but they bear little relation to reality.

Hmmm. Can't argue with that, Russ. Good answer.

[Smurf]

Ahh! I can't take it anymore, I have to say something. Start with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Japanese navy had already been obliterated, it had a population of several million on a few small islands which were blockaded by the American Navy. I believe the nuclear bomb was a better alternative to an invasion which would have resulted in almost one million casualties on both sides.

It was still un necessary, the japanese had been talking about sueing for peace since midway, but Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' policy was rejected by Japan, however they were willing to sign a conditional surrender.

Yes you can make the argument that America couldn't accept a conditional surrender for various reasons, but the Japanese only had a single condition before the bomb was dropped, and that was to keep Hirohito, the Emperor... Which MacArthur let them keep anyway. This is one example of America's history of reckless diplomacy.


I think it was a scare tactic for the Soviets, who didn't get the bomb untill August 29, 1949, And it wasn't a defensive war for the USA - both sides were the aggressors, but thats another story.

[the number 42]

I'm glad you got that off your chest, but is dropping bombs on people the same as dropping democracy on them?

[Smurf]

no but thats the thing that was bugging me the most, I'll write about democracy tomorrow, good night.

[Smurf]

I was reading this article and I couldn't resist quoting it
The Iraqi democratic opposition, not a radical movement, incidentally, bankers, engineers and people like that for the most part, they were continually rebuffed in Washington. Last February, according to Iraqi and government sources, they came to the White House with a plea for support for a simple statement calling for parliamentary democracy in Iraq. They were rebuffed. You will notice, incidentally, that from August through March, through the end of the war, there was nothing in the press, nothing in the media about the Iraqi democratic opposition, none of their statements, none of their spokespeople cited. It's kind of interesting if you think about it. These are the forces that for years have fought against Saddam Hussein and called for democracy in Iraq, parliamentary democracy. And there are lots of them. Of course, they don't function inside Iraq. They can't. Under the kind of regime we like to support they'd be killed if they did that. What they did was this, they exist in Europe, in England. You can read their statements in the German press, in the British press and so on, not in the American press. I haven't found a word referring to them. They continue to be rebuffed by the media and by the Government just as they had during the period when Saddam Hussein was George Bush's great friend and the reason is obvious when you look at their statements. Yes, they were opposed to Saddam Hussein, but they were opposed to the war. They didn't want to see their country destroyed. They wanted a peaceful settlement and knew that it was possible. In fact, their position was indistinguishable from that of the American peace movement. I managed to sneak one of their spokesmen into an MIT teach-in and you couldn't tell the difference between his position and any other opponents to the war. Well, that fact had to be obscured in the press and it's done, another great propaganda achievement.

[Royce]

Smurf,
I watched a program just last week on either the History Channel or one of the PBS channels that said that the bombs were not the reason Japan surrendered to the USA. The main reason was that Soviet Russia had just declared war on Japan and there was no way that Japan could hold them off. They would rather surrender to the US than be occupied by Soviet Russia just as so many Germans rushed to surrender to the Allies rather than be captured by the Russians.
You are right in that Japan was trying to sue for peace but would not accept an unconditional surrender. While Roosevelt was demanding an unconditional surrender he was no longer alive when the Bombs were dropped. That as Truman's decision and I think not only was it correct but the only rational decision available to him. The people of the united States would not accept anything less than an unconditional surrender from Japan and probably would have convicted Truman as a war criminal himself had he not dropped the bombs when they were available.
The same program pointed out that just before the Germans surrendered they attempted to ship via submarine thousands of pounds of uranium dioxide to Japan. The captain of the sub was at sea when Germany surrendered and turned his boat and cargo into the USA.

As far as the USA have a moral obligation to export democracy to the rest of the world, I don't accept it as a Moral Imperative but can accept it as the right thing to do. If the rest of you think that it is not right, even criminal, then by the same reasoning we, the USA, are not obliged to act as the policemen and protector of the rest of the world, nor are we obliged or obligated to feed, trade, support nor give aide to the rest of the world, yet we do.
I do not think that we became rich and powerful by exploiting the rest of the world. While all of you may hate us and condemn us you are all in a hurry to get in line to trade with us and take our money and technology.
Remember we are a very young nation and have come onto the world scene as a world military and economic power only in the last 80-90 years. Prior to that it was England, France, Germany, Spain and others who were exploiting and colonizing the world and it was these countries and there ruthless actions that are still the cause of many of the worlds problems today including and especially the Mid and south East.

[vanesch]

Throughout history, nations have always invaded other nations, for various reasons, from stealing over christianising and colonising. The invading nations always had good (= moral) reasons to do so.
After WWII, there was some hope that this situation would finally come to an end, in that there would now be a world organisation who would deal with these situations, and it is true that very often, the US was, being a military and economically very strong nation, sollicited to execute the politics of this world organisation. Apparently that world organisation made too often a request for intervention to the US, because now the US thinks that it can do all that by itself. We're back to good old history and the dream of a better world is over again. Exporting one's value system by a nation is exactly what has always happened before, and which has been at the origin of endless suffering and conflicts. The very fact that the US thinks that it has the "moral duty" to export democracy and capitalism illustrates this point.

The fact that a nation, because it is military strong, gives itself the right to "export its ideals with bombs" is the nation-level equivalent of an individual taking "the right in his own hands" and goes in with the neighbours with a gun, shooting people if necessary, if he is of the opinion that their way of living doesn't comply to his moral standards. In most civilised countries, this is not permitted, and for good reasons. Normally, it is up to justice to decide, and then indeed, individuals (called policemen) execute what justice decided. But policemen are not mandated to go in by themselves, and impose THEIR OWN standards and morality.
Now, I have to say that I prefer it to be the US who has this in principle untollerable behaviour, than, say, the Kuwaitis, in that I'm probably personally not in danger, for I live in countries that luckily have "moral standards" which aren't too remote from the standard set by that powerful "police nation" that every nation should comply to. But this is by shear luck, because it could be otherwise. It could be the Kuwaitis who are the most powerful. Or the Chinese. Or the Cubans.

Concerning democracy, it is only as good as the average population. And that's often what is wrong with it: when taking the average of what the population thinks, one usually gets rather low standards and stupid ideas. I prefer an enlightened leadership over a democratic leadership, but I prefer a democratic leadership over a merciless and stupid dictator. I think that something far better would be a "democracy of the educated", as it was, when the ancient greeks invented it. But even their democracy killed off Socrates.

Concerning capitalism, I think it is the modern equivalent of the law of the jungle, in that, indeed, the fittest survives. And you get great cellular phones and toasters out of it.

So back to the original question: does the US have the moral obligation to export its value system ? Answer: if it thinks so, to its own moral standards, it has. In the same way as Ben Laden exports the Islamic value system, as the Romans exported the Pax Romana, and the Europeans exported christianism (once in the 11th century, and then again in the 19th century).
All of them thought they had the "moral obligation". A lot of blood has flown for moral obligations, but hey, that's history.

[Royce]

The very fact that the US thinks that it has the "moral duty" to export democracy and capitalism illustrates this point.

All of us in the United States don't feel that we have a moral duty to export anything or import anything either for that matter. We are not the only nation in Iraq nor are we in Iraq without the consent of the UN.
We were attacked and 2024 noncombatant men and women killed in an unprovoked terrorist attack supported and funded in part by Iraq. We are at war!


The fact that a nation, because it is military strong, gives itself the right to "export its ideals with bombs" is the nation-level equivalent of an individual taking "the right in his own hands" and goes in with the neighbours with a gun, shooting people if necessary, if he is of the opinion that their way of living doesn't comply to his moral standards. In most civilized countries, this is not permitted, and for good reasons.

I don't believe that we have done this in recent history. I may be wrong but this sound like pure propaganda to me. If I am wrong please point out the incidences and I will apologize.


Concerning democracy, it is only as good as the average population. And that's often what is wrong with it: when taking the average of what the population thinks, one usually gets rather low standards and stupid ideas. I prefer an enlightened leadership over a democratic leadership, but I prefer a democratic leadership over a merciless and stupid dictator.


No nation or state is completely pure and innocent and the US is certainly not perfect; and, as you said, nations are made up of people and any nation is no better than its people. When people finally become perfect and perfectly civilized then perhaps our nation states will be perfect too.


I think that something far better would be a "democracy of the educated", as it was, when the ancient Greeks invented it. But even their democracy killed off Socrates.

From what I have read and been taught it was Socrates himself that killed Socrates off because he choose not to live in the Athenian society as it was and could not live anywhere else.




So back to the original question: does the US have the moral obligation to export its value system ? Answer: if it thinks so, to its own moral standards, it has. In the same way as Ben Laden exports the Islamic value system, as the Romans exported the Pax Romana, and the Europeans exported christianism (once in the 11th century, and then again in the 19th century).
All of them thought they had the "moral obligation". A lot of blood has flown for moral obligations, but hey, that's history.

Agreed, except I take extreme exception to the manner in which Ben Laden et al export their "Islamic values."

[vanesch]

We are not the only nation in Iraq nor are we in Iraq without the consent of the UN.
We were attacked and 2024 noncombatant men and women killed in an unprovoked terrorist attack supported and funded in part by Iraq. We are at war!



Apparently the Bush administration repeated that silliness so often that you really believe that. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Honestly, if the link would have been established, you'd have all the rights in the world to do what you are doing.
As you had (and the world was behind you) when you invaded Afghanistan. But it simply isn't the case. And it is OBVIOUS that there is no relationship because Saddam was one of the biggest enemies of Ben Laden, who cannot tolerate non-religious leadership in Arab countries. Saddam (back when he was still a friend of the West) fought Islamism in the war with Iran. He fought it with WMD given by the West.
The only thing that Saddam did, as ANY ARAB NATION, is to give money to the Palestinian resistance. BTW, most of the money they have comes from Saoudi Arabia and the Gulf states, not from Iraq, and so does most of the money that Al Qaida has.

[vanesch]

From what I have read and been taught it was Socrates himself that killed Socrates off because he choose not to live in the Athenian society as it was and could not live anywhere else.


No, Socrates was convicted to the death penalty because of his "bad influence on the youth of Athens". If I remember well, he could have obtained an arrangement to convert this into exile. But he preferred not to, and preferred to do it himself.

[Aquamarine]

Others contend that Japan had been trying to surrender for at least two months, but the US refused by insisting on an unconditional surrender—which they did not get even after the bombing, the bone of contention being retention of the Emperor.[9] (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html) In fact, while several diplomats favored surrender, the leaders of the Japanese military were committed to fighting a 'Decisive Battle' on Kyushu, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward—all of which the Americans knew from reading decrypted Japanese communications. The Japanese government never did decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme Council was still split, with the hardliners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials, and no occupation. Only the direct intervention of the Emperor ended the dispute, and even after that there was a serious risk of a military coup.

Some have argued that the Soviet Union's switch from friendly neutral to enemy might have been enough to convince the Japanese military of the need to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (plus some provision for the emperor). In the event, the decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands was known, but had the war continued, the Soviets would have been able to invade Hokkaido well before the Allied invasion of Kyushu.

Supporters of the bombing concede that although the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiqués as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the Atomic bomb.

While Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, the civilian leadership could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire on its own. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. Nearly 200,000 Japanese and 12,000 American troops were killed in the most bloody battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan’s final surrender. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man, an order which it carried out. Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimum losses.

After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Yalta Proclamation.

According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of emperor Hirohito's closest advisors stated that "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war". Hisatsune Sakomizu the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945 called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war". According to these historians and others the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagisaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the Atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29’s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[Smurf]

Royce, Thank you for that info on the Soviets, I hadn't thought of that. It is my understanding that The Russian Navy was ill equipped to take Japan and the USA, having a blockade of the Islands, would have been able to stop any attempt to invade the islands. It is true that the russians invaded Munchuria, China, Korea and Vietnam. Some extra initiative. Are we in agreement that the bomb was unnecessary? I think a demonstration, if that, was all that was necessary.

Concerning Socrates, I believe vanesch is corrrect. That kind of incident could not happen in a modern, western society simply because of Freedom of Speech and the fact that we place a much higher price on human life than they did in Ancient times.

[Smurf]

All of us in the United States don't feel that we have a moral duty to export anything or import anything either for that matter. We are not the only nation in Iraq nor are we in Iraq without the consent of the UN.
We were attacked and 2024 noncombatant men and women killed in an unprovoked terrorist attack supported and funded in part by Iraq. We are at war!

Iraq was not connected to 9/11. As Venesch said if it was you would have like 20 countries in there like you do in Afghanistan (Everyone is in afghanistan - even the canadians, no one doubted you have reason to invade them) but you don't, its just you and your lacky the british, and they won't last long as blair is unlilkely to get re-elected.


I don't believe that we have done this in recent history. I may be wrong but this sound like pure propaganda to me. If I am wrong please point out the incidences and I will apologize.

Nicuaraga, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Iran, Laos - Iraq!
True, most of these didn't have democratic governments when the US was done with them. So I guess you couldn't say they were exporting morals (morals of the average person that is, corporations are another thing all together)
I'm sorry my friend but its not the Michael Moore-esque thats propoganda, well, at least not compared to your 'Free Press'; he's fighting fire with fire.

No nation or state is completely pure and innocent and the US is certainly not perfect; and, as you said, nations are made up of people and any nation is no better than its people. When people finally become perfect and perfectly civilized then perhaps our nation states will be perfect too.

Thats admirable of you, unfortunatly it looks like this is going to take a long time as many places in the world are moving backwards, and The US would be too if it wasn't already rock bottom and corporate run.

Agreed, except I take extreme exception to the manner in which Ben Laden et al export their "Islamic values."
I think if you research some of the examples I gave above (from sources outside of mainstream media - try reading something by Noam Chomsky) you will see Bin Laden in a different Light (he's still a bastard, but a different kind of bastard than CNN likes to make him out to be)

I tried to write this post in a non anti-american fashion, I'm a historian, I try not to attach opinions, except in cases when evidence is unavailable.

[the number 42]

I do not think that we became rich and powerful by exploiting the rest of the world. While all of you may hate us and condemn us you are all in a hurry to get in line to trade with us and take our money and technology.

Is there anyone from South America (especially Agentina, whose economy collapsed a few years ago) or Africa who would like to comment on this? I think you'll find that while there are people in every country who are interested in making money, many people don't want to become Americanised. Don't take it as such a big insult that not every country wants to be a clone of the US, its mainly that The People would rather have a choice in the matter. By the way, what you call 'globalisation' is often known outside the US as 'Americanisation', and is often a pejorative with connotations of being coerced into a way of life that is unwanted. Don't you think its possible that some people don't want TV, cars, adverts, computers, dog-eat-dog, long working hours etc as major factors in their lives? And to get back to the point of this thread, maybe they are happy without democracy. When you think about it, how many people in the US actually voted this week, and it was a relatively large turnout? Hardly a ringing endorsement for how eager many in the US are about democracy. Maybe if you had PR...?

[Smurf]

I've lived in Africa - the west (mainly the US) needs to stop exploiting the third world.

[vanesch]

And to get back to the point of this thread, maybe they are happy without democracy. When you think about it, how many people in the US actually voted this week, and it was a relatively large turnout? Hardly a ringing endorsement for how eager many in the US are about democracy. Maybe if you had PR...?

This is true for me, for instance. I've lived in Germany and now I live in France, where I don't have national voting right. I could vote in my own country by correspondence, but I don't because I don't follow the situation so I wouldn't even know to vote for whom. Honestly, I don't mind. I do follow the political situation in the country I live in, but I don't vote, and I don't feel anything "missing" that way.

[Smurf]

As far as the USA have a moral obligation to export democracy to the rest of the world, I don't accept it as a Moral Imperative but can accept it as the right thing to do.

You say you don't think its a moral obligation but still the right thing to do, but as far as I can tell it's essentially the same thing. Its not a moral obligation because its your opinion , not a fundamental truth, its not like 2+2=4, Democracy is not the best form of government and will not work best everywhere in the world, and it shouldn't be put somewhere from someone else who since its none of their business.

I personally feel America (modern democracy) has one of the worst forms of government because it allows its self to be so massively dominated by corporations.

If the rest of you think that it is not right, even criminal, then by the same reasoning we, the USA, are not obliged to act as the policemen and protector of the rest of the world, nor are we obliged or obligated to feed, trade, support nor give aide to the rest of the world, yet we do.
This is part of the 'romantic american view' that Ludwig mentioned. The only time I am aware of that America has helped another nation that needed it was when it was an unintentional consequence of them looking after their own economic interests.
Humanitarian Intervention (http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-07/05chomsky.htm)
Remember we are a very young nation and have come onto the world scene as a world military and economic power only in the last 80-90 years. Prior to that it was England, France, Germany, Spain and others who were exploiting and colonizing the world and it was these countries and there ruthless actions that are still the cause of many of the worlds problems today including and especially the Mid and south East.
This is true, but while America was not the first to exploit the third world, it is the only one still doing it (EU and Japan are getting closer and closer though). The Great European Empires ended in the early 20th Century, and here we are in the early 21st century, many decades later and the USA is still exploiting the third world to a degree perviously unheard of, not to mention in much different ways which they have no defence against.

[Royce]

Apparently the Bush administration repeated that silliness so often that you really believe that. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Honestly, if the link would have been established, you'd have all the rights in the world to do what you are doing.
As you had (and the world was behind you) when you invaded Afghanistan. But it simply isn't the case. And it is OBVIOUS that there is no relationship because Saddam was one of the biggest enemies of Ben Laden, who cannot tolerate non-religious leadership in Arab countries. Saddam (back when he was still a friend of the West) fought Islamism in the war with Iran. He fought it with WMD given by the West.
The only thing that Saddam did, as ANY ARAB NATION, is to give money to the Palestinian resistance. BTW, most of the money they have comes from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, not from Iraq, and so does most of the money that Al Qaida has.

Supposedly the reason we are in Iraq is that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and refuse to give the UN inspectors unlimited search rights even after being repeatedly warned and give a year by the UN to comply fully. We, the US are not the only nation there which everyone including the Democrats in this country seems to ignore. Saddam also was reported to support world wide terrorism materially and economically not just giving aid to the Palestinian terrorist. We are at war against terrorism period wherever and whoever it may be. I cannot see why any so called civilized and humanitarian person or country could object to our invasion of Iraq to do away with Saddam and his horrific regime

[Royce]

No, Socrates was convicted to the death penalty because of his "bad influence on the youth of Athens". If I remember well, he could have obtained an arrangement to convert this into exile. But he preferred not to, and preferred to do it himself.

Thats my point, it was his choice to drink the hemlock. He was not "killed off" by the Athenian democracy. We don't really disagree here it was just the wording that you used.

[Royce]

Iraq was not connected to 9/11. As Venesch said if it was you would have like 20 countries in there like you do in Afghanistan (Everyone is in Afghanistan - even the Canadians, no one doubted you have reason to invade them) but you don't, its just you and your lackey the British, and they won't last long as Blair is unlikely to get re-elected.

See my earlier reply to vanesch. We are not the only ones there in Iraq nor is it just us and the English who are our allies not our lackeys, shame on you, The Spanish, the Japanese among other were and are there also. This is a war on terrorism and Saddam was up to his eyeballs in it and even worse terrorized his own people and used gas on the Curds living in his country as well as the Iranians. Why would anybody complain about us doing away with his regime of terror for any reason


Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Iran, Laos - Iraq!


In none of those countries have we imposed our will or form of government upon the people of those countries. We were aiding often at the request of their government, Nicaragua and Grenada, fight of the Cubans and Cuban communist backed insurgents from imposing a communistic government by the force of arms.
If memory serves Qaddafi is still in power in Libya and our attack in Libia and Iran as well as Iraq was in retaliation of terrorist attacks against us citizens and military.
I don't remember us attacking Laos other than attacking North Vietnamese communists who were illegally using Laos as a safe harbor while they were attempting to impose there communistic government upon South Vietnam.

In none of the mentioned cases did we impose our way of life or form of government upon those countries by force.

[Royce]

Is there anyone from South America (especially Argentina, whose economy collapsed a few years ago) or Africa who would like to comment on this? I think you'll find that while there are people in every country who are interested in making money, many people don't want to become Americanized. Don't take it as such a big insult that not every country wants to be a clone of the US, its mainly that The People would rather have a choice in the matter. By the way, what you call 'globalization' is often known outside the US as 'Americanization', and is often a pejorative with connotations of being coerced into a way of life that is unwanted. Don't you think its possible that some people don't want TV, cars, adverts, computers, dog-eat-dog, long working hours etc as major factors in their lives? And to get back to the point of this thread, maybe they are happy without democracy. When you think about it, how many people in the US actually voted this week, and it was a relatively large turnout? Hardly a ringing endorsement for how eager many in the US are about democracy. Maybe if you had PR...?

Then why do they buy them not only from us but from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China as well as Europe. We, The USA, are not the Satan that you make us out to be. It is not all our fault nor desire that modern technology is seducing the world. If you want to live in a mud hut and live a subsistence life go right ahead but you would then condemn the USA for your poverty and starvation.

[Smurf]

Iraq was not a threat to the United States, the United States hasn't faced a serious threat since 1812. Iraq was one of the weakest regimes in the area and even kuwait or Iran weren't considering it a threat. Iraq was a controlled by a horrible dictator, but so is North Korea and many other places, why arn't you invading them? Because you probably can't, because its cost would be outstanding, look how much iraq has costed you, your more in debt now than England was in ww2. Invading North Korea is unthinkable, it would simply be too expensive, all the propoganda in the world wouldn't get you a second term.

So why was invading Iraq a bad thing? Because it sends a message to the world, it tells countries that if your weak and oppose us you will be invaded, but if your stronger.. than you will be spared because we're a democracy and it'll be too expensive.
This message will lead more and more 'rogue' nations to become militaristic namely in the aquiration of nuclear weapons, because then the US wouldn't even consider invading you.

The same effect can be seen with the 'Star Wars' missile defence program thats being reincarnated. Even if it did work, it wasn't designed to defend against a large scale attack, if russia wants you wiped off the surface of the planet, they can do it. It will, however protect against India, Pakistan, North Korea, and China who have smaller caches of Nukes, so now you have the ability to nuke them, but they don't have the ability to nuke you because their caches are too small? what happens?
China builds more nukes
India builds more in response to China
Pakistan builds more in response to India
Iran speeds up its nuclear program in response to Pakistan
Rinse and Repeat.

It is my understanding that the Spanish, Japanese and other nations are only there for Peacekeeping, and it was only US and Britain during the invasion.
And I British Me Too-ism isn't unique to Iraq, they've been following you around since India got its independance, (no offence to any british people, but you are involved in alot of US affairs).
I would like to add that the US doesn't put it below them to bully other western nations into helping them.

[Smurf]

In none of those countries have we imposed our will or form of government upon the people of those countries. We were aiding often at the request of their government, Nicaragua and Grenada, fight of the Cubans and Cuban communist backed insurgents from imposing a communistic government by the force of arms.
If memory serves Qaddafi is still in power in Libya and our attack in Libia and Iran as well as Iraq was in retaliation of terrorist attacks against us citizens and military.
I don't remember us attacking Laos other than attacking North Vietnamese communists who were illegally using Laos as a safe harbor while they were attempting to impose there communistic government upon South Vietnam.

In none of the mentioned cases did we impose our way of life or form of government upon those countries by force.

Royce this is an extremely detailed topic, I could explain it but if you don't want to learn about it, it won't help. so instead if you do want to learn about it I'll show you where to start:
Human Rights and International Relations (http://www.zmag.org/intlideas.htm)
War on Terror (http://www.zmag.org/terrorwar/TerrorWars/TerrorWars.cfm)

[the number 42]

Then why do they buy them not only from us but from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China as well as Europe. We, The USA, are not the Satan that you make us out to be. It is not all our fault nor desire that modern technology is seducing the world. If you want to live in a mud hut and live a subsistence life go right ahead but you would then condemn the USA for your poverty and starvation.

Try not to see things in terms of

Satan-God
Winner-Loser
US Wealth - mud hut
Trade agreement - free handout
With us - against us

and you will fear the world less.

[vanesch]

Supposedly the reason we are in Iraq is that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction


he didn't have any, did he ?


and refuse to give the UN inspectors unlimited search rights even after being repeatedly warned and give a year by the UN to comply fully. We, the US are not the only nation there which everyone including the Democrats in this country seems to ignore.


Then why didn't you let the UN decide ???

This is the typical defense of the pro-Iraq war:
- We were attacked, look at 9/11
- That was Al Quaida, not Iraq
- He helped Al Quaida
- They were ennemies
- He had weapons of mass destruction
- He hadn't
- He wasn't complying to the UN rules
- The UN didn't order the invasion
- He's a terrorist, he supports the Palestinians
- All Arabs do
- He was a bad guy, anyway, the world is better off without him
- Depends on what you have in place
- Hey, we are helping the Iraqi people !
....


Saddam also was reported to support world wide terrorism materially and economically not just giving aid to the Palestinian terrorist.


Ah, the real reasons are coming up. You do this for Israel !
But then my previous remark holds: the Palestinian terrorists (or resistance fighters, depends on your point of view) get much more money from Saoudi Arabia and the Gulf states. These are very nasty regimes too.


We are at war against terrorism period wherever and whoever it may be.


Also state terrorism ? Then do something about Israel !


I cannot see wany so called civilized and humanitarian person or country could object to our invasion of Iraq to do away with Saddam and his horrific regime

Ah, we're getting reasonable. I agree with you that it is a good thing to have a nice, peaceful democracy in the place of Saddam, if that's all that's there is to it, and the costs in lives and so on is not high. I don't agree that it is a good thing to have an Islamic republic in the place of Saddam. I don't agree that it is a good thing to have general anarchy in place of Saddam. And in any case, it is not up to one nation or a few nations to decide, it is up to the UN ! That was my whole point. Even if this operation finally turns well (which I doubt) the price to pay is the end of a world concensus for such interventions.

[Gonzolo]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general.


Well no, I don't think any country has any moral obligation in interfering in other countries' affairs. This seems like an invitation to conflict, since a group such as Al queada might just as well say the same, that it has a moral obligation to spread its own agenda. Or sticking to countries, perhaps Britain, which is similar to the US in many respects, but not identical. Eventually, a dispute could arise if Britain and the US each decided they had to spread their respective specific ideals (republic vs paliamentary monarchy).

Even though US citizens may feel they have the best system, most productive, most innovative etc. these are not necessarily the most important values for other societies. An Okinawan might not give a hoot about the American system, because he has the greatest lifespan and that may be what's most important to him, nevermind owning a ranch, a mansion and an SUV, or even freedom of press. The same goes for other populations.

The thing is some people don't want the American way of life and they're happy that way. They just don't want to be bothered by strangers. Non-Americans don't spend their lives in pain and misery hoping for the US to one day rescue them. Most are just fine the way they are.

The US needn't worry about spreading democratic values alone. If it wants to help in this respect, it only has to support the UN, that is if the UN votes to reform a country, then that is much more democratic than the US going at it irrespective of what its closest friends have to say. It'll get much more respect and approval.

[jai6638]

Well no, I don't think any country has any moral obligation in interfering in other countries' affairs. This seems like an invitation to conflict, since a group such as Al queada might just as well say the same, that it has a moral obligation to spread its own agenda. Or sticking to countries, perhaps Britain, which is similar to the US in many respects, but not identical. Eventually, a dispute could arise if Britain and the US each decided they had to spread their respective specific ideals (republic vs paliamentary monarchy).

Even though US citizens may feel they have the best system, most productive, most innovative etc. these are not necessarily the most important values for other societies. An Okinawan might not give a hoot about the American system, because he has the greatest lifespan and that may be what's most important to him, nevermind owning a ranch, a mansion and an SUV, or even freedom of press. The same goes for other populations.

The thing is some people don't want the American way of life and they're happy that way. They just don't want to be bothered by strangers. Non-Americans don't spend their lives in pain and misery hoping for the US to one day rescue them. Most are just fine the way they are.

The US needn't worry about spreading democratic values alone. If it wants to help in this respect, it only has to support the UN, that is if the UN votes to reform a country, then that is much more democratic than the US going at it irrespective of what its closest friends have to say. It'll get much more respect and approval.

i agree. It should try and support UN and follow UN instead of doing what it pleases. It shoudnt do anything without the support of UN ( as it did when it invaded Iraq ) else it would be hypocracy because If US doesnt wanna listen to / wait for UN's permission then i dont see why would the other countries wanna do so?

In my opinion, all these events ( US not waiting for the UN's decision on invading iraq,etc) will lead to the collapse of UN eventually just like what happened to the league of nations when US decided to back out....

Originally Posted by Royce

We were attacked and 2024 noncombatant men and women killed in an unprovoked terrorist attack supported and funded in part by Iraq. We are at war!

Iraq had nothing to do with it... There were better ways of reacting to such an attack rather than just declaring an open war against countries such as Iraq which had nothing to do with it.. When the attack happened, US had the sympathy of the world ( including most of the arabs ) but by Bush's actions he's jsut made the world ( especially the arabs ) go against US....
He lacks diplomacy and his lack of diplomacy spoilt it all.... US wasnt at war... Bush has gotten US into a senseless war as he isnt targeting places and concentrating on things that should be dealt with first such as trying to Disarm North Korea ( even though its near impossible )....

He made a mess in iraq and has killed more Iraqis than saddam ever killed in his 20 year rule..

[Smurf]

The US isn't even very good at it apparently
US War Crimes in Iraq (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6577)

I suppose it's to be expected.

[vanesch]

In my opinion, all these events ( US not waiting for the UN's decision on invading iraq,etc) will lead to the collapse of UN eventually just like what happened to the league of nations when US decided to back out....


This is indeed the main reason I'm so pissed at the US for having invaded Iraq: it is the end of a more civilised world view, based upon an international organisation that decides about when to wage war. Now I perfectly agree that the UN was far from a perfect organisation (for instance, there's no reason there should be 5 exceptional nations with veto right), but at least, the idea was there that waging war is such a nasty thing to do, that it should only be done within an international framework, with large consensus, when nothing else seems to work out. In one strike, the US:
- has done away with the lessons learned from WWII
- has given legitimity to Al Qaida and other organisations/nations to use violence in order to establish their agenda
- has promoted religious fanaticism
- killed off international law

but it is true that they removed a nasty dictator.

If you make up the balance, it swings heavily out to the bad side, I'd say.

[Smurf]

-Promoted Militaristic Behavior in Any states not heavily influenced by US Corporations
-Promoted Nuclear Weapon Development
-Encouraged Me Too-ism by Totaltarian Governments

(for those of you just coming in, its because they know it'll make them safe from the US since the US only invades weaker nations already distraught by International Sanctions)

but it is true they got rid of a minor dictator

[jai6638]

but it is true that they removed a nasty dictator.

.

who didnt do as much damage to his citizens as US did ... :p

[vanesch]

who didnt do as much damage to his citizens as US did ... :p

Well, that's maybe not entirely true... yet. He wasn't a particularly nice guy either.

I don't want to be US-bashing here (although I don't mind Bush bashing :tongue: ) ; I'm sure that if I think hard, I can find nice things to say about the US :biggrin: ; although the US hasn't a perfect (or even the best) political system in the world, there sure is worse.
But I'm just particularly sad that they committed this historical mistake and they don't seem to realise it.

[Gonzolo]

But I'm just particularly sad that they committed this historical mistake and they don't seem to realise it.

There is the possibility that it is not a mistake.

[Burnsys]

Is there anyone from South America (especially Agentina, whose economy collapsed a few years ago) or Africa who would like to comment on this? I think you'll find that while there are people in every country who are interested in making money, many people don't want to become Americanised. Don't take it as such a big insult that not every country wants to be a clone of the US, its mainly that The People would rather have a choice in the matter. By the way, what you call 'globalisation' is often known outside the US as 'Americanisation', and is often a pejorative with connotations of being coerced into a way of life that is unwanted. Don't you think its possible that some people don't want TV, cars, adverts, computers, dog-eat-dog, long working hours etc as major factors in their lives? And to get back to the point of this thread, maybe they are happy without democracy. When you think about it, how many people in the US actually voted this week, and it was a relatively large turnout? Hardly a ringing endorsement for how eager many in the US are about democracy. Maybe if you had PR...?

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 transfered 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.....

[jai6638]

There is the possibility that it is not a mistake.

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 wanna say that for the sake of debating then sure..

[Smurf]

I don't think it is a mistake. I think whoever's responsible (Exxon comes to mind) had a reason, what is that reason?
When America gains control of Iraqi oil they will gain huge influence on the global price of oil.

Now for a Quote
"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

[vanesch]

I don't think it is a mistake. I think whoever's responsible (Exxon comes to mind) had a reason, what is that reason?
When America gains control of Iraqi oil they will gain huge influence on the global price of oil.


Although the political aim to gain more influence in the ME is clearly economy-driven (especially when the top politicians all come out of the oil business), I still have the impression that if that was the main aim, then it failed miserably. It would have been the case if the Iraqis had welcomed their "liberators", but that didn't happen and I don't see it happen in the years to come. I even think that the US lost a lot of influence in the ME.
Do you think that, say, 5 years from now a) the US military will be gone from Iraq and b) that whatever government that will be there will be US-minded ? I think they blew it in the ME.

But I have the naive impression that all these more subtle reasons are secondary to the Iraqi invasion. I simply have the impression that there are a few people in the Bush administration who simply had some personal feelings against Saddam and that now that they are in power, didn't want to miss the occasion of beating him up. Shear testosterone activity.
All what is said after that is only there to rationalise that impulsive behaviour.

[Smurf]

Of cource vanesch, Saddam's very existance threatened America's hold on other weaker nations, now that his attempt to be independant from the US (weather he did it intentionally or if it was an accident, i can't say) has been crushed the US may get more obediance from its current lackies.

But I wouldn't be too sure that America will not gain main access to iraq's oil reserves (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm), they could do a number of things from accually setting up a strong government (unlikely) to supporting a warlord to take over iraq like they supported saddam, this time keep him on a shorter leash.

[Canute]

It's my impression that a truly representative system, such as Parliamentarism, would not fit well with the American mind. I may be speaking out of ignorance, but Americans seem very enamored of heroes and superheroes. They like to see one man, one individual, fight a personal battle for the common good. It's part of their culture, from the early days of the pilgrims who had to face a hostile environment without much help, and prospered doing it.

Which is probably the reason most foreigners don't understand how an uneducated and ignorant man like Bush can be elected President. Most foreigners can't relate to his facial expressions and verbal utterances of defiance against what he perceives as evil. Many Americans, it seems to me, see a lot of heroism in it.

(this is in no way a criticism of anything, just a passive observation)
That's a very good point indeed. I'd never thought of it. Bush appears to be an inexplicable choice of President to us non-Americans, but your explanation makes some sense of it. (God help us all, this means it'll be Arnie next). I wonder if US voters realise what a dreadful message it sends to rest of the world that after Bush's stupifyingly ignorant reaction to 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq he gets re-elected. We're talking about impeaching Blair over here, not of re-electing him. Still, we all seem to be in the same boat, ending up with inadequate leaders. Perhaps our idea of democracy needs updating now that industry has taken over politics.

[Gonzolo]

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 wanna 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.

[vanesch]

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.


:tongue:

[kawikdx225]

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.


:tongue:

:rofl: I was going to reply until I realized you were joking. :rofl:

[vanesch]

:rofl: I was going to reply until I realized you were joking. :rofl:

JOKING ?? ME ?? :rofl:

[the number 42]

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 transfered 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.

[Smurf]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[the number 42]

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:
"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.

[Brent_Justin]

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 possess 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, possess 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 ive 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 dont say the world is gonna blow up if we dont use democracy. and if your negative dont 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"

[Polly]

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.

[Smurf]

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.

[Burnsys]

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.....

[Polly]

Americans do not seem to realise 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.

[Aquamarine]

Americans do not seem to realise 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

[Polly]

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.

[russ_watters]

...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.

[russ_watters]

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:

[russ_watters]

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?

[Aquamarine]

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.

[Burnsys]

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....

[the number 42]

I'm confused...

The world is complex. We all get confused from time to time.

[Polly]

The world knows America.

America does not know the world.

[Aquamarine]

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

[Smurf]

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.

[Aquamarine]

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.

[Smurf]

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.

[Aquamarine]

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.

[vanesch]

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 realise 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.

[the number 42]

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?

[Aquamarine]

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 realise 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.

[Aquamarine]

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.

[vanesch]

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.

[Polly]

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.

[vanesch]

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.

[Aquamarine]

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

[Aquamarine]

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.

[vanesch]

You fail to see that the need for capitalism is greatest in the third world were there is little capitalism but great poverty.


Yes, I fail to see that. Open capitalism just allows for more poverty there, because they cannot compete yet with the West. So normally they should be competed completely out of the market. The only thing they have as competitive ressource, is very cheap labor. So indeed, if they sacrifice two generations working in 19th century conditions, they'll be over it.
And, BTW, is it true that most African states are not open to capitalism ?


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.


Except if that is considered a political goal for everybody, and is state-provided. Most Western states can do so. That will take away resources for 3th generation mobile telephones, though.


And more wealth allows shorter working hours, more holidays and allows children and the elderly to avoid working.


That's funny. I know it is less of a problem in the US, but most European countries have an unemployment "problem". That's, by itself, a startling observation: after we've done all the work we wanted, we don't need all hands! So why do people who work then have to work so hard, while they would like to have more free time ??
So unemployment shouldn't be a problem, but a goal !!

[Burnsys]

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.


What do you knwon about the 3rd world problems.... More capitalism?????? today 90% of the causes of poverty in 3rd world countrys is THE DEBT. the debt we owe to the imf bid, etc... This debt started with this "ERRORS" you say america made.. when they supported murderous dictators in the 70'...
Now 50% of our budget go directly to pay interest of this debt...

Here ECONOMIC NOBEL WINNER has something to say about the imf...
I am livin in a 3rd world country and belive me..... this is the more logical explanation of what is happening here.

PLEASE. PLEASEEEEE READ......:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold

JOE STIGLITZ: TODAY’S WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS
by Greg Palast

The World Bank’s former Chief Economist’s accusations are eye-popping - including how the IMF and US Treasury fixed the Russian elections

"It has condemned people to death," the former apparatchik told me. This was like a scene out of Le Carre. The brilliant old agent comes in from the cold, crosses to our side, and in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of a political ideology he now realizes has gone rotten.

And here before me was a far bigger catch than some used Cold War spy. Joseph Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank. To a great extent, the new world economic order was his theory come to life.

I "debriefed" Stigltiz over several days, at Cambridge University, in a London hotel and finally in Washington in April 2001 during the big confab of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing the meetings of ministers and central bankers, Stiglitz was kept exiled safely behind the blue police cordons, the same as the nuns carrying a large wooden cross, the Bolivian union leaders, the parents of AIDS victims and the other ‘anti-globalization’ protesters. The ultimate insider was now on the outside.

In 1999 the World Bank fired Stiglitz. He was not allowed quiet retirement; US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, I’m told, demanded a public excommunication for Stiglitz’ having expressed his first mild dissent from globalization World Bank style.

Here in Washington we completed the last of several hours of exclusive interviews for The Observer and BBC TV’s Newsnight about the real, often hidden, workings of the IMF, World Bank, and the bank’s 51% owner, the US Treasury.

And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache of documents marked, "confidential," "restricted," and "not otherwise (to be) disclosed without World Bank authorization."

Stiglitz helped translate one from bureaucratise, a "Country Assistance Strategy." There’s an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank’s staff ‘investigation’ consists of close inspection of a nation’s 5-star hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a ‘restructuring agreement’ pre-drafted for his ‘voluntary’ signature (I have a selection of these).

Each nation’s economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest ‘briberization’ of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don’t care if it’s a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.

Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Chairman of the President’s council of economic advisors.

Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia’s industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is ‘Capital Market Liberalization.’ In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, ‘The IMF riot.’

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You’d almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let’s get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.

That’s not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador’s currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.

The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it’s bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.

Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia ‘subsidizing’ food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia’s financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia’s new president in the nation’s first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury’s vault in Washington.

Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture.

In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.

Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO’s intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don’t care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."

By the way, don’t be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school ‘triggers’ a requirement to accept every ‘conditionality’ - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West’s push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."

And they don’t work. Black Africa’s productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."

So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of "landlordism," on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant’s crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the World Bank, why didn’t the Bank follow your advice?

"If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That’s not high on their agenda." Apparently not.

Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.

"It’s a little like the Middle Ages," the insider told me, "When the patient died they would say, ‘well, he stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him.’"

I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers

[Aquamarine]

Yes, I fail to see that. Open capitalism just allows for more poverty there, because they cannot compete yet with the West. So normally they should be competed completely out of the market. The only thing they have as competitive ressource, is very cheap labor. So indeed, if they sacrifice two generations working in 19th century conditions, they'll be over it.
This would be a great improvement since they are now dying in 14th century conditions.
And, BTW, is it true that most African states are not open to capitalism ?
Look for yourself in some of the indexes of economic freedom:
http://www.freetheworld.com/
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/

That's funny. I know it is less of a problem in the US, but most European countries have an unemployment "problem". That's, by itself, a startling observation: after we've done all the work we wanted, we don't need all hands! So why do people who work then have to work so hard, while they would like to have more free time ??
So unemployment shouldn't be a problem, but a goal !!
The working time cannot be decreased to zero. The US and western europe have now too little capitalism. All long-term projections shows that the current welfare state cannot be supported in the future. Too many old people too support and too many young who are able to work but not doing so. They are not working because regulations like minimum wage and free welfare. The system is headed to bankruptcy.

And since there are more welfare and regulations in Europe, they have less growth and are rapidly becoming poorer compared to the US. Compare for example the income of engineers in Europe and the US.

[Aquamarine]

Burnsys, we have already discussed this before:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

In short, the WB and the IMF are state agencies using taxpayer's money to make themselves and the most corrupt of ruling elite in the third world rich.

[Burnsys]

Burnsys, we have already discussed this before:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

In short, the WB and the IMF are state agencies using taxpayer's money to make themselves and the most corrupt of ruling elite in the third world rich.

yes they make the ruling elite in the third world corrupt and welthier..
but their are controled by the ruling elite in the first world....

Explain me why the imf DEMAND our goverment to alow a raise in the phone services, electric, water, and all our critical infrastructure services which are in hands of international corporations from the 1rs world (Ruling elite of the first world)

The imf is controled by america and europe ELITE... wich obiusly is a partner of your goverment....

[Aquamarine]

yes they make the ruling elite in the third world corrupt and welthier..
but their are controled by the ruling elite in the first world....

Explain me why the imf DEMAND our goverment to alow a raise in the phone services, electric, water, and all our critical infrastructure services which are in hands of international corporations from the 1rs world (Ruling elite of the first world)

The imf is controled by america and europe ELITE... wich obiusly is a partner of your goverment....
Who said that the ruling elite in the western worlds understands the benefits of capitalism? Or that they will not try to gain personal advantages by restricting it?

Regarding Argentina, I have already given explanations for its economic tragedy compared to more capitalistic countries in the previous link.

[Burnsys]

Who said that the ruling elite in the western worlds understands the benefits of capitalism? Or that they will not try to gain personal advantages by restricting it?

Regarding Argentina, I have already given explanations for its economic tragedy compared to more capitalistic countries in the previous link.


If they are the ruling elite of the capitalism system i am real sure they understands it's benefits... if not they will not be the ruling elite. lol

And they gain personal advantages not restricting it, but liberalizing it, couse if a multinational corporation want to get more profits from another country, they need to open the victims market, they need to be "Free" to do what they want, and they field is capitalism, that is where they move. they are the number 1 promoters of capitalism

[Aquamarine]

If they are the ruling elite of the capitalism system i am real sure they understands it's benefits... if not they will not be the ruling elite. lol

And they gain personal advantages not restricting it, but liberalizing it, couse if a multinational corporation want to get more profits from another country, they need to open the victims market, they need to be "Free" to do what they want, and they field is capitalism, that is where they move. they are the number 1 promoters of capitalism
If you think that the ruling elites must be smart about economics, look no further than communistic or fundamentalistic states.

And unfortunately capitalists have often been promoters of less capitalism, if this can reduce competition against their own business. Every company that is in trouble wants legal protection from competitors and state support.

And as usual, you present no evidence that capitalism is harmful and ignore the overwhelming evidence that shows that more capitalism in a country means less poverty.

[Burnsys]

If you think that the ruling elites must be smart about economics, look no further than communistic or fundamentalistic states.

And unfortunately capitalists have often been promoters of less capitalism, if this can reduce competition against their own business. Every company that is in trouble wants legal protection from competitors and state support.

And as usual, you present no evidence that capitalism is harmful and ignore the overwhelming evidence that shows that more capitalism in a country means less poverty.

Of Course they are smart about economics, at leats capitalist elite, i don't know about comunist or islamic elite. But great part of capitalist elite are bankers, and of course a banker know about economics, they mabe be promote less capitalism in countrys of the first world. but overhere they have no competition, couse they have bougth it all with loans from their banks..

Here 90% of the market is owned by 2 communications companies,, 1 french, 1 from italy, 1 Water service company from usa, 3 oil companies: 2 from usa, 1 from spain, 1 electric company from usa, 1 bank from every first world country, the rest which represent less than 20% is left to us.. the same happen with the food industry, electronic, mining, clothes, automovile, etc.... they bougth it all with loans.. they have no more competition here..
i don't say capitalism is harmfull, but "This Capitalism" USA is spreading in the world, by the use of brutal force, or by extorsion becouse of the debts, is not good.

[russ_watters]

Of Course they are smart about economics, at leats capitalist elite, i don't know about comunist or islamic elite. But great part of capitalist elite are bankers, and of course a banker know about economics, they mabe be promote less capitalism in countrys of the first world. but overhere they have no competition, couse they have bougth it all with loans from their banks. The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software, but that's about it: he seems genuinely confused about business and economics.

[Burnsys]

The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software, but that's about it: he seems genuinely confused about business and economics.

i don't think he is confused about bussines and economic. if not he wouldn't be the richest man in the world...

My point is that the richests men in the world... they are the one who shape the global busines and economics.. i don't know how to explain you...

They have corporations and companies all around the world, and they manage very large amounts of money, they control global busines and economics, the rest of us, have to adapt to them..

[Smurf]

The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software, but that's about it: he seems genuinely confused about business and economics.

The richest man in the world is Ingvar Kamprad, founder of IKEA.
Creator of Wal-Mart would be richer if he hadn't died recently (his grand children got almost $30 bill each)
Bill Gates graduated business school with top grades if my memory serves me, and uh, isn't he dead.

This site has a different opinon:

Forbes richest people (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnumberfield1%2C%2Bstringf ield2&resultsSortCategoryName=Rank&passKeyword=&category1=category&category2=category)

[Smurf]

The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking. ~J.K. Galbraith

[vanesch]

The US and western europe have now too little capitalism. All long-term projections shows that the current welfare state cannot be supported in the future.

I'm sorry but this sounds too much as an ideology that has to be supported at all costs. The "US has too little capitalism" sounds a bit like Stalin wasn't communist enough, that's why the soviet union didn't work out.

It seems to me, as I said, that die-hard capitalist proponents make tautological statements of the kind. If something works well somewhere, it is used as an argument in support of the ideology to be defended, and if it doesn't work out, then there wasn't enough of it.

The theoretical problems with capitalism are the following:
- the market system is a kind of weighted voting system, where the more money you have, the more your vote counts (because the more you can consume and hence send out market signals). As such, there is an instability that will converge to making the rich richer and the poor poorer, with a production that is optimised to satisfy the rich.
- most market analysis is based on steady-state solutions (no time dynamics). It is not because you have a steady-state solution that the time-dependent dynamics will evolve towards it (you can have dynamical instablities, especiall when there are delays).
- there is a positive feedback, in that the "choice of the consumer" is now in a large part determined by publicity, which is financed by the producers. So there aren't the two essential poles anymore that are supposed to keep eachother in balance: the producers determine demand, and they determine offer.
- because of economies of scale, there is a natural tendency to make big corporations. Normally this should be offset, from a certain size onward, by the increased overhead. But the problem is that big companies have two extra assets: first, they have more publicitary muscle and hence can change the demand at their wishes ; second, they start to be able to influence political power and can thus influence the rules of the game. So there is also a tendency towards quasi monopoly.

The two reasons why capitalism works, are much simpler: they are based upon a glorification of greed and the menace of poverty.

[Smurf]

Good post Vanesch, but the USSR wasn't communist, they didn't even call them selves communists but socialists, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And they weren't even very good at that.

To add to your list I think the combination of both Free Market and Free Press allows Corporations way too much control over [ultimatly the minds of] people.

[the number 42]

The United States has a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations

The Soviet Union has a moral obligation to spread Communist ideals in other nations

Palestine has a moral obligation to spread Islamic ideals in other nations

Hitler has a moral obligation to spread Nation Socialist ideals in other nations

Guardian readers have a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations

France has a moral obligation to spread Culinary Habits in other nations

Macdonalds has a moral obligation to spread Fast Food to other nations

Mrs Smith has a moral obligation to spread her Morally Upright views to her neighbours

etc

Ever helped an old lady across the road, then found out she didn't want to cross in the first place? Do unto others as THEY would have you do unto them.

[vanesch]

The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software


He doesn't !! :rofl:

[vanesch]

And unfortunately capitalists have often been promoters of less capitalism, if this can reduce competition against their own business.

You seem to start to understand the fundamental problem of capitalism. Consider this "promotion of less capitalism" as a market signal, coming from successful agents :rofl:

[Aquamarine]

I'm sorry but this sounds too much as an ideology that has to be supported at all costs. The "US has too little capitalism" sounds a bit like Stalin wasn't communist enough, that's why the soviet union didn't work out.

It seems to me, as I said, that die-hard capitalist proponents make tautological statements of the kind. If something works well somewhere, it is used as an argument in support of the ideology to be defended, and if it doesn't work out, then there wasn't enough of it.

The theoretical problems with capitalism are the following:
- the market system is a kind of weighted voting system, where the more money you have, the more your vote counts (because the more you can consume and hence send out market signals). As such, there is an instability that will converge to making the rich richer and the poor poorer, with a production that is optimised to satisfy the rich.
- most market analysis is based on steady-state solutions (no time dynamics). It is not because you have a steady-state solution that the time-dependent dynamics will evolve towards it (you can have dynamical instablities, especiall when there are delays).
- there is a positive feedback, in that the "choice of the consumer" is now in a large part determined by publicity, which is financed by the producers. So there aren't the two essential poles anymore that are supposed to keep eachother in balance: the producers determine demand, and they determine offer.
- because of economies of scale, there is a natural tendency to make big corporations. Normally this should be offset, from a certain size onward, by the increased overhead. But the problem is that big companies have two extra assets: first, they have more publicitary muscle and hence can change the demand at their wishes ; second, they start to be able to influence political power and can thus influence the rules of the game. So there is also a tendency towards quasi monopoly.

The two reasons why capitalism works, are much simpler: they are based upon a glorification of greed and the menace of poverty.
All empirically proven wrong. The more capitalism, the less poverty.

And since all people become richer in capitalism, then the corporations produce for all. There is not much money in luxury goods for the super-rich, most big corporations make money by products for the common people.

Redgarding the supposed influence of the corporations on politics, it seems to have failed miserably. Taxes and socialization of the economy have increased dramatically all through the 20th century.

Regarding advertisement:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Advertising.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BrandNames.html

And you seem to have no knowledge of theoretical economics. I suggest reading something by for example MIses.

[Aquamarine]

Of Course they are smart about economics, at leats capitalist elite, i don't know about comunist or islamic elite. But great part of capitalist elite are bankers, and of course a banker know about economics, they mabe be promote less capitalism in countrys of the first world. but overhere they have no competition, couse they have bougth it all with loans from their banks..

Here 90% of the market is owned by 2 communications companies,, 1 french, 1 from italy, 1 Water service company from usa, 3 oil companies: 2 from usa, 1 from spain, 1 electric company from usa, 1 bank from every first world country, the rest which represent less than 20% is left to us.. the same happen with the food industry, electronic, mining, clothes, automovile, etc.... they bougth it all with loans.. they have no more competition here..
i don't say capitalism is harmfull, but "This Capitalism" USA is spreading in the world, by the use of brutal force, or by extorsion becouse of the debts, is not good.
Don't again bring in the conspiracy by bankers. Most rich people are not bankers.

Many rich people of course have knowledge of how to make money in a particular field like software or furniture. This doesn't mean that they know much about macro economics.

Many political leaders, like Roosevelt, knows little about economics.

Again regarding Argentina, is has very little capitalism which is why it has in a remarkably short period of time moved from having living standard equal to that of western Europe to its present misery. If you wang to get rich again, stop blaming others for conspiracy and start going the way of Hong Kong.
http://cf.heritage.org/index2004test/country2.cfm?id=Argentina

[the number 42]

Again regarding Argentina, is has very little capitalism which is why it has in a remarkably short period of time moved from having living standard equal to that of western Europe to its present misery. If you wang to get rich again, stop blaming others for conspiracy and start going the way of Hong Kong.

If you think everyone else in the world wants to "get rich", you are mistaken. Try to get your mind around this notion: not everyone wants the things that YOU want. As for blaming others & conspiracy theories... now THAT'S rich.

[vanesch]

All empirically proven wrong. The more capitalism, the less poverty.

And since all people become richer in capitalism, then the corporations produce for all. There is not much money in luxury goods for the super-rich, most big corporations make money by products for the common people.

Redgarding the supposed influence of the corporations on politics, it seems to have failed miserably. Taxes and socialization of the economy have increased dramatically all through the 20th century.

Regarding advertisement:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Advertising.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BrandNames.html

And you seem to have no knowledge of theoretical economics. I suggest reading something by for example MIses.

Concerning my knowledge, it is true that I only had basic courses on micro and macro economics, like Byrns and Stone and Eaton and Eaton. It always looked pathetically simplistic to me, as compared to, say, classical mechanics.
The articles you cite are of a similar nature, concerning advertising.
But it doesn't adress the points I was making: that MOST of western economic activity serves to make useless junk, such as 3th generation mobile phones or reality TV shows. Such markets are totally created out of nothing by massive publicity, which, by itself, has been decided by the corporations making this stuff in the first place.
If you think that this is not true, I had a friend who worked in a society that did analysis on the efficiency of publicity, especially for Coca Cola. There is a very close correlation between the ads shown on TV and the consumption, with a delay of one or two days. Once they had a surprise: a peak in the sales data with no correlation in extra advertising. They quickly found out what it was: on a foreign TV chain (which is available), there was a football game and there was an ad for Coca Cola. It seems that the consumer is an almost mindless being, which consumes whatever ads he gets under his nose. The very fact that advertising is an important activity means that it works. The fact that it works, proves my point. What is scaring is the efficiency with which it works!

[Aquamarine]

But it doesn't adress the points I was making: that MOST of western economic activity serves to make useless junk, such as 3th generation mobile phones or reality TV shows. Such markets are totally created out of nothing by massive publicity, which, by itself, has been decided by the corporations making this stuff in the first place.
If you think that this is not true, I had a friend who worked in a society that did analysis on the efficiency of publicity, especially for Coca Cola. There is a very close correlation between the ads shown on TV and the consumption, with a delay of one or two days. Once they had a surprise: a peak in the sales data with no correlation in extra advertising. They quickly found out what it was: on a foreign TV chain (which is available), there was a football game and there was an ad for Coca Cola. It seems that the consumer is an almost mindless being, which consumes whatever ads he gets under his nose. The very fact that advertising is an important activity means that it works. The fact that it works, proves my point. What is scaring is the efficiency with which it works!
It seems that the anti-capitalists have now been forced to retreat to the second line of defense. :wink: That although capitalism reduces poverty and increases wealth, this is bad.

Who are you to decide what people should see on TV or what telephones they buy with their own money? This is the common socialistic idea that people are too stupid or too easily manipulated to decide for themselves. Instead, this must be decided by central planners. This is ignoring the fact that the people as whole has much greater processing power than a small group of dictators. There is simply no way that the planners can see and process as much data as when the people as a whole participate. ´

Please enlighten us on what goods freely choosen today is undesirable. TV shows that you dislike? Music that you dislike? Food that you dislike?

Regarding advertising, did you actually read the links in my previous post? Do you actually think that any amount of advertising can sell 286 computers for the same price att Pentium computers? Or could sell Doom 1 for the same price as Doom 3? Or could sell soft drinks with salt instead of suger?

Of course, advertising makes people try out new products. Why otherwise pay for it? But advertising for a bad product is money badly spent. Advertising works best for good products that otherwise would not be used and are used again.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092004I.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economics/freeenterpriseandentrepreneurship/advertising.html

[Smurf]

Aquamarine, what is the most capitalist country in the world right now? In your opinion?

[Astronuc]

And since all people become richer in capitalism, then the corporations produce for all.

That is the standard propaganda. In actuality, more Americans are living in poverty than when Bush took office.

Redgarding the supposed influence of the corporations on politics, it seems to have failed miserably.

Corporate contributions to Bush have paid off for many corportations - less regulation, less enforcement, more tax credits (if they pay taxes), corporate welfare.

Start with Graydon Carter's book, "What We've Lost".

Interesting parallels between Bush administration and those of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover (which lead to the Great Depression).

The US should start to see a decrease in standard of living and longevity within the next decade.

As for exporting democracy - would be nice if it were true - but the current administration is about manipulation and control - exporting democracy (true democracy) is unlikely.

Read Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century".

Of course there's always Fox News, The Cato Institute and the Washington Times.

[Smurf]

While your at it read anything by Noam Chomsky too and subscribe to adbusters.

[vanesch]

It seems that the anti-capitalists have now been forced to retreat to the second line of defense. :wink: That although capitalism reduces poverty and increases wealth, this is bad.


You're looking in too binary a way. I'm not an "anti-capitalist" if you understand by that an opposer of free market and trade, I said that from the beginning. I do believe that the free market and free trade creates a great deal of wealth and entertainment. What I'm arguing with is the ideology that the free market and trade ALL BY ITSELF solve all problems in the best way thinkable (this ideology is what is called capitalism). I'm arguing that state regulation in order to impose certain political goals a society might have is an option that is not necessarily a bad thing, EVEN if it leads to a lower GNP.
The ideal capitalist society has a state that has only one function: that is the protection of property and keeping public order, together with a justice department that solves quarrels among economic agents, and a very small amount of taxes is raised to do so. You don't even need politicians or elections or democracy for that. The function is so minimal that it doesn't matter who organizes it. All the rest is done by the market mechanism, and private initiative. No wellfare, public research, public health care. I'm telling you that I can imagine societies that don't want to live that way. An example of a political desire that cannot be realised is that poor people cannot send out any market signals anymore, so their needs are not taken into account. Society will allocate more ressources to make mobile phones, instead of solving their, much more basic problems.
I think that a certain amount of state regulation is needed, in order to impose a political view of society. And that is blasphemy in the ears of capitalists.

[vanesch]

Who are you to decide what people should see on TV or what telephones they buy with their own money? This is the common socialistic idea that people are too stupid or too easily manipulated to decide for themselves. Instead, this must be decided by central planners. This is ignoring the fact that the people as whole has much greater processing power than a small group of dictators. There is simply no way that the planners can see and process as much data as when the people as a whole participate. ´


Yes, yes, you know your courses very well ; I read those arguments too in my books :smile:
I'm not AGAINST telephones or Doom 27. I just wanted to illustrate that the allocation of ressources is not always in line with what one might like, politically. Maybe I'm the only one, but I find it ridiculous that a society allocates ressources to improve upon cellular phones, while there are people starving or dying of cold in winter. I don't want to impose that, but I COULD think that certain societies want to have as a political goal that one first tries to solve THAT problem and that one then thinks about mobile phones.
What I wanted to indicate was that that super processing power of all the people is biased by the amount of money they can spend.
Now I don't MIND allocating PART of what people would like to allocate to the fabricate mobile phones, if another part is allocated to solving the problem of the guy who's starving. That will of course make mobile phones slightly more expensive. What I'm describing here is TAXES and as such, some market regulation. I think that that can be a good thing.

[vanesch]

Regarding advertising, did you actually read the links in my previous post? Do you actually think that any amount of advertising can sell 286 computers for the same price att Pentium computers? Or could sell Doom 1 for the same price as Doom 3? Or could sell soft drinks with salt instead of suger?


There's a small scandal over here, right now: Danone sold (is still selling) a "miraculous energetic drink" called Actimel. I too bought lots of it, especially for my kid, even though it is quite expensive. Now it turns out that those tiny bottles contain... milk with some sugar. Even the marketing director of Danone is poking fun at people: "Ok, this was a well-thought campain, but even in my wildest dreams I didn't think I would sell so much ordinary milk at such incredible prices"

[vanesch]

That although capitalism reduces poverty and increases wealth, this is bad.


This is an honest question: does the following statistic exist somewhere:
A measure of the average living standard (depends on how you define it: say, the value spent on/by, for food, housing and health care) of the 5% poorest people in a nation ?

[Aquamarine]

Regarding if capitalism has reduced poverty and what capitalism is, see the first my first two posts here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

The most capitalistic nations today can be found here at Exhibit 1.2:
http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf
Also look at Exhibit 1.6-1.18 for some correlations of economic freedom, for example with life expectancy, child mortality, child labor, access to water and corruption.

Another graphic illustration of the importance of growth and the greatness of Pax Americana:
http://www.whc.ki.se/index.php

[Aquamarine]

Regarding the Bush administration, it has not been particularly capitalistic. Is has increased both military and non-military more than most. For a comparison to other recent presidents:
http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/bush/images/fig5-592x391.gif

Free trade:
You ran in 2000 as a “free trade president.” Since you took office, you’ve imposed tariffs on steel, shrimp, furniture, lumber, sugar, lingerie, wire, computer chips, catfish, cotton, textiles, clothing, and flowers, to name just a few. You also signed a $190 billion bill to reinstate the federal farm subsidies program, which was scheduled to be phased out. Are these the policies of a “free trade president?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127374,00.html

[vanesch]

The most capitalistic nations today can be found here at Exhibit 1.2:
http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf
Also look at Exhibit 1.6-1.18 for some correlations of economic freedom, for example with life expectancy, child mortality, child labor, access to water and corruption.


Thanks, that's interesting. So I'm perfectly well where I am actually, in the second percentile :smile: Indeed, except for income per capita, all the other parameters are ok. There's the biggest literacy :rofl:

The statistic that surprises me is that relative income of the 10% poorest people is completely independent of economic organisation. But it indicates that if you provide free health care, housing and schooling for all, that the poor don't suffer so much from their poor income situation, from the moment that you have a reasonably free economy (say above 6 in the document). But that's exactly what I was saying, no ? A reasonable economic organisation has a large part of free market in it. Honestly, above 6 or so, the differences are marginal, except for the average income per capita, which doesn't indicate much because you have to take care about the relative cost of living.

Now, one has to be careful with the results presented in what you showed, because *correlations* do not mean causal relationships per se.

[Aquamarine]

There's a small scandal over here, right now: Danone sold (is still selling) a "miraculous energetic drink" called Actimel. I too bought lots of it, especially for my kid, even though it is quite expensive. Now it turns out that those tiny bottles contain... milk with some sugar. Even the marketing director of Danone is poking fun at people: "Ok, this was a well-thought campain, but even in my wildest dreams I didn't think I would sell so much ordinary milk at such incredible prices"
If there was false information, it was fraud which should be punished by the state.

You're looking in too binary a way. I'm not an "anti-capitalist" if you understand by that an opposer of free market and trade, I said that from the beginning. I do believe that the free market and free trade creates a great deal of wealth and entertainment. What I'm arguing with is the ideology that the free market and trade ALL BY ITSELF solve all problems in the best way thinkable (this ideology is what is called capitalism). I'm arguing that state regulation in order to impose certain political goals a society might have is an option that is not necessarily a bad thing, EVEN if it leads to a lower GNP.
The ideal capitalist society has a state that has only one function: that is the protection of property and keeping public order, together with a justice department that solves quarrels among economic agents, and a very small amount of taxes is raised to do so. You don't even need politicians or elections or democracy for that. The function is so minimal that it doesn't matter who organizes it. All the rest is done by the market mechanism, and private initiative. No wellfare, public research, public health care. I'm telling you that I can imagine societies that don't want to live that way. An example of a political desire that cannot be realised is that poor people cannot send out any market signals anymore, so their needs are not taken into account. Society will allocate more ressources to make mobile phones, instead of solving their, much more basic problems.
I think that a certain amount of state regulation is needed, in order to impose a political view of society. And that is blasphemy in the ears of capitalists.
Interesting discussion. :smile: Actually, there are many necessary regulations that cannot easily be decided even in the most capitalistic society. For example, why should patents be protected 20 years and not 10 years? And why can one not patent a certain way to organize business or a new mathematical idea? The patent laws have been decided arbitrarily without evidence that the current way is the best.

And is not possible to know the best way by controlling all variables in experiments on the scale of societies. So to me it seems that the best way is social darwinism. That is, there should be many small societies that compete with somewhat different laws. That way, better laws will emerge through competition. I think that the primary reason that Europe and not China discovered capitalism was that there are more geographical barriers in Europe. This prevented a centralized state and allowed more competition between different systems of law.

Regarding the poor you are wrong. Since capitalism reduces poverty and raises income for all, then corporations will seek the favors of even those with the lowest income. Again, most money is not made from luxury goods to the super-rich but from goods to the common people.

Regarding if money should be taken from telephones to those starving in the third world, the more general question is if the capitalistic countries should provide more foreign aid. One basic problem is that people do not want to do that. If they wanted, they could already give more money to various aid organizations. There is no capitalistic conspiracy that prevents people from giving. Another problem is that foreign aid don't work:
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/302.html
http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy.html

[vanesch]

I think that the primary reason that Europe and not China discovered capitalism was that there are more geographical barriers in Europe. This prevented a centralized state and allowed more competition between different systems of law.


Your argument remains intact, but I thought that the discoverers of capitalism were the Mesopotamians (Babylon and all the city states around). They had banks, for instance (but probably no stock options). The Iraqis, say :smile:

[vanesch]

There's a point, though, that I'd like to discuss. The EU is pushing a far more capitalistic view of things than the US (I'm not talking about the countries making up the EU, but the European Commission).
As I said before, in general, this is not a bad thing. But there are points where I have the impression that it is more out of ideology than out of pragmatism. So, for instance, they are pushing to liberate completely the market for electricity and for railroads. Personally, I don't think that that's a good idea, because these are systems that work particularly well in continental Europe, and concerning railroads, the British did liberate it years ago, and their system is a mess as compared to the continental (government organized) one. Look at the German ICE or the French TGV, it is innovative, the prices are acceptable and the service is, if not perfect, quite good.
I would think that these are typical areas where it is maybe better to have state gouvernance, which can see on longer terms, make very big investments, use implementations that take into account social as well as economic factors.

[Aquamarine]

Thanks, that's interesting. So I'm perfectly well where I am actually, in the second percentile :smile: Indeed, except for income per capita, all the other parameters are ok. There's the biggest literacy :rofl:

The statistic that surprises me is that relative income of the 10% poorest people is completely independent of economic organisation. But it indicates that if you provide free health care, housing and schooling for all, that the poor don't suffer so much from their poor income situation, from the moment that you have a reasonably free economy (say above 6 in the document). But that's exactly what I was saying, no ? A reasonable economic organisation has a large part of free market in it. Honestly, above 6 or so, the differences are marginal, except for the average income per capita, which doesn't indicate much because you have to take care about the relative cost of living.

Now, one has to be careful with the results presented in what you showed, because *correlations* do not mean causal relationships per se.
I find it strange that anyone would not want to be in the most capitalistic group. Considering for example that the poorest 10% in that group have about double the income of the next group.

And the importance of a high income will probably just increase in the future, making inclusion in the first group even more important. For example, there is much research on the cause of aging. In the near future, there may be drugs that increases life expectancy significantly beyond our current biological limits. But they are likely to be very expensive as all new drugs thanks to increasing regulation.

It is true that correlations is not causality. You can find the evidence for that here. Many of those papers not linked can be found by searching for the title with google, on the hompages of the authors:
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html

[Aquamarine]

There's a point, though, that I'd like to discuss. The EU is pushing a far more capitalistic view of things than the US (I'm not talking about the countries making up the EU, but the European Commission).
As I said before, in general, this is not a bad thing. But there are points where I have the impression that it is more out of ideology than out of pragmatism. So, for instance, they are pushing to liberate completely the market for electricity and for railroads. Personally, I don't think that that's a good idea, because these are systems that work particularly well in continental Europe, and concerning railroads, the British did liberate it years ago, and their system is a mess as compared to the continental (government organized) one. Look at the German ICE or the French TGV, it is innovative, the prices are acceptable and the service is, if not perfect, quite good.
I would think that these are typical areas where it is maybe better to have state gouvernance, which can see on longer terms, make very big investments, use implementations that take into account social as well as economic factors.
Regarding the advantages of privatization in different areas:
http://www.rppi.org/privwatch.shtml

For example electricity or surface transportation:
http://www.rppi.org/electricity/
http://www.rppi.org/surfacetransportation/index.html

Or similarly from cato:
http://www.cato.org/research/regulatory-studies/index.html

[vanesch]

I find it strange that anyone would not want to be in the most capitalistic group. Considering for example that the poorest 10% in that group have about double the income of the next group.


The very fact that you find that strange means that maybe not everybody has the same mindset :smile:. That's ok.

I tried to explain why: it doesn't matter that they have lower absolute income, when their basic needs are provided for free. What's better: to earn $6000 a year, but to have to buy, as anyone else, health care, housing, food, schooling for the children, or to earn $3000, but have free health care, almost free housing (you pay a symbolic rent), you have to buy food, and schooling is free ?


In the near future, there may be drugs that increases life expectancy significantly beyond our current biological limits. But they are likely to be very expensive as all new drugs thanks to increasing regulation.


This is more an illustration of what I tried to point out all the time: that's only for people with money, right ? Is it better that, say, one third of the population can afford itself such products, or that there is a minimum health care for everybody ? Should you be able to prolongue your life while someone else, 4 streets further half your age, dies of the flu because he didn't get a shot against it ?

You might be of that opinion. In that case, you can push for YOUR nation to adopt such a scheme. But please, please, do not impose it on everybody (especially not with bombs) - which was the starting point of this discussion.

[Aquamarine]

I tried to explain why: it doesn't matter that they have lower absolute income, when their basic needs are provided for free. What's better: to earn $6000 a year, but to have to buy, as anyone else, health care, housing, food, schooling for the children, or to earn $3000, but have free health care, almost free housing (you pay a symbolic rent), you have to buy food, and schooling is free ?

This is more an illustration of what I tried to point out all the time: that's only for people with money, right ? Is it better that, say, one third of the population can afford itself such products, or that there is a minimum health care for everybody ? Should you be able to prolongue your life while someone else, 4 streets further half your age, dies of the flu because he didn't get a shot against it ?

You fail to see the importance of a high absolute gdp/capita. There is simply no way that a country with a low gdp/capita can provide good health care, even if everybody has the same income. If very expensive longevity drugs become available, only those countries with the highest gpd/capita will be able to afford them. And the higher gpd/capita in these countries, the more of the population can get them. It is not possible to give this to all if the gpd/capita is low enough.

And you are ignoring that the most capitalistic group score higher on all measures compared to the second group except the very close literacy. For example about 50% less infant mortality or corruption.

[vanesch]

And you are ignoring that the most capitalistic group score higher on all measures compared to the second group except the very close literacy. For example about 50% less infant mortality or corruption.

Yes, statistics are great. I was born in Belgium (number 18 on the list), which ranks much higher on the list than France (number 44), where I live now. Socially, life is, in general, better in France, honestly (but in fact, the difference isn't that important). I have way higher income, for instance, and better social security coverage. (I think that France will rise on the list, because the current gouvernment here is working towards it.)
But when you look at the list, you see that the top of the list are the West and some rich oil states. Most third world nations rank lower. So you shouldn't be surprised to find better statistics for that first group!
Now, is it because capitalism makes countries rich ? Or is it because rich countries tend to embrace capitalism ?

[Aquamarine]

Yes, statistics are great. I was born in Belgium (number 18 on the list), which ranks much higher on the list than France (number 44), where I live now. Socially, life is, in general, better in France, honestly (but in fact, the difference isn't that important). I have way higher income, for instance, and better social security coverage. (I think that France will rise on the list, because the current gouvernment here is working towards it.)
But when you look at the list, you see that the top of the list are the West and some rich oil states. Most third world nations rank lower. So you shouldn't be surprised to find better statistics for that first group!
Now, is it because capitalism makes countries rich ? Or is it because rich countries tend to embrace capitalism ?
I have already commented on this:
It is true that correlations is not causality. You can find the evidence for that here. Many of those papers not linked can be found by searching for the title with google, on the hompages of the authors:
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html

[Smurf]

Regarding if money should be taken from telephones to those starving in the third world, the more general question is if the capitalistic countries should provide more foreign aid. One basic problem is that people do not want to do that. If they wanted, they could already give more money to various aid organizations. There is no capitalistic conspiracy that prevents people from giving. Another problem is that foreign aid don't work:

It's not so much wether you should take money out of your telephones and put it into the third world so much as you should stop taking it out of the third world to put in your telephones.

[seeker03]

Hmm... it was mentioned in the beggining, but this is the topic for the November-December time period for the Lincoln Douglas Scholastic debate circuit and affirmative is getting OWNED MASSIVELY. ive workd on about 18 different possible arguements and neither of them work out as there are incredibely obvious counter-arguements that are powerfull in their simplicity. ive reached the same conclusion as the author in that it is impossible to have a vague hope of defending unless one defines democratic ideals in a more liberal sense to be a general set of acts or thought processes that the people have. (ie, listening to the voice of all the people+each individual counts)


If you define democratic ideals to mean that, it delivers simply based on the aforementioned Moral Imperative that we have a moral obligation to spread the word of this moral system where the voice of all is what matters.

[Canute]

Vanesch

You make some very good points. But I wonder if it is possible to have a sensible discussion about these issues. It seems to me that the American public are as misinformed as to the nature of the world outside the US as the Russian public were of of the world outside the USSR under Stalin.

I don't mean to offend anyone too much by this. All of us are at the mercy of our media and those who manipulate public information. But there seems to be a frightening lack of cynicism and political sophistication among US voters. It seems many still believe that the Iraq war was about 9/11. I wonder just how many Americans know why Bin Laden went to so much trouble, and why so many were prepared to lay down their lives, to bomb New York.

It also seems that the patently absurd idea of declaring a global war on terrorism is still seen as sensible. One supposes that the sudden increase in global terrorism that followed this declaration is seen as a coincidence. Personally I find the idea that nobody is allowed to fight for their freedom is ridiculous. I suppose if Robin Hood were alive the B52's would be over Sherwood Forest.

I recently heard a Russian who had fought in Afganistan talking about how he and other servicemen had been lied to by their government about the need for the war, his regret that it had ever been fought, and his embarrassment that he had accepted the bull**** at the time. Plus ca change.

Mind you, I'm ashamed to say that Britain went to war as well. Suddenly I gained great respect for the French. I never met one single person who thought, before it started, that we should go to war in Iraq, and I have never met one since. But we did it all the same. At least we have since publicly clarified that our PM lied and cheated to get his chance to make a name for himself (as everyone I know knew at the time). I like to think his career is as dead as Bush's should have been. But who knows, one person one vote democracy being what it is.

[Smurf]

Vanesch
I recently heard a Russian who had fought in Afganistan talking about how he and other servicemen had been lied to by their government about the need for the war, his regret that it had ever been fought, and his embarrassment that he had accepted the bull**** at the time. Plus ca change.

A but he was russian, and thus must've been subjected to communist propoganda about the 'evil capitalists' by the government run media. The west isn't like that at all.... right?

[vanesch]

At least we have since publicly clarified that our PM lied and cheated to get his chance to make a name for himself (as everyone I know knew at the time). I like to think his career is as dead as Bush's should have been. But who knows, one person one vote democracy being what it is.

Well, I'm probably very naive, but I didn't have *such* a bad impression of Blair. Do you think he knew and lied, or was he just tricked into it by the Bush administration ? I had the impression that he honestly thought that the Bush administration was right and just blindly followed. I do remember that he went completely against his public opinion (like the monster demonstrations proved).

[Smurf]

Are you not aware that Bush and Blair are still planning stuff together? Obviously if he was tricked into it he doesn't care and has his own agenda with Bush. I really got almost a worse opinion of Blair than I did Bush mainly because he's the epitimy of British Me-Tooism

[studentx]

Its a bit hypocrite to blame Blair for believing Saddam had WMD.

[Smurf]

why? Why is it hipocritical to blame Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain (England? UK? whichever it is), who is briefed by the MI5, one of the most capable intelligence agencies in the world, for going into war with no reason?

[russ_watters]

Personally I find the idea that nobody is allowed to fight for their freedom is ridiculous. Since when is Bin Laden fighting for his freedom?

[kat]

Since when were the men who were welcomed in our country, went to our schools worked for our businesses, given them same freedoms we have....fighting for freedom?

[vanesch]

Since when is Bin Laden fighting for his freedom?

Always that same mix-up! Nobody likes Bin Laden, and he's of the worst kind of terrorists. Any crack-down on him is probably welcomed by 99.9% of the world population. However, the general impression outside the US is that the "global war on terrorism" that followed, was a bit too general, say. In that people who, according to the dictionary, were "terrorists" were maybe involved in a slightly more complicated conflict than that such a black/white simplism allows for. And that some violent actions undertaken in that framework of "let's check the dictionary whether you're a good or a bad boy... ah, you're a bad boy: CABOOM" were maybe not the best way to tackle the problem posed by a very small minority of people such as Bin Laden. It misses, say, subtlety. :smile:

[Burnsys]

Since when is the people fighting in philipines. in ivory coast, in irak, afganistan, Colombia and chechenia fighting for bin laden??????

wait a minute... Bin laden and his ghostly sleppings cells all around the world getting ready to attack america becouse they hate freedom and the free people... Russss, i think you are beliving the wrong Conspiracy Theories.....
Couse if bin laden and his network of terrorist is not a conspiracy theory, of wich you don't have any proof...... then we are all free...

[LDthinker]

I would like to make the observation that the original post, the question at hand, refers specifically to democratic ideals, not democracy. But there is a connection - democracies are based on democratic ideals. I would like to know what a proper list of democratic ideals is.