USA's Moral Obligation to Spread Democracy: Thoughts?

[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 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 . 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. I've 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. I've 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.

 

[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 which 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.