Politics ad absurdam

[queequeger]

Jebus, UG, it's almost like you're writing poetry. Lot's of them there college words.

What do you say to a society that thinks that democracy isn't right for them? Maybe they're brainwashed, maybe they're ignorant of democracy, but how do you give them democracy? Do you treat them as children that don't know what's best for them? And most importantly, isn't this contrary to democracy in and of itself?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla View Post
Bruce is in the unhappy position of defending undemocracy from democracy.

No I'm not.
___________

Really? How then can your position possibly be mistaken for defending undemocracy from democracy, rather than truly characterized as this? You too are staggering under a heavy burden of proof.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Jebus, UG, it's almost like you're writing poetry. Lots of them there college words.

What do you say to a society that thinks that democracy isn't right for them? Maybe they're brainwashed, maybe they're ignorant of democracy, but how do you give them democracy? Do you treat them as children that don't know what's best for them? And most importantly, isn't this contrary to democracy in and of itself?

You take the anti-democrats out of the picture, of course; listening to those guys is like taking at face value an official opinion poll from a dictatorship. And you keep removing antidemocrats as they pop up -- Whack-A-Mole with pruning shears, if you like. This does not necessarily have to be done by external forces or American soldiery, either -- but that is no argument for never doing it with American soldiery. The international problems presented, aggravated, and fevered by social discontent and turbulence within the Gap and its undemocratic social orders are reduced by reducing the Gap -- bridging the gap in economic and societal connectivity between Gap nations and the developed economies of the global Core -- that is, developing social and trade connection and with it the size of the economies therein.

Higher economic expectations amounts to a demand for more options in life than a nondemocracy offers: economic liberty drags political liberty along with it, increasing both as they go. Play the cards right, and non-democracy becomes superseded by democracy -- though not infrequently, it needs a push to topple the ancien regime. Both wars between states and revolutions within them present possibilities this way. The revolutions may avoid being at all bloody, though I avoid pinning my hopes on that. Slow social revolutions waste fewer lives, but faster ones are paid for in blood.

A very big part of this (and very inexpensive for outside agencies) is educate the women. Educated women influence their society's intellectual lives and their men's mindsets. Distaff education is among the chief social lacks to be found in Gap nations, and it is notably prevalent there. Nations not in the Gap -- Old Core (the developed world) and New Core (China, India, Brazil -- nations strongly developing) nations -- don't have such an educational separation by gender.

Nobody not a fascist says no to democracy -- even the most isolated sort of foreigners have some notion of just what we've wrought with it, and like me, they understand that if they too were to enjoy it, they'd be in much better shape than they are now. The fascist objecters object primarily because they think they'll lose their license to pillage or to oppress and be reduced to living in cardboard boxes in rainy alleys. They are not thinking of the opportunities actually present, and how ethical transactions rather than pillage in the end make everyone much wealthier and living much more stably.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Really? How then can your position possibly be mistaken for defending undemocracy from democracy, rather than truly characterized as this? You too are staggering under a heavy burden of proof.

Mistaken because you can't understand you have no right to impose anything on a sovereign nation. You can reason with them, or offer incentives, but the ultimate choice is their's, not yours.

[DanaC]

Mistaken because you can't understand you have no right to impose anything on a sovereign nation

.......what not even if they are 'the most isolated sort of foreigners'?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Mistaken because you can't understand you have no right to impose anything on a sovereign nation. You can reason with them, or offer incentives, but the ultimate choice is theirs, not yours.

Are you hinting they have that right to impose, then -- and that we shouldn't? One of your errors is in expecting to reason with the current batch of "them," you know. Or you should.

If they claim that "right," it is hardly sensible to deny us the right of correcting their misapprehension by any persuasive means required. Nations' behavior is really more akin to street gangs than to teams of lawyers, and like street gangs, they have to lose a lot of power and motivation before they give up -- dead guys and destroyed headquarters. It is strange how you're ignoring this, or implying to me you never understood it. Thus I conclude your arguments are brummagem, your reasoning beyond specious. Why do you expect me to respect such as that?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't expect you to respect such as that. You have proven repeatedly you don't. Nor am I trying to change your mind.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I could respect a good idea out of you. I'd like to see some on this thread; you've done better elsewhere. I could respect an honest disagreement -- but I'm not seeing that out of you. I asked you a couple pages back why you think the way you do, and you immediately clammed up. I cannot respect that, and I suspect on consideration you cannot either. Nonetheless, you're the one who did it.

Somehow all this looks like a reaction to when I remarked you were on my side in the gun rights argument with Spexx. You told me you were not on my side at all; I replied you ought really to think more flexibly -- now we come to this thread where you seem determined to prove once and for all you're not on my side. Though mere contrarianism isn't reasoned argument, or deep thought.

You've spent the last couple of pages telling me how awful you think I am -- for being a partisan of democracy, of all things! I, by contrast, have continued to expatiate on how much better democracy is than other social orders, reinforcing my contention.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why can't you understand the debate was not democracy vs all the other choices?
What I am contrary to, is your insistence that you have the right to force your choice (our choice) on people of other nations.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

World War Two says I'm right, Bruce. You have no contrary evidence to adduce, let alone have anything near that weight.

What I am contrary to, is your insistence that you have the right to force your choice . . .

Then you had Goddamned well better be as hotly opposed to al-Quaeda's claim of that right also -- for their actions are in pursuit of exactly that, no? Perhaps you thought this goes without saying, but acknowledgement would clarify your position quite a bit. Lack of such acknowledgement, though, would make you look quite the fascist-symp jerk.

That'd be a pretty bad thing, if you aren't one.

You already know I regard isolationism as an impossibility, a nonstarter.

And at bottom, democracy versus all other choices is the core of the matter -- for the democracies live better than the anything-elses. The reason I can't understand this is because it would be incorrect so to understand the matter. Why you cannot see this, I do not know, and doubt you could explain, you being more than a little short on explanations for your life's philosophy. That's the record so far.

[queequeger]

Once again, it's a good thing we invaded Iraq to stop al-Qa'ida from imposing their will on us. They were so close before that. How can you possibly draw that connection after all that's been said?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Then you had Goddamned well better be as hotly opposed to al-Quaeda's claim of that right also -- for their actions are in pursuit of exactly that, no?

The part you keep missing is that before your people turned this into a war, it was a policing issue. Al Queda was/is pretty small potatoes, but giving fundamentalist Islam something to rally around is a big deal and that is what you fuckers have done. Instead of letting the fundies dry up and blow away you people gave them comfort. You attack our Constitution, destroy our position in the world, give aid to the enemies of humanity, and expect our support? That is madness.

[tw]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Once again, it's a good thing we invaded Iraq to stop al-Qa'ida from imposing their will on us. They were so close before that. How can you possibly draw that connection after all that's been said?

He is very good at rewriting history - complete with big words. You ought to see his manuscript for the Pentagon Papers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

World War Two says I'm right, Bruce. You have no contrary evidence to adduce, let alone have anything near that weight.

Ah yes, the Big One, WW II. That's when we geared up and kicked the ass of people trying to do, exactly what you want to do.

Then you had Goddamned well better be as hotly opposed to al-Quaeda's claim of that right also -- for their actions are in pursuit of exactly that, no?

For the upteenth time, NOBODY is allowed to impose their choice of government on another sovereign nation. BUT, Griff explained why al Q was not an issue, that required extending any effort outside of Afghanistan.

And at bottom, democracy versus all other choices is the core of the matter -- for the democracies live better than the anything-elses. The reason I can't understand this is because it would be incorrect so to understand the matter. Why you cannot see this, I do not know, and doubt you could explain, you being more than a little short on explanations for your life's philosophy. That's the record so far.

Yes, I think democracy is better choice. But that's my choice and others should have their choice.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And my point, for the umpteenth-plus-first time is that fascism and other autocracies do not come about through choices, but through deception and imposition. This is why your efforts to argue otherwise fall so flat.

Humans in general would run their own affairs. Some humans are of a mind to rule. Too much of the latter makes for fascism and other objectionableisms, and I've had enough of all of them. I've had enough of them since I was about nine years old -- and absolutely no one has nor has devised any convincing argument that I'm wrong about this. Not now, not in times past, and very likely not in the future. Sometimes you latch on to the right idea early in life.

Active opposition to nondemocracy will help to shrink the Gap. This is necessary. Some unwise people object to my endorsing this.