Relief by Force?

[CDarwin]

It also shows us that foreign nations have a relatively unsuccessful time of replacing authoritarian regimes for democratic ones.

 

I believe that democracy has to be an "organic" internal change. We can cripple 'evil' regimes, but a new one tends to crop up in its place. And, despite as much as we like occupying countries, we can't afford to have 2 Iraqs... no matter how bad the Myanmar or any other government seems to be.

 

Democracy evolved organically in Western Europe. It also took a thousand years. I'm not sure it can truly make a repeat performance in any country outside of that cultural context without some level of imposition and without showing some cracks and needing some particular maintenance. In Turkey that means a liberal but coup-happy army. In much of the world it involves a lot of corruption.

 

The imposition comes generally from the global order which is predominantly Western, capitalist, and democratic. That doesn't mean that every nation can be a perfect Western capitalist democracy without some cultural accommodation first, though.

 

I don't know that I'm really arguing with you here with either of these comments. I'm just thinking aloud here. Or rather in type.

 

You can make your citizens dependent on you, but if you can't support them, then the regime isn't going to stay in power, right?

 

Right, then a regime can't carry out the one thing that keeps it in power and fails. But consider how long Cuba's hung around without significant outside funding. I'm not talking about during the Cold War, then they got boatloads (literally, haha) of Soviet money. I'm talking about the 18 years since the tap went dry. That's a long time for a country people are braving an ocean on shipping palettes to get away from.

 

Talking about armament was a good point. Sometimes people don't need to be economically empowered; plain old military empowerment will do. You see that a lot in history and I would absolutely agree its an important factor in the development of more participatory systems of government.

 

Obviously I'm generalizing. Sometimes governments are just incompetent and lose power that way, and sometimes it will be to a group that brings about a democracy. You might consider what I'm talking about an ideal regime.

[ecoli]

The imposition comes generally from the global order which is predominantly Western, capitalist, and democratic. That doesn't mean that every nation can be a perfect Western capitalist democracy without some cultural accommodation first, though.

I wonder, though, how much European colonialism contributed to the progression of one authoritarian regime after another.

America got lucky because of England's "hands off" approach towards the 13 colonies after it's own Cromwell revolution. But, how much did 18th and 19th centure imperialism stop the "natural" progression of authoritarian/monarchic state to democratization?

 

I don't believe this could have happened without free access to some sort of weapons... but didn't western imperialism discourage this restricted access in the first place?

 

I guess I'm trying to ask, how could a problem caused by meddling in the first place be solved with more 'meddling'? Sure, we think our intentions are good, but how many negative downstream affects could come out of trying to tackle authoritarian regimes?

 

I see the same problem with the 'war of terror.'

 

I don't know that I'm really arguing with you hear with either of these comments. I'm just thinking aloud here. Or rather in type.

Yup... no argument really, just discussion.

 

Right, then a regime can't carry out the one thing that keeps it in power and fails. But consider how long Cuba's hung around without significant outside funding.

You forgot about the large market in the US for illegal cigars!

 

 

Obviously I'm generalizing. Sometimes governments are just incompetent and lose power that way, and sometimes it will be to a group that brings about a democracy. You might consider what I'm talking about an ideal regime.

But democracy is a loose term. Hitler ascended to power in a democracy, but his regime was really anything but.

 

We see a similar 'problem' in some middle eastern democracies where they 'elect' the same authoritarian scum that have been oppressing them all along. (I use quotes because of the various degrees of choice in the matter)

[Pangloss]

I did not say that 'timescales' are irrelevant. I said that i wasn't asking about timescales from the UN, i was asking what action the UN was taking at all. You are the one who starting trying to confuse the issue.

 

Really? Let's see:

 

i certainly don't think the worlds problems can be solved by suppertime

 

Unfortunately' date=' history shows us that it takes a very long time for authoritarian regimes to 'run out' of people to exploit.

[/quote']

 

Sure sounds like a plea for faster action to me.

 

 

Instead of providing such information, you have choosen to insult my motivations and intellectual integrity, actions which i believe reflect on you more than upon me.

 

You're certainly welcome to think so. But as for your question (which I've already answered), this is an issue of interpretation, not evidence -- we're looking at the same evidence, just coming to a different conclusion. I'm saying that the UN has contributed to the global effort to eliminate authoritarianism by laying the groundwork and providing tools for international debate, humanitarian effort, monitoring, resource distribution, and so forth.

 

You don't think so? Good on you.

[Aardvark]

Really? Let's see:

 

Sure sounds like a plea for faster action to me.

 

You continue to misunderstand my quite clear points. I asked you if the UN was part of the solution to confronting authoritarian regimes at all. You responded by talking about timescales, a complete irrelevance to my question. I was not making any comment at all on the speed of UN action, i was querying if there was any UN action. I presume that you can understand the distinction but are continuing to obfusicate for your own purposes.

 

 

You're certainly welcome to think so.

 

Again, how kind of you to allow me the right to my own opinion.

 

 

But as for your question (which I've already answered),

 

Actually, you haven't bothered to answer my question. I asked what action the UN has taken that has confronted authoritarianism and promoted liberty. You haven't given any answer.

 

this is an issue of interpretation, not evidence -- we're looking at the same evidence, just coming to a different conclusion.

 

You say you are looking at the evidence, yet when i repeatedly ask you what this evidence is, when i repeatedly state that i would be happy to reexamine my opinions on this matter in the light of evidence of UN action, you provide none. You simply repeat your unsubstantiated assertions that the UN is acting to confront authoritarianism.

 

 

I'm saying that the UN has contributed to the global effort to eliminate authoritarianism by laying the groundwork and providing tools for international debate, humanitarian effort, monitoring, resource distribution, and so forth.

 

I'm asking how the UN has done anything to confront authoritarianism. As a debating chamber, it generally is quiet concerning authoritarian regimes. There are loud denouncations of such evils as Zionism, but silence about Zimbabwe. During this crisis in Burma, loud voices from France, USA, Britain, from the UN almost silence.

 

So, where is this evidence of confronting authoritarianism?

 

You don't think so? Good on you.

 

Indeed.

[Pangloss]

You haven't answered my question of what's the purpose of bringing up such "evidence", if we're only going to disagree on what it means.

 

You also haven't acknowledged that opinions do not require evidence. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Opinions are allowed here, whether you like it or not.

 

And you're thanking me for the wrong thing. I'm not giving you permission to post your opinion, I'm acknowledging your point of view. And you're welcome.

[YT2095]

could stuff be parachute dropped in? or maybe left at a border in an area they trust?

 

a bit like leaving a care package at the door off a recluse, ringing the doorbell and running off.