9/11 is over, a new world emerges

[CaptainPanic]

In multiple Arab countries, it appears that Muslims want to have a democracy. Hardly anyone seems to cry for the Sharia, or for a Muslim-state. The pictures we see now are not of bearded men dressed in curtains, but of young men in jeans, wearing baseball caps. Women independently join protests, and apparently enjoy a freedom comparable to my country.

 

It also appears that our freedom-loving Western democracies support dictators, even when a population cries for democracy. The behaviour of all Western countries can at best be called opportunistic, supporting the dictators until their position becomes unstable, then quickly switching sides to the revolutionists (and making it appear they never did anything else).

 

9/11 is over. We are not the freedom loving oasis in the barbaric world. And the Muslims apparently aren't out to destroy us.

 

The above text is based on an opinion article in a mainstream Dutch newspaper, but not literally translated.

[Mr Skeptic]

Seems pretty accurate. Of course we do have some extremists who hate muslims and some muslim extremists who hate us.

[Danijel Gorupec]

I also agree... Only, I beleive, there is no guarantee that their voyage will end in democracy. I actually beleive that democracy is only born by chance - no guarantees at all... In my country we all hoped to make a democratic society, but we didn't make it (we still have no idea what went wrong).

 

(For fun, I like to make a parallel between democracy and intelligent life... There is no mechanism in evolution that will inevitably (or even likely) produce human-like inteligence. Human-like inteligence is created by pure chance - by series of non-connected mutations. However, once created it is able to sustain itself for some time. )

 

 

[lemur]

In multiple Arab countries, it appears that Muslims want to have a democracy. Hardly anyone seems to cry for the Sharia, or for a Muslim-state. The pictures we see now are not of bearded men dressed in curtains, but of young men in jeans, wearing baseball caps. Women independently join protests, and apparently enjoy a freedom comparable to my country.

The problem is that popular culture tends to simplify culture into dichotomies. Why can't there be both modern and fundamental forms of Islam present just the way there are different approaches to Christianity and other religions. I think the thing you keep seeing is the media and popular consciousness trying to reduce ethnic difference into simple all-encompasing image of a given category. In reality, the world is too complex to define even though it is full of people who are defining it in one way or another.

 

It also appears that our freedom-loving Western democracies support dictators, even when a population cries for democracy. The behaviour of all Western countries can at best be called opportunistic, supporting the dictators until their position becomes unstable, then quickly switching sides to the revolutionists (and making it appear they never did anything else).

I think it's good to support power but not uncritically. Whoever is in a position to exercise power must be respected for their power, but it's too easy to fall into an attitude of conflict-avoidance where you avoid engaging them democratically. I think western governments have a habit of doing this because of a common (probably sub-conscious) strategy of gaining power by tolerating difference until enough (economic/political) leverage can be gained to control them in some way. Although we preach democracy, we too often attempt to use it as a means of accruing leverage to control others in some way or degree.

 

9/11 is over. We are not the freedom loving oasis in the barbaric world. And the Muslims apparently aren't out to destroy us.

I'm not sure "we" ever were in unanimous sense, any more than "they" ever weren't. I don't think the war on terror was ever "us vs. them" at the national level. Otherwise the war would have been named in terms of national or religious opponents. Recall that while the media made the war on terror into a war on Muslims or a war on the nations where conflicts were concentrated, the government called it a war on terror and explicitly avoided making it about the ethno-nationality of the people involved. Bush said that anyone harboring terrorists was an enemy, etc. "Muslims" were never "out to destroy us." Terrorists were out to destroy freedom/democracy, or at least stimulate it to react in the direction of authoritarianism. Now would you say that authoritarianism is gone globally? Would you say that freedom and democracy are completely gone? If not, in what sense are they not still engaged in a continuing conflict and how is this latest news not reflective of that?

 

Seems pretty accurate. Of course we do have some extremists who hate muslims and some muslim extremists who hate us.

And some secular people who hate both Muslims and Christians, and some nationalists who care less about religion ethno-national solidarity and oppositions (even though they may be religious or secular).

 

 

I also agree... Only, I beleive, there is no guarantee that their voyage will end in democracy. I actually beleive that democracy is only born by chance - no guarantees at all... In my country we all hoped to make a democratic society, but we didn't make it (we still have no idea what went wrong).

It sounds like what went wrong is that people made too narrow a definition of democracy so they could define it as being absent. Isn't democracy always present to some degree, however repressed?

 

(For fun, I like to make a parallel between democracy and intelligent life... There is no mechanism in evolution that will inevitably (or even likely) produce human-like inteligence. Human-like inteligence is created by pure chance - by series of non-connected mutations. However, once created it is able to sustain itself for some time. )

I hope you also realize that authoritarian forms of ideology/power also evolved and sustains itself in various ways. It's not as if humans still dominate and submit to each other by whips and chains.

 

 

[Marat]

The problem is that history shows that revolutions typically proceed in two stages: First the old regime is replaced by a moderate system of government, and then that falls and extremists take over.

 

This happened in the French Revolution, when the first phase of the revolution wanted to preserve Louis XVI as a constitutional monarch, but then the second phase of the revolution, 'The Great Terror,' beheaded the monarch and thousands of other people, proclaiming a radical 'Republic of Virtue' which tore the country apart.

 

This occurred again in the Russian Revolution, when the first phase overturned the Tsar in 1917 and replaced him with the moderate, democratic government of Kerensky, which then fell to the radical government of Lenin.

 

This happened again in the Iranian Revolution, when the first phase overturned the Shah in 1979 and then replaced him with a moderate, democratic government under Shapur Bakhtiar, which then in turn fell and was replaced by the radical islamicist government under the Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

So once you let out the pent-up energy of a repressed people in a revolution, it usually propels the country to extremes that were unanticipated in the first phase of the uprising.

 

It is a profound mistake to make the automatic identification of 'democracy' with 'good government,' as many people seem to do. In fact, the Nazis took power in Weimar Germany via Parliamentary processes, getting the two thirds vote in the Reichstag required to suspend the entrenched rights of the Constitution for long enough to conduct the Holocaust. They were confirmed in power by a national plebiscite, winning 88% of the popular vote in an election which international observers felt was fair. There is no guarantee that what the majority want is also what is morally right.

 

The one thing that the popular majority of the Arab people everywhere most want is the end of the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel. If this happens, then for the first time in the last 30 years, major war will again be possible in the Middle East. America and other Western states have been criticized for their 'raison d'etat' in backing local dictators to get the foreign policy profile of the Middle East that they wanted, but would you rather have a fanatical mullatocracy if that is what the local population selects in a democratic election?

[Pangloss]

That's my concern as well. But I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. The world has changed, new technology, independent media, and a better understanding of what democracy means now exist in the Middle Eastern culture. Perhaps they'll get it right this time.

[D H]

French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Iranian Revolution

And Yogoslavia. We should be careful not to count our democratic chickens before they are hatched. We don't know yet if those eggs contain chickens or baby rodans.

[ydoaPs]

That's my concern as well. But I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. The world has changed, new technology, independent media, and a better understanding of what democracy means now exist in the Middle Eastern culture. Perhaps they'll get it right this time.

I think the internet itself might help keep the power in the people.

 

"While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth."-V for Vendetta

 

The internet provides a platform for the words that change nations. It provides a place for the people to organize. It provides information for the people. While before the internet these people only had rumors of what free democratic life was like, now they have direct access to the free people they aspire to be like. The people are crying out for freedom and democracy-the net might just help them keep it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The internet provides a platform for the words that change nations. It provides a place for the people to organize. It provides information for the people. While before the internet these people only had rumors of what free democratic life was like, now they have direct access to the free people they aspire to be like. The people are crying out for freedom and democracy-the net might just help them keep it.

 

It also provides a platform for propaganda, surveillance, and censorship. One must not assume that the Internet will automatically encourage good; wise governments can use it for nefarious purposes as well.

[lemur]

The problem is that history shows that revolutions typically proceed in two stages: First the old regime is replaced by a moderate system of government, and then that falls and extremists take over.

 

This happened in the French Revolution, when the first phase of the revolution wanted to preserve Louis XVI as a constitutional monarch, but then the second phase of the revolution, 'The Great Terror,' beheaded the monarch and thousands of other people, proclaiming a radical 'Republic of Virtue' which tore the country apart.

 

This occurred again in the Russian Revolution, when the first phase overturned the Tsar in 1917 and replaced him with the moderate, democratic government of Kerensky, which then fell to the radical government of Lenin.

 

This happened again in the Iranian Revolution, when the first phase overturned the Shah in 1979 and then replaced him with a moderate, democratic government under Shapur Bakhtiar, which then in turn fell and was replaced by the radical islamicist government under the Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

So once you let out the pent-up energy of a repressed people in a revolution, it usually propels the country to extremes that were unanticipated in the first phase of the uprising.

Have you considered the role that popular fear plays following the violent attack on a ruling individual or elite? After all, hegemonic culture is usually projected onto figurehead individuals, so when they are violently attacked or killed it sends a repressive message out that people should differentiate their culture from that of the "assassinee." But then as time passes, the repressed culture grows in a subterranean form and eventually gets expressed as backlash against the culture that the assassination/repression was attributed to. So while it was popular to hate Bush (and currently Obama), many of their ideas will re-emerge later once people are less afraid to be criticized for supporting them. I suspect the same will occur with Mubarak. It's probably not so much due to the popularity of the backlash as it is a backlash against the power of the rebellion, which of course has to be necessarily more powerful than the government it overtakes in order to overtake it at all.

 

It is a profound mistake to make the automatic identification of 'democracy' with 'good government,' as many people seem to do. In fact, the Nazis took power in Weimar Germany via Parliamentary processes, getting the two thirds vote in the Reichstag required to suspend the entrenched rights of the Constitution for long enough to conduct the Holocaust. They were confirmed in power by a national plebiscite, winning 88% of the popular vote in an election which international observers felt was fair. There is no guarantee that what the majority want is also what is morally right.

The mistaken identification is between democracy and majoritarian rule, as I've explained in other threads. It is clearly undemocratic to protect either the power of a minority or majority to dominate unilaterally. Democracy entails checking and balancing of power by other power (division/multiplicity of powers).

 

The one thing that the popular majority of the Arab people everywhere most want is the end of the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel. If this happens, then for the first time in the last 30 years, major war will again be possible in the Middle East. America and other Western states have been criticized for their 'raison d'etat' in backing local dictators to get the foreign policy profile of the Middle East that they wanted, but would you rather have a fanatical mullatocracy if that is what the local population selects in a democratic election?

Please make sure to analyze the ideologies and interest behind critiques, because they are designed to appear valid even while promoting a certain agenda. For example, EU critics often cite things like the gap between rich and poor and fervent religion as problems with America, but these criticisms presume that European-style social-economics and materialist secularism are ideal; and they are viewed as ideal because of aristocratic traditions that promote submission to authority in exchange for well-treatment (royalism). These same ideological interests seem to play out in global criticisms designed to undermine some ideologies while propagating others. Obviously it is well recognized that democracy/freedom/anti-terrorism ideology is widely propagated, but it is less common imo for reactionary ideologies to identify themselves clearly and submit to public critique as democracy tends to do.

Edited February 23, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

I find it interesting that the nearly universal statement made by Western democracies when Arab regimes strike back at domestic revolutionary forces is that such use of force by a country against its own citizens will not be tolerated and those using this force will be held to account. But does no one remember how many hundreds of thousands of Americans Abraham Lincoln killed to keep his regime in power against the revolution which confronted him in the Civil War? Was that act also unjustified?

[lemur]

I find it interesting that the nearly universal statement made by Western democracies when Arab regimes strike back at domestic revolutionary forces is that such use of force by a country against its own citizens will not be tolerated and those using this force will be held to account. But does no one remember how many hundreds of thousands of Americans Abraham Lincoln killed to keep his regime in power against the revolution which confronted him in the Civil War? Was that act also unjustified?

The US civil war involved, like any other war or orgy of violence, escalation of multilateral violence and I don't think you can attribute all that violence to any one individual. You never can, really, although it is popular to do so. Also, when you talk about something being "justified," are you asking whether it was justified in a universal moral sense or whether it was justified by one or more people? If so, whose justifications are you interested in and why?

[CaptainPanic]

The problem is that history shows that revolutions typically proceed in two stages: First the old regime is replaced by a moderate system of government, and then that falls and extremists take over.

 

This happened in the French Revolution, when the first phase of the revolution wanted to preserve Louis XVI as a constitutional monarch, but then the second phase of the revolution, 'The Great Terror,' beheaded the monarch and thousands of other people, proclaiming a radical 'Republic of Virtue' which tore the country apart.

 

This occurred again in the Russian Revolution, when the first phase overturned the Tsar in 1917 and replaced him with the moderate, democratic government of Kerensky, which then fell to the radical government of Lenin.

 

This happened again in the Iranian Revolution, when the first phase overturned the Shah in 1979 and then replaced him with a moderate, democratic government under Shapur Bakhtiar, which then in turn fell and was replaced by the radical islamicist government under the Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

So once you let out the pent-up energy of a repressed people in a revolution, it usually propels the country to extremes that were unanticipated in the first phase of the uprising.

We can assume that extremists will try. In fact, they probably are plotting already. But they are a minority. They always are a minority.

The main question is whether they can sell their message to the people and the military. If a majority of the people actually (initially) think that extremists will be a blessing, then it's too late. It might be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or another trick. Or the extremists might simply play the religious card.

The military however are a different story altogether. They might not be persuaded to obey a religious-extremist government. But without the support of the military, there will be no extremist government for very long. The extremists have the best chance to succeed if they have people in the military too.

 

It is a profound mistake to make the automatic identification of 'democracy' with 'good government,' as many people seem to do. In fact, the Nazis took power in Weimar Germany via Parliamentary processes, getting the two thirds vote in the Reichstag required to suspend the entrenched rights of the Constitution for long enough to conduct the Holocaust. They were confirmed in power by a national plebiscite, winning 88% of the popular vote in an election which international observers felt was fair. There is no guarantee that what the majority want is also what is morally right.

Absolutely true. Another example: Iran is a democracy, yet we all seem to think this is one of the worst governments in the world.

But the same is true to a lesser extent in almost every democracy.

 

Yet, as Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

Democracy is not necessarily a good government, but it seems to give the people the biggest chance on a fair government that the majority wants. It can still go wrong, but chances seem smaller than with a dictator or a military or religious government.

 

The one thing that the popular majority of the Arab people everywhere most want is the end of the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel.

And why is that?

Because the Israelis have behaves like a**holes? With the exception of a few years of peace-talks when Arafat was still alive, the Israelis have treated the Palestinians as a nuiscance rather than as neighbors. And I have a feeling that the Arab media will call the Palestinians "freedom fighters" rather than "terrorists".

 

I can certainly understand the sentiment. In fact, I partially share it. I think Israel should reconsider its behaviour, and perhaps back down.

 

I would oppose any military force though.

 

If this happens, then for the first time in the last 30 years, major war will again be possible in the Middle East. America and other Western states have been criticized for their 'raison d'etat' in backing local dictators to get the foreign policy profile of the Middle East that they wanted, but would you rather have a fanatical mullatocracy if that is what the local population selects in a democratic election?

It's a fundamental question that you ask... but also a very black-and-white one... as if there's no option in the middle (a moderately religious government which listens to reason).

 

anyway, let's go with the question: What's better: a country with free people that opposes you, or a country with a dictator who is your friend?

Note that we (the West) have about 100 years of history where we declare that Freedom is about the most important thing in the world... isn't is hypocritical then to support a dictator, just because it fits your ideal distribution of world power?

 

I therefore think that (even though it's very inconvenient, and might cause a readjustment of power) the democratically chosen religious governments are the preferred option. And I also believe that we must consider a dialogue with such countries.

 

Remember that it's not even certain that such a religious government is extremist or unreasonable. For example, many European countries have parties in their governments with a religious background... and the American president swears on the bible at the inauguration. It's religious, but not extremist.

[Mr Skeptic]

I therefore think that (even though it's very inconvenient, and might cause a readjustment of power) the democratically chosen religious governments are the preferred option.

 

But is that really freedom? If the government can tell you how to think, and the result is that you vote for them, isn't that just autocracy under a facade of democracy? We here have freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to congregate -- without these freedoms, I don't think we could truly have democracy. We could vote, sure, but probably not make an informed vote.

 

From my history class I recently learned that one of the things in the proposed constitutions for Latin American countries fighting for their independence was having Catholicism as the only allowed religion. And some countries throughout the world do have a state religion.

[lemur]

anyway, let's go with the question: What's better: a country with free people that opposes you, or a country with a dictator who is your friend?

Note that we (the West) have about 100 years of history where we declare that Freedom is about the most important thing in the world... isn't is hypocritical then to support a dictator, just because it fits your ideal distribution of world power?

Democracy is an approach to governmental repression that maximizes freedom by multiplying power and promoting the least violent, most constructive possible interactions between the conflicting powers. This is called "checking and balancing." The unilaterally free exercise of power gets repressed among all powers among the multiplicity precisely because each has to consider that it is not dealing with subjugated subjects but with other authorities with power to resist and challenge it.

 

Thus it is not democratic to EITHER seek an uncritically compliant friend OR support an enemy just because that enemy is popular among his/her supporters/constituents. The ONLY democratic approach to power is to check and balance other power by critically questioning, resisting, challenging, and otherwise obstructing it from autocracy. This can be done at any level from global to local by any authority vs. any other. Authoritarians hate this idea because they see conflict as inevitably destructive, thus their primary concern is to construct boundaries by which conflict can be relegated elsewhere so that (authoritarian) order can be established and maintained in the absence of conflict.

 

People who do not lack optimism for democracy don't mind conflicts because they see in them the possibility of pursuing constructive instead of destructive resolutions. Thus, I think the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism/territorialism may ultimately boil down to optimism or pessimism regarding the possibility of negotiating conflicts with constructive results.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

But is that really freedom? If the government can tell you how to think, and the result is that you vote for them, isn't that just autocracy under a facade of democracy? We here have freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to congregate -- without these freedoms, I don't think we could truly have democracy. We could vote, sure, but probably not make an informed vote.

Where does the assumption come from that ALL religious Islamic governments have to massively suppress all freedom?

 

And where does the black and white picture come from that ALL Western countries are really free? Are we really free? Is information really free? Do you really have a choice? From your optimistic view, I assume you live somewhere in Scandinavia, which (imho) is really one of the few beacons of freedom.

 

From my history class I recently learned that one of the things in the proposed constitutions for Latin American countries fighting for their independence was having Catholicism as the only allowed religion. And some countries throughout the world do have a state religion.

What's bad about having a state-religion? Sweden, a beacon of freedom had a state religion until 2000: the Church of Sweden, it was Lutheran! Nobody ever complained.

 

I think you're being unreasonably positive about the Western model, and unreasonably fearful of the possible Islamic democracies.

[Mr Skeptic]

What I'm saying is that you can't have real democracy without freedom to think. Voting is meaningless if you do not have the information needed to make an informed vote. Or if you are not allowed to vote in the way you think best (keep in mind that the "beloved" Mubarak won his elections with over 90% of the votes).

 

What's bad about having a state-religion? Sweden, a beacon of freedom had a state religion until 2000: the Church of Sweden, it was Lutheran! Nobody ever complained.

 

What's wrong is that it removes the freedom of a person to think for themselves, of which freedom of religion is just one aspect. Hence, almost no one gives a rat's ass that Sweden has a state church, but people get quite upset at states that don't have freedom of religion. Islamic law requires the execution of people who turn away from Islam, for example. Death to the heretics! Can you really have democracy if people can be executed for disagreeing with you? Thus I maintain that a people will be more free if religious and other freedoms are imposed on them than if they by majority vote outlaw freedom or dissent.

[lemur]

Islamic law requires the execution of people who turn away from Islam, for example. Death to the heretics! Can you really have democracy if people can be executed for disagreeing with you? Thus I maintain that a people will be more free if religious and other freedoms are imposed on them than if they by majority vote outlaw freedom or dissent.

Have you considered what would happen if people in the west claimed that laws against theft were derived from the ten commandments of the bible and therefore they were free to dissent? People would start stealing from each other and civil violence would erupt. You could even claim that the separation of church and state is prescribed in the bible, making it a religious instrument for ensuring the cultural dominance of religion by separating it into distinct institutions that are made to appear to be independent of each other. The reason I mention this is because it makes it easier to see how religious institutionality can co-exist with democratic discourse while people simultaneously avoid transgressing certain basic standards.

 

I'm sure no imam would assault you if you wanted to have a democratic discussion about some cultural aspect you two disagree on, but he would probably be concerned that you might be venturing into heresy the same way a police officer or judge might be concerned if you began discussing the illegality of some drugs or other crime. Just as westerners are strongly divided into those who support drug-control and those who use drugs in secret to get away with it, I'm sure that the Islamic world is similarly divided into those who commit all sorts of anti-Islamic activities in relative secrecy and those who would like to police and/or eliminate these behaviors for the good of the people. This is ultimately coming down to the issue of who has the right to govern whom on what basis and what the purpose of freedom and multiplicity of regimes is, I think.

Edited February 24, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

I would re-state in another form the question I posed above. Given that it is well within the rights of any state to resond to armed insurrection by using lethal force to put down those committing sedition, why do the Western states now cry out in a unifed chorus that Arab regimes defending their governments from domestic sedition must stop their violent suppression of the rebellion immediately or face criminal charges at the International Court of Justice at the Hague? These actions are as legal as the state using force to stop a bank robbery: they simply enforce the existing domestic law with the amount of force the legally constituted authority of the state considers appropriate. What Gadaffy in Libya is now doing by shooting at rebels in the streets is in principle no different than what Union forces did to the Confederate States during the American Civil War.

[Mr Skeptic]

Have you considered what would happen if people in the west claimed that laws against theft were derived from the ten commandments of the bible and therefore they were free to dissent?

 

They'd get laughed at, and then if they actually acted on that they'd be thrown in jail. Why? What did you think would happen?

 

Given that it is well within the rights of any state to resond to armed insurrection by using lethal force to put down those committing sedition, why do the Western states now cry out in a unifed chorus that Arab regimes defending their governments from domestic sedition must stop their violent suppression of the rebellion immediately or face criminal charges at the International Court of Justice at the Hague? These actions are as legal as the state using force to stop a bank robbery: they simply enforce the existing domestic law with the amount of force the legally constituted authority of the state considers appropriate.

 

We consider that government derives from the consent of the governed, and that it a right of the people to abolish their government and form a new one.

 

What Gadaffy in Libya is now doing by shooting at rebels in the streets is in principle no different than what Union forces did to the Confederate States during the American Civil War.

 

Oops.

[lemur]

I would re-state in another form the question I posed above. Given that it is well within the rights of any state to resond to armed insurrection by using lethal force to put down those committing sedition, why do the Western states now cry out in a unifed chorus that Arab regimes defending their governments from domestic sedition must stop their violent suppression of the rebellion immediately or face criminal charges at the International Court of Justice at the Hague? These actions are as legal as the state using force to stop a bank robbery: they simply enforce the existing domestic law with the amount of force the legally constituted authority of the state considers appropriate. What Gadaffy in Libya is now doing by shooting at rebels in the streets is in principle no different than what Union forces did to the Confederate States during the American Civil War.

Use of force is never supposed to exceed the minimum necessary for pursuing reasonable goals. I'm sure you can find examples of excessive force being used by either army during the US civil war. I have heard that many times more union soldier were killed by confederates than the reverse, and this strikes me as particularly interesting in light of the amount of European-US migration that was taking place during that time and the fact that joining the union military would have been a good way to establish oneself as a citizen. What would you say if it turned out the civil war was a conspiracy to reduce the growing migrant population? Would you blame the confederacy as the executioners or the union for recruiting and sending people to their deaths? Why couldn't you say the same thing about these current insurrections and their repressive reception? What if it were the case that some people were inciting people to mobilize in the streets so that government forces can engage in population-reductions? Would you still call this the same thing as using force to stop a bank robbery? Yes, I agree it is difficult to police a civil war in which either side could abuse power against the other in many ways, and in which individuality is being repressed by the threat of vulnerability if you don't take sides with some faction or other. But in principle it is illegitimate for anyone involved to be abusing power and using excessive force to achieve illegitimate goals. The question is what do you to get the situation under control with the least possible amount of violence?

 

 

They'd get laughed at, and then if they actually acted on that they'd be thrown in jail. Why? What did you think would happen?

Right, my point being that the government doesn't tolerate dissent from religious values when those values have been institutionalized as secular.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Right, my point being that the government doesn't tolerate dissent from religious values when those values have been institutionalized as secular.

 

Religion has some secular values. I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Marat]

Every country has its own legal rules governing the acceptable use of force to be used in the legitimate suppression of crime. In Texas you can shoot someone trying to steal property, but in Germany even the police can only shoot someone in the leg to prevent serious bodily injury or murder being committed. So principles of comity among nations require us to recognize that each nation is entitled to its own rules about the use of public force to suppress crime. Now applying that principle to Libya's shooting of rebels committing sedition in the midst of an armed revolution, it is not clear that that represents any violation of international or domestic law. Killing people who are trying to topple the state seems more like legitimate self-defense of a regime, whether it be the Union in 1861 or the Libyan state authority in 2011.

 

So why is everyone talking about armed military intervention in Libya to stop the unjust use of force by the government or trying the Libyan regime for crimes before an international court?

[lemur]

Religion has some secular values. I'm not seeing the problem here.

It was related to the idea that religion-based government is a problem. Some people view Islamic governance as a problem because they think Christian/secular governments are less religion-based. I gave the example of theft as a secular law that is actually a religious law. Either way, you're getting punished for violating one of the ten commandments.

 

 

Every country has its own legal rules governing the acceptable use of force to be used in the legitimate suppression of crime. In Texas you can shoot someone trying to steal property, but in Germany even the police can only shoot someone in the leg to prevent serious bodily injury or murder being committed. So principles of comity among nations require us to recognize that each nation is entitled to its own rules about the use of public force to suppress crime.

This is a false assumption. There is nothing stopping the German government from declaring the Texas government unethical for allowing private shootings in defense of property. If it wanted, the German government could make it illegal to criticize or otherwise comment on the laws, policies, or actions of foreign governments, but that doesn't mean that other governments would have to follow suit. Ultimately it is the prerogative of each individual to choose to recognize cultural relativism, universalism, and in what way. Whether you want to or not, it's simply not possible to make two or more people totally conform to the same cultural values, morals, norms, etc.

 

Now applying that principle to Libya's shooting of rebels committing sedition in the midst of an armed revolution, it is not clear that that represents any violation of international or domestic law. Killing people who are trying to topple the state seems more like legitimate self-defense of a regime, whether it be the Union in 1861 or the Libyan state authority in 2011.

See, you have the freedom to hold this view and express solidarity with the violence you're condoning. I wouldn't condone more than minimum use of violence possible to establish civil democratic discourse instead of violent domination by force to express political will.

 

So why is everyone talking about armed military intervention in Libya to stop the unjust use of force by the government or trying the Libyan regime for crimes before an international court?

Because there is supposedly armed violence taking place. The issue is whether all the criticism expressed about US unilateralism and disrespect of national sovereignty will be sufficient to prevent anyone from intervening "across national borders." People always seem to forget that respecting the sovereignty of a national authority the same thing as deference and acceptance of whatever is going on in that jurisdiction. When whatever happens as a result of non-intervention could have been prevented by someone with the power to intervene, the question arises why that power to intervene wasn't exercised? If the only reason is deference to national autonomy/sovereignty, I don't see the ethical legitimacy. Why is it more important to respect your neighbors right to privacy while beating up her husband than it is to respect his right not to be beaten up?

 

The problem is that people sometimes figure out that they can commit some violence or otherwise solicit intervention as a means to get economic help. If you thought that attracting global attention to you by enacting a social disaster could make you money, facilitate an exodus by means of political asylum for refugees, etc. you might instigate such a social disaster for this purpose. This is like when a person sets their house on fire to collect on the insurance. I don't know if there's any way to prove conclusively whether a social disaster was instigated intentionally for such a purpose or occurred spontaneously, though. Still, whatever humanitarian response comes as a result will provide that much more impetus for for the next social engineer who wants to instigate such a disaster.

Edited February 26, 2011 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

It was related to the idea that religion-based government is a problem. Some people view Islamic governance as a problem because they think Christian/secular governments are less religion-based. I gave the example of theft as a secular law that is actually a religious law. Either way, you're getting punished for violating one of the ten commandments.

 

Nope. Theft is a secular law that is also enshrined in most religions. But you can tell it is secular because there is no god.

"Don't steal" -- secular.

"Don't steal from the house of God" -- religious.

"Don't steal or god will punish you" -- religious.

"Don't steal or the government will punish you" -- secular.

 

Anything not involving god is secular by definition.