Is the U S shirking it’s duty to democracy ?

[Greatest I am]

Is the U S shirking it’s duty to democracy ?

 

If the U S does not exercise Police action in the East, is it shirking it’s duty to Democracy?

 

Like it or not, the Western forces, through the U N’s use of U S military might, along with it’s allies, and the World Bank, Police the world.

 

A speedy resolve to many of the relatively small wars around the globe could be ours, if we all just told the U S to just do it’s Job and go do the will of the revolutionary forces and take over.

 

With environmental change moving along at a brisk pace, we as peoples must impose peace more quickly in order to divert resources to life instead of death.

 

Clearly the people of the East are hesitantly showing that they wish to share, in Western culture. There are points of irritation, so to speak, between East and West but a rapprochement, on the big picture, is obvious.

 

We know that there are two ways to conquer a nation. Physical warfare or economic warfare. China, as well as other powerful economies, are presently putting economic pressures on the U S economy and therefore inhibiting the U S efforts to protect the revolutionary forces with police action, as opposed to, military, forces.

 

Democracy would be well served if these countries would ease up just a bit and allow the earth to benefit.

 

Let me be quick to tell my American friends that in no way do I intend or desire to denigrate U S actions to date. I ask the question more for a future, more simplistic time.

 

The question then should really be, Is the U S shirking it’s duty to democracy, by advocating an easing of pressure on the economic front, to facilitate an advance on the switch from military intervention, to a more police style intervention with military intervention, as required.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is the United States' duty to democracy indeed to take police action in other nations?

 

I think some may disagree.

 

Also, what kind of economic pressure do you refer to?

[farmboy]

Its duty to democracy? Has democracy asked it to do anything else?

[lemur]

I think you have to be cautious responding to global provocations for police action. Obviously there are economic benefits involved with luring lots of well-paid soldiers to your economy and letting them spend money. You wouldn't want people manufacturing 'crises in democracy' to manipulate the US or any other pro-democracy government into providing fiscal stimulus. That would be highly undemocratic to manipulate political-economy in such a way, wouldn't it?

[Stefan-CoA]

America is not the world police. This illusion that democracy is the greatest system out there along with the US being the greatest and only country able to enforce democracy through violence is quite damaging. In rich, well-fed and developed countries democracy may work, yet in the poorer countries I'm not so sure that it's the best system just yet.

 

What about the people in Africa?

 

Also, if the revolutionary forces are too weak to do anything by themselves, well then hasn't their revolution failed? Because all they end up saying is "Yeah! We beat the government, but only by calling on the greatest military might the world has known". It's like beating the class bully by calling your big-brother who's a champion boxer to do the job.

[lemur]

In rich, well-fed and developed countries democracy may work, yet in the poorer countries I'm not so sure that it's the best system just yet.

Is this a subtle way of saying that poor people should be enslaved to authoritarianism? If so, how are they supposed to become rich and well-fed enough for democracy to work for them? By pleasing their authoritarian masters?

[Stefan-CoA]

Is this a subtle way of saying that poor people should be enslaved to authoritarianism? If so, how are they supposed to become rich and well-fed enough for democracy to work for them? By pleasing their authoritarian masters?

 

I don't know what the best system would be. Maybe a type of benevolent/voluntary dictatorship? A temporary system wherein people's freedoms are somewhat restricted for x amount of time until the country reaches y set of criteria at which point the system is slowly abolished in search of a better one? I admit I may have a bias here because democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be in my country where the guy with the strongest tribal ties ends up winning.

 

I just think that some countries should possibly be allowed to come to democracy on their own at their own pace rather than forcing it upon them by way of smart-bomb and assault rifle.

[Marat]

The Ancients were right to regard democracy as the worst form of government. The vast majority of people have no understanding of the essential economic, sociological, and theoretical issues involved in governance, so they are simply not qualified to make intelligent choices at elections. In turn, political parties which don't represent the true economic and social interests of the majority of people exploit the general ignorance of the public and exacerbate it by running deliberately foolish campaigns which thematize a host of irrelevant and misleading issues. Further, the ruling elite of any society impresses an ideology on that society which is designed to sustain its own exploitative interests. Having an election every four years then becomes an empty ritual of the elite testing how well the general public has been conditioned to reproduce the ideology at the ballot box. Only a highly intelligent public could escape this cycle, but the public is anything but that.

 

So is democracy such a great form of government that democratic countries have a presumptive right to impose democracy on other states, especially if they happen to have extensive oil reserves and are now in a state of unrest, so that using the excuse of intervention to promote democracy also just happens to provide the U.S. with a spare oil colony or two? Of course not. Every historical era has its own general ideology to justify colonial interventions: In the early 19th century, it was to bring Christianity to the 'savages.' In the later 19th century, after that excuse came to be regarded as too vulgar, the new one was that colonialism was justified to 'civilize primitive peoples.' Now it is to spread democracy. It's amazing that so many people fall for this latest excuse, perhaps because they have not studied enough history to notice how the excuses keep changing to suit the present ideology.

 

This excuse is especially ironic since the U.S. has the weakest excuse for a democracy of any country which claims the title. Because there is little or no control on campaign contributions in the U.S., we have elections where money has a vote rather than people. We purport to have open elections driven by free speech, but the wealthy can purchase gigantic megaphones to drown out everyone else's voice. Perhaps someone should invade America.

[lemur]

I don't know what the best system would be. Maybe a type of benevolent/voluntary dictatorship? A temporary system wherein people's freedoms are somewhat restricted for x amount of time until the country reaches y set of criteria at which point the system is slowly abolished in search of a better one? I admit I may have a bias here because democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be in my country where the guy with the strongest tribal ties ends up winning.

 

I just think that some countries should possibly be allowed to come to democracy on their own at their own pace rather than forcing it upon them by way of smart-bomb and assault rifle.

I believe democracy is widely abused when people fail to voice dissent from elected representatives. Without dissent and critique of power, authority cannot be democratic even when it is selected through fair elections. Democracy is also undermined with dissent/critique is restricted by insisting that critics gain some sort of institutional status or approval before they may legitimately voice ideas and be heard. Obviously the goal of authoritarianism in any system is to achieve fear and resistance to dissent by any means.

 

Marat: the problem with non-democratic approaches is that not only is the government bad at governing but it also uses force and authority to suppress reasonable discussion of how to make things better.

Edited April 18, 2011 by lemur

[Athena]

Who here can name 10 principles of democracy? Until the majority can discuss democracy with an understanding of logos, reason and morals, I would say the US is shirking its democratic responsibility.

 

I want to add, democracy does not mean a lack of authority. A household with no authority is not going to be a pleasant household. The goal of democracy is not to eliminate authority but assure the best possible authority.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

Who here can name 10 principles of democracy? Until the majority can discuss democracy with an understanding of logos, reason and morals, I would say the US is shirking its democratic responsibility.

 

I want to add, democracy does not mean a lack of authority. A household with no authority is not going to be a pleasant household. The goal of democracy is not to eliminate authority but assure the best possible authority.

Then are you shirking your responsibility by not exhaustively listing and explaining these 10 principles for discussion? It's like you're trying to tease us with giving us all the information. If you want democracy, you have to explain it and perform it in as many venues as possible.

[Marat]

It is useful to clarify what people mean by 'democracy' in these discussions, since while it technically only refers to majority rule, it usually gains legitimacy by its assocation with constitutionally entrenched freedoms and other rights, the rule of law, non-corrupt governance, free markets, and Western values. But in fact, as the example of the Nazi's assumption of power through democratic processes under the Weimar Constitution shows, majority rule has no necessary link with what people often think of as its positive secondary features.

[lemur]

It is useful to clarify what people mean by 'democracy' in these discussions, since while it technically only refers to majority rule, it usually gains legitimacy by its assocation with constitutionally entrenched freedoms and other rights, the rule of law, non-corrupt governance, free markets, and Western values. But in fact, as the example of the Nazi's assumption of power through democratic processes under the Weimar Constitution shows, majority rule has no necessary link with what people often think of as its positive secondary features.

Equating democracy to "majority rule" is reductionist. I've explained it many times. It's not "majority rule" but "majority government" where the majority is represented in order to be held accountable to checks and balances such as supreme courts and other conditions and guidelines of governing. Majority "rule" can't be the ultimate basis for democracy because it involves the concept of authoritarian "rule." I.e. someone "rules" someone else without discussion and dissent. The reason classical republicans rejected royal sovereignty was that they believed people should be allowed to self-govern by their own reason. Democratic government was an institutional attempt to preserve institutional authority without it being one-sided and repressive of the freedom of individuals to self-govern within reason.

[Marat]

It seems you're just agreeing with the second half of my previous statement. 'Democracy' has many meanings, so when people use it, they often have different senses of the term in mind, and I was just suggesting that this discussion needs to indicate which one posters are using. The word technically in its Ancient Greek roots just means 'demos' = 'the people' + 'cracy' = 'rule.' or 'rule of the people,' as opposed to 'aristocracy' (rule by the best or most noble, the 'ariston'), 'plutocracy' (rule by the rich), 'ochlocracy' (rule by the few), etc. So strictly the term 'democracy,' without further specification, just means majority rule, though of course I agree with you that it has come to refer to many more things in combination, as I outline in the previous post. But which of these associated elements one attaches to 'democracy' makes a lot of difference. Thus some people insist that democracy means free markets, while others might hold that since free markets produce concentration of power in the hands of the few, they are anti-democratic.

 

Gadaffi had a form of what he claimed was radically pure democracy (outlined in his 'Green Book'), where power was generated from the people on up, by having small groups meet in local councils to discuss issues and make policy decisions, which were then fed to the central administration for enactment based on the majority will arising from all the councils together. Having the elected elites in a central legislature and executive set policy for the people was in the view of the 'Green Book' totally undemocratic, though now the Western world seems to assume that its own notion of democracy ought to be imposed on Libya's -- though the superiority of each system seems legitimately debatable.

[lemur]

It seems you're just agreeing with the second half of my previous statement. 'Democracy' has many meanings, so when people use it, they often have different senses of the term in mind, and I was just suggesting that this discussion needs to indicate which one posters are using. The word technically in its Ancient Greek roots just means 'demos' = 'the people' + 'cracy' = 'rule.' or 'rule of the people,' as opposed to 'aristocracy' (rule by the best or most noble, the 'ariston'), 'plutocracy' (rule by the rich), 'ochlocracy' (rule by the few), etc. So strictly the term 'democracy,' without further specification, just means majority rule, though of course I agree with you that it has come to refer to many more things in combination, as I outline in the previous post. But which of these associated elements one attaches to 'democracy' makes a lot of difference. Thus some people insist that democracy means free markets, while others might hold that since free markets produce concentration of power in the hands of the few, they are anti-democratic.

You're right that different meanings and emphasis of the idea get emphasized by different interests. That is caused by having a democratic discourse about what democracy is and should mean. You note the etymology of demos and cracy, but "the people" doesn't directly translate to mean "the majority of the people." That is actually a significant jump because it suddenly implies that certain people have more of a claim to define the will of "the people" than others. Another way to approach "the people" would be to assume consensus, but then you end up with consensus-seeking situations where people are manipulated and bought off to support the the will of a minority or non-total majority. Either way, I think both approaches are flawed because they assume that the people, the demos, has to behave as a unified entity in order to rule itself. There is no reason to assume this. It is just as logical that the demos can be fragmented and that the point of representative government generally, whether majoritarian or minoritarian would be to facilitate discussion and negotiation of conflicting views and interests. This could be done just as well by having a minoritarian government and a majoritarian opposition, but since representation and authority tends to evoke critique, it makes more sense to have majoritarians in the hot seat until their supporters have shifted to new (oppositional) ideologies, and then organize those into a majoritarian party to be represented and criticized in government. That way, every prerogative for leadership gets tried and tested in practice, and its flaws noted and reformed to either retain support or form new ideological platforms.

 

In the case of Gadaffi, I think the rebels can either form coherent oppositional ideologies and pursue these in terms of some kind of constitutional foundations OR they could form a majoritarian government as long as they allow minority opposition, including Gadaffi's regime supporters, to fairly voice criticisms. My only issue, if I was Gadaffi, would be that I owned a great deal of wealth personally and the new government could abuse its governmental power to take my wealth away. So, when you are dealing with people who are claiming to be for democracy but their main interest is taking wealth from those who have it, do you regard that as legitimate politics or piracy disguised in institutional formalism?

Edited April 19, 2011 by lemur

[Athena]

Then are you shirking your responsibility by not exhaustively listing and explaining these 10 principles for discussion? It's like you're trying to tease us with giving us all the information. If you want democracy, you have to explain it and perform it in as many venues as possible.

 

Excuse me, Socrates did not spoon feed anyone with information. He asked questions. Usually his questions were about raising self awareness. Democracy is an ideology of relationships. Before we rush into a war to defend democracy, what do we know of that ideology?

 

The US had education for democracy from around 1840 until 1958, when we replaced our liberal education with education for technology. Instead of transmitting our culture and preparing everyone for good moral judgment, we stopped transmitting our culture and left moral training to the church. How long would Christianity be a force in our lives, if churches stopped teaching from the bible and focused on math and the subjects chosen by the National Defense Department? Come on, if we do not learn of the ideology, we can not manifest it, and we sure as blazes can not create a democracy with weapons of war.

 

It seems you're just agreeing with the second half of my previous statement. 'Democracy' has many meanings, so when people use it, they often have different senses of the term in mind, and I was just suggesting that this discussion needs to indicate which one posters are using. The word technically in its Ancient Greek roots just means 'demos' = 'the people' + 'cracy' = 'rule.' or 'rule of the people,' as opposed to 'aristocracy' (rule by the best or most noble, the 'ariston'), 'plutocracy' (rule by the rich), 'ochlocracy' (rule by the few), etc. So strictly the term 'democracy,' without further specification, just means majority rule, though of course I agree with you that it has come to refer to many more things in combination, as I outline in the previous post. But which of these associated elements one attaches to 'democracy' makes a lot of difference. Thus some people insist that democracy means free markets, while others might hold that since free markets produce concentration of power in the hands of the few, they are anti-democratic.

 

Gadaffi had a form of what he claimed was radically pure democracy (outlined in his 'Green Book'), where power was generated from the people on up, by having small groups meet in local councils to discuss issues and make policy decisions, which were then fed to the central administration for enactment based on the majority will arising from all the councils together. Having the elected elites in a central legislature and executive set policy for the people was in the view of the 'Green Book' totally undemocratic, though now the Western world seems to assume that its own notion of democracy ought to be imposed on Libya's -- though the superiority of each system seems legitimately debatable.

 

It breaks my heart when people say democracy simply means rule by majority. But thank you for demonstrating the problem with replacing liberal education with education for technology. The original purpose of federal government mandated free public education was to make us a united and strong republic. We are no longer the united and strong republic we once were, and at a time when we have far greater capabilities for educating the masses, than ever before.

 

Try, democracy is rule by reason, and therefore, the best possible way to raise morality and the human potential. In a democracy is not people who rule, but reason that is suppose to rule. Hopefully the majority have the best reasoning, but without education for democracy that is not possible.

 

The Spirit of America was understood as morale, that high spirited feeling that comes from believing we doing the right thing. She stands with the Lady of Justice, who holds a scale as justice is balanced with compassion and wisdom. The lady of Justice also holds the Sword of Justice. The Spirit of America and Lady of Justice stand with the Statue of Liberty, who holds a book for literacy and a torch for the enlightenment that goes with being literate. Together they defend our democracy and protect those who stand for liberty and justice.

 

Our Declaration of Independence, could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility, as in the US, it was the individual citizen hold responsible for the institutions. However, this has changed, and the worst change was replacing our education with Germany's model of education for technology for industrial and military purpose. Now we fight angrily in the streets for the power of the majority, while our President stands almost alone speaking to us of the need for reason. How can he lead people who understand not our democracy? Our reality today is very sad.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

Excuse me, Socrates did not spoon feed anyone with information. He asked questions. Usually his questions were about raising self awareness. Democracy is an ideology of relationships.

Ok, so why don't you use the socratic method then?

 

Before we rush into a war to defend democracy, what do we know of that ideology?

War is no fun, but imo fear, apprehension, and avoidance of war has fostered the greatest anti-democratic (authoritarian) culture presently dominant in global culture. The deterrence and containment strategizing that took place following WWII with the cold war amounted to a relativist imperativism to place conflict-avoidance interests over consumation of political differences, because the nuclear threat made consummation unthinkable. Democracy is war by other means, so how can you have democracy when underlying conflicts and dissent are suppressed under a reign of fear for what conflict could potentially lead to if the stakes got high enough?

 

[keelanz]

Is the U S shirking it's duty to democracy ?

 

If the U S does not exercise Police action in the East, is it shirking it's duty to Democracy?

 

Like it or not, the Western forces, through the U N's use of U S military might, along with it's allies, and the World Bank, Police the world.

 

A speedy resolve to many of the relatively small wars around the globe could be ours, if we all just told the U S to just do it's Job and go do the will of the revolutionary forces and take over.

 

With environmental change moving along at a brisk pace, we as peoples must impose peace more quickly in order to divert resources to life instead of death.

 

Clearly the people of the East are hesitantly showing that they wish to share, in Western culture. There are points of irritation, so to speak, between East and West but a rapprochement, on the big picture, is obvious.

 

We know that there are two ways to conquer a nation. Physical warfare or economic warfare. China, as well as other powerful economies, are presently putting economic pressures on the U S economy and therefore inhibiting the U S efforts to protect the revolutionary forces with police action, as opposed to, military, forces.

 

Democracy would be well served if these countries would ease up just a bit and allow the earth to benefit.

 

Let me be quick to tell my American friends that in no way do I intend or desire to denigrate U S actions to date. I ask the question more for a future, more simplistic time.

 

The question then should really be, Is the U S shirking it's duty to democracy, by advocating an easing of pressure on the economic front, to facilitate an advance on the switch from military intervention, to a more police style intervention with military intervention, as required.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

America has ONE duty and thats to its people. democracy is worthless without a political platform & the general support of its population, america and us guys in europe will soon find out that you cant bomb democracy into a nation, mark my words

 

so sinister but true, look inward before you look outward its in the rule book.

 

& please china putting pressure on your economy? SERIOUSLY? was you never taught what slave labour is.... im genuinely upset

 

& its not the "east" you do realise how many countries are actually east of you right? we are dealing with revolutionary's in north africa and the middle east not the east per say

you'll find alot of these native cultures do less damage to the earth than us earth dwellers do in the west, infact were the negative to their positive. they dont eat certain meat, they live a natural existence, they dont cage animals for pleasure, enslave entire cultures or eat up all the earth resources as if it were a race......ahh man some peoples political views go straight over my head

[Athena]

Ok, so why don't you use the socratic method then?

 

 

War is no fun, but imo fear, apprehension, and avoidance of war has fostered the greatest anti-democratic (authoritarian) culture presently dominant in global culture. The deterrence and containment strategizing that took place following WWII with the cold war amounted to a relativist imperativism to place conflict-avoidance interests over consumation of political differences, because the nuclear threat made consummation unthinkable. Democracy is war by other means, so how can you have democracy when underlying conflicts and dissent are suppressed under a reign of fear for what conflict could potentially lead to if the stakes got high enough?

 

 

Wow, your first line is an attack on me. Know I do not read post that cause me to feel unpleasant.

 

America has ONE duty and thats to its people. democracy is worthless without a political platform & the general support of its population, america and us guys in europe will soon find out that you cant bomb democracy into a nation, mark my words

 

so sinister but true, look inward before you look outward its in the rule book.

 

& please china putting pressure on your economy? SERIOUSLY? was you never taught what slave labour is.... im genuinely upset

 

& its not the "east" you do realise how many countries are actually east of you right? we are dealing with revolutionary's in north africa and the middle east not the east per say

you'll find alot of these native cultures do less damage to the earth than us earth dwellers do in the west, infact were the negative to their positive. they dont eat certain meat, they live a natural existence, they dont cage animals for pleasure, enslave entire cultures or eat up all the earth resources as if it were a race......ahh man some peoples political views go straight over my head

 

The native Americans varied a lot, but we learned about democracy by observing them, and reading Greek and Roman classics. The countries of which you speak, Keelanz, have nothing like the bureaucracy above them that we do in the US. When we adopted the German bureaucratic model, we shifted power from the individual to the bureaucracy above us. There are benefits to this shift, but we are also paying a high price for these benefits, and the democracy we once were is becoming a forgotten memory.

 

The word Frank, as in the Franks who came to be known as Germans, could mean both free and spear. Our symbols of freedom and liberty hold a Sword of Justice. This speaks of a different kind of allegiance than what we have today. Today our allegiance is to the New World Order on which we depend for our jobs and everything else, and we have given up our personal sovereignty for the power of the beast. I think the people of which you speak, Keelanz, are innocent of the power of the beast, even if they live under a tyrant, because their tyrants have nothing like the power of the beast to control even the minutist aspects of their lives that we live under.

 

I am wondering if there is another way to get my point across? We have government on the city, county, state and federal levels. We can attend meetings on these different levels, where we can ask questions and state our opinions, and we can communicate with our representatives on all levels, but really how often do we do attend these meetings and make the communications? How much do we really participate the process of government? My point is, people are okay leaving the work of governing to someone else, so they are okay living under a tyrant, as long as they believe the tyrant is doing a good job of governing. But we have laws that so regulating our lives, that we have lost our sense of personal power, that those living under tyrants still enjoy. Our property is not our own to do with as we please, but every property decision is regulated, and we might as well spend a life time living in our parents home, considering what we have done to our government.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

Wow, your first line is an attack on me. Know I do not read post that cause me to feel unpleasant.

I apologize if you felt unpleasant reading my post. I hope you realize, though, that one of the big obstacles to democracy at present is the fact that people stick their fingers in their ears every time someone takes a position that disagrees with theirs. I don't expect you or anyone else to listen to something I have to say when I was using speech as a weapon of symbolic violence, but that's not what I was doing by mentioning the socratic method. You mentioned socrates and I was pointing out that what you were doing was different than socratic method and that if you would use socratic method, it would be more democratic imo. No personal attack intended - just commenting on the character of your post.

[Greatest I am]

Is the United States' duty to democracy indeed to take police action in other nations?

 

Yes.

I think some may disagree.

 

They have every right to be wrong.

 

Also, what kind of economic pressure do you refer to?

 

The two economies are presently fighting for world dominance.

 

http://www.cnn.com/v....12.19.cnn.html

 

Regards

DL

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes.

Why?

[Greatest I am]

I think you have to be cautious responding to global provocations for police action. Obviously there are economic benefits involved with luring lots of well-paid soldiers to your economy and letting them spend money. You wouldn't want people manufacturing 'crises in democracy' to manipulate the US or any other pro-democracy government into providing fiscal stimulus. That would be highly undemocratic to manipulate political-economy in such a way, wouldn't it?

 

 

You may have too many terms there that we would need to define.

 

In the case of what is at hand in the Middle East, Our moral duty is clearly to the revolutionary forces. We should initiate police actions and just take those few cities.

 

Democracy is crying out to us and to ignore it means that evil will grow.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

History, tradition opportunity and profit says so.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

America is not the world police.

 

Look again for the first time.

 

This illusion that democracy is the greatest system out there along with the US being the greatest and only country able to enforce democracy through violence is quite damaging.

 

I indicated all of the West. Do not distort please.

 

In rich, well-fed and developed countries democracy may work, yet in the poorer countries I'm not so sure that it's the best system just yet.

 

 

The more poor, the more draconian the system. As a general rule.

The Middle East has some exceptions to this.

 

 

What about the people in Africa?

 

What about them?

Are we talking about the damned Christians and the murder they foster?

 

Also, if the revolutionary forces are too weak to do anything by themselves, well then hasn't their revolution failed? Because all they end up saying is "Yeah! We beat the government, but only by calling on the greatest military might the world has known". It's like beating the class bully by calling your big-brother who's a champion boxer to do the job.

 

 

Or a wife who is tired of the beatings who calls the police. Or a daughter tired of the rapes.

 

Get over yourself, tough guy.

 

Regards

DL

[Athena]

I apologize if you felt unpleasant reading my post. I hope you realize, though, that one of the big obstacles to democracy at present is the fact that people stick their fingers in their ears every time someone takes a position that disagrees with theirs. I don't expect you or anyone else to listen to something I have to say when I was using speech as a weapon of symbolic violence, but that's not what I was doing by mentioning the socratic method. You mentioned socrates and I was pointing out that what you were doing was different than socratic method and that if you would use socratic method, it would be more democratic imo. No personal attack intended - just commenting on the character of your post.

 

If you stick to writing about the subject, without adding your opinion of me and attacking my character, I am sure the exchange of thoughts would go much better.

 

Next subject, should the US be a global police force?

 

Libya is Islamic. I am sure these religious people can manage evil without our interference.

 

I really like the original Star Trek shows and the rule against interfering. I also have some knowledge of our own bloody history. We survived our wars without help from a global police force. The colonies of north America separated from England, rather than pay the taxes for Britain to be a global police force. This is not to say I am not emotionally moved by the horrible news of killing around the world, but I don't think we should base our actions on our emotions.

 

What does the Koran say about the conflict and how it should be managed? Martin Luther believed God determined who ruled and who served those who rule, and considering Muslims believe they should base their government on the Koran, I think we should stay out of their conflict. Opposing the rule of England was considered an act against God by some, and who are we to disagree with the Muslims who believe all they need is the Koran? This is a religious conflict and I think we leave it to the Muslims to resolve. It is pretty egoistical to think we should determine what is best for them. Democracy is secular. It is not our place to interfere in Muslim affairs.

 

What we are doing to our own domestic needs, while tax payers support the Military, Industrial Complex or New World Order, is insane.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

I really like the original Star Trek shows and the rule against interfering.

Democracy is all about civil interference, as was Star Trek. If people didn't interact with each other, they would have absolute autonomy and maintaining absolute autonomy requires absolute power. You can't dictate autonomy with authoritarian repression. Democracy resists authoritarian repression, so it checks/balances autonomy with critical dialogue.