Autocracy v/s Democracy: - Political Forum

ArrackiFalconX10 · 03-29-2008, 01:40 AM

I've been looking at the issues regarding the U.S. and Korea episodes. The U.S., says the Kimi is a tyrant. Now, I've viewed the issues with a democracy also and the bottomless pit of the bureaucracy thereof.
The U.S., calls itself the the liberator, and note that maybe some Autocratic regimes can be brutal, however, what about those in which are good to it's people and would do almost anything for the protection of it's people? Is it fair that a country would sanction another country from trade and technology and growth because it wants the country to change its style of government?
I look at U.S., policy, and most states state that: "each are left to its own devices and has the right to determine the habit of it's institutions and government, in addition, states that no other state should interfere with it's policies". This has to be what the U.S., terms a double standard. How can a country ban another country from trade because such practices of Autocracy etc., and that it doesn't like it? I was taught that foreign policy and diplomacy was all about finding a compromise, but it seems that the U.S., is using a tactic of take it or leave it, or all or nothing. Now what if the Asian world allied and wanted to sanction the U.S., from trade etc., because it's a democracy? Why should another country be isolated because it is not democratic? Just because Kimi is a Tyrant doesn't mean that he doesn't like tea, or the proliferation of coffee beans, etc. Isn't this the common interest? But because Kimi doesn't want various agencies having decision making authority regarding the administration of the country in which the U.S., would only use to circumvent with the divide and rule tactic, does that make sanctions and isolation justifiable? I am in no way advocating human rights abuse or the tyrants whom engage in it etc. But help me to understand why the U.S., can always get away with enforcing standards itself does not apply or adhere to? Help me community see the light.
As proof to this stance, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7319954 where Defence Secretary Browne is using this same tactic, that if the Taleban doesn't implement a democratic government then they are (paraphrase) sanctioned. This is no different from putting a person in jail and stating that if you do not start singing the "Star Spangled Banner" then you can't come and go as you please or support yourself. Of course this is more deeper than a mere song, but if an Autocrat is suppose to be evil then what good is returning the same evil it is accused of? I mean, this is a clear double standard. This tactic is not rational. If trade in grain, beans, black oil, tea is suppose to be the most of important interest, why does the U.S., refuse to augment this commonality. The U.S., has stated that because you are not a Christian, you have no rights and cannot enter our courts or travel or talk with anyone etc. I'm just trying to find the silver lining if there is one, in addition, it just seems with the U.S., no matter what, you can't win.

Shiva_TD · 03-29-2008, 07:06 AM

Tyranny is tryanny regardless of the form of government imposing it.

ArrackiFalconX10 · 03-30-2008, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Tyranny is tryanny regardless of the form of government imposing it.

Thanks for your response and vote, in addition, is one King a King if there are 10 extra proclaimed Kings sharing the castle? If a country chose one to be it's absolute, this is the form of government it chose. Now don't get me wrong, I do not have anything against a democratic form of government, even it itself is bifurcated from a Republic in which is a Representative type of government, note that a Monarchy is based upon this same concept as the King and Queen the sole representative. Some nations love to have many safety nets to fall upon in which is the bureaucracy, some prefer it that way. But as for the U.S., being a liberator and the expert at foreign policy, & diplomacy, it's just hard to see why the U.S., can't seem to make concessions. What if Iraq and Iran would say, well, unless you convert to Islam then our oil is shut off to you. I have watched democracy's and they are or can be deceptive by using the divide and rule tactic especially when county's are wanting to place another in an official set it desires. If a room has to many doors, one cannot possibly be secure. There is an ole saying that in issues like this one cannot have to gods, for one will love one and hate the other. Talk to me Shiva, maybe you would love to live in a country where you could fall on other agencies when the governors administrations or your countys administrations can't come through or fails on you, but some solely depend on the means of their King or Lord, in addition, is that so wrong?

mikado · 03-30-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrackiFalconX10

I've been looking at the issues regarding the U.S. and Korea episodes. The U.S., says the Kimi is a tyrant. Now, I've viewed the issues with a democracy also and the bottomless pit of the bureaucracy thereof.
The U.S., calls itself the the liberator, and note that maybe some Autocratic regimes can be brutal, however, what about those in which are good to it's people and would do almost anything for the protection of it's people? Is it fair that a country would sanction another country from trade and technology and growth because it wants the country to change its style of government?
I look at U.S., policy, and most states state that: "each are left to its own devices and has the right to determine the habit of it's institutions and government, in addition, states that no other state should interfere with it's policies". This has to be what the U.S., terms a double standard. How can a country ban another country from trade because such practices of Autocracy etc., and that it doesn't like it?

The fundamental principle of Western democracy is that the government should represent the population. This is seen as a human right - that the government serves the people, rather than the other way around. So while states should ordinarily meddle in the affairs of another state, if the other state has a tyrannical government that does not represent the interests of its people then it's not double standards to act against that government.

Of course, in real life there's all sorts of double standards as governments seek to gain advantage over each other. So you see democratic governments backing tyrants, and vice versa, in order to achieve their woder goals.

Shiva_TD · 03-30-2008, 09:19 AM

What the "West" defines democracy as is fundamentally irrelevant when we compare it to the definition fo what a government should be as established in America in 1776. I will simply refer to these words penned by Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Simply stated, the role of government is to ensure the Rights and liberty of the People. That is governments fundamental responsibility. The form of government is irrelevant so long as this is its primary purpose and it fulfills that purpose. It is left to the People of a nation to determine which form of government is most likely to provide these protections. In the United States we selected a Republican form of government and in Monico they choose a Monarchy. Is either better than the other? That is for the People living under each government to decide and it is not up to other nations to make such a determination. If the People under any government determine that their government is destructive towards these end then they, and only they, have the right and duty to abolish it and replace it.

ArrackiFalconX10 · 03-30-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

What the "West" defines democracy as is fundamentally irrelevant when we compare it to the definition fo what a government should be as established in America in 1776. I will simply refer to these words penned by Thomas Jefferson

Simply stated, the role of government is to ensure the Rights and liberty of the People. That is governments fundamental responsibility. The form of government is irrelevant so long as this is its primary purpose and it fulfills that purpose. It is left to the People of a nation to determine which form of government is most likely to provide these protections. In the United States we selected a Republican form of government and in Monico they choose a Monarchy. Is either better than the other? That is for the People living under each government to decide and it is not up to other nations to make such a determination. If the People under any government determine that their government is destructive towards these end then they, and only they, have the right and duty to abolish it and replace it.

Shiva you perception and insight is bright and I adore your unbiased opinions. Rock & Roll. Mikado, I understand what you are saying. But Shiva does have a major point when it comes to sovereignty. As stated with the Monarch type of government, it truly is and can be a representative type of government, as Shiva stated, when the government no-longer practice what it set out, then that nation has the right to ab initio such social contract. What about the diversity factor? The world union working to the good of all citizens. My problem is the fact that the U.S., seems to use the terrorist tactic to shut governments out of development and innovation just because they can't overthrow someone who they can't control. I know this is a requisite in "driving" policy, however, a chess player doesn't rename the players because it fails to promulgate check mate. Just tell me, is isolating a country out or occupation; development; monetary means; etc., just..., just because a country is not termed democratic? The U.S., says that it intervenes because of human rights violations, such as what Saddam was accused of doing to it's people. But what about the people it captured and put them into sales with cameras, 24hr lighting, sleep deprivation, but yet these vestiges of a democratic government and supposedly anti-abuse is prohibited? But they did the same to the very people they were supposed to liberate. The captured were not Iraqi kings or Oil ministers. Also take into account separation of powers. Also remember U.S., abolished the defacto practice years ago. Shiva you are rollin stack on stack. Talk to me people..., are we a diverse system, or have we really gotten no-where in the discrimination theory. It appears the U.S., has yet created another species of the glass ceiling not against just women, but whomever they can't control and propagandize them as terrorist scaring the literal poop out of them, because people think they will be disturbed or attacked when they go to the pharmacy, the bank, the grocery store, the flower market etc. Big business and territory and the fight thereof is the problem. Malcom X stated, by any means necessary, but remember, he retracted the statement because he felt he was wrong in the perspective and context in which he made the statement. I need more tea with my snack as I eat my sugar roll, how about you? Talk to me people.

mikado · 03-31-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is a beautiful document, and it remains an inspiration today.

There are two keys points in it. Firstly, that humans have inalienable rights, which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Secondly, that governments only exist through the consent of those governed.

Yes, it's possible for a monarchy, dictatorship or oligarchy to have the consent of the people. But it can be hard to tell, if there's no representative process to determine what the people actually think. The 1776 example is a case in point - the British claimed that Parliament was representative of the Americans, but a majority of Americans thought otherwise.

So take an extreme example, like North Korea. The government does not appear to be representative of the people - there does not appear to be any kind of free representative process, and dissent is quashed. Further, the government of North Korea does not appear to be upholding the 2rights" of its citizens - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So be the standards of Western democratic thought, the North Korean government is at best undesirable and at worst illegitimate. So if we see the people of North Korea suffering ought we not, as decent human beings, do something to help them?

There's different views as to what can be done against a government one considers tyrannical. The DoI claims a "right of revolution" but does not advise on the right of foreign governments to intervene (one assumes that Jefferson had no objection to the French etc joining the War of Independence on the American side

) The UN Charter (I think) limits the behaviour of sovereign nations towards each other, and war is out unless there's a defined cause for it. But trade embargoes break no rules, I think. Does a nation have a right to be traded with?

Yes, of course there are double standards - even the DoI was written by a slave owner. No state is a nation of saints, and governments I think are even more cynical than ordinary citizens. Yes, the human rights issue is wrapped around issues of realpolitik (whether N Korea should have a nuclear programme; whether it should have links with Iran; etc) in order to get public support. Yes, we turn a blind eye to other governments just as bad (Saudi Arabia?) But just because the world's imperfect it doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and give up. I think it's still human decency to want to help other humans, despite the machinations of our governments. And if taking action like embargoes, or even invasion, help the oppressed (and that's a big "if" of course) then we should be prepared to consider it.

As for the relative worth of the USA, well my opinion is that if there had to be a world superpower then we could have ended up with much worse than the USA. Yes, the US government is guilty of cynicism and US soldiers have comitted crimes, but I can't think of any large power with a better record.

AzTeK · 03-31-2008, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikado

But trade embargoes break no rules, I think. Does a nation have a right to be traded with?

I'm sorry to derail this a tiny bit, but I need to say this. Trade embargoes, for whatever reason, pretty effectively undermine the basic right of people to their pursuit of happyness and sometimes even their right to life. Member countries of the WTO have the right to be trade-partners of other member countries of the WTO, and in essence, any arangement that restricts free trade between two WTO members goes against the whole idea of the WTO and is therefore basically illegal.

Cuba is a member of the WTO, which is one more reason for the immediate lift of the Cuban Embargo by the US. Iran is no member of the WTO, so this supposed "safeguard" does not apply to it I am afraid.

Shiva_TD · 03-31-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikado

The Declaration of Independence is a beautiful document, and it remains an inspiration today.

There are two keys points in it. Firstly, that humans have inalienable rights, which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Secondly, that governments only exist through the consent of those governed.

Yes, it's possible for a monarchy, dictatorship or oligarchy to have the consent of the people. But it can be hard to tell, if there's no representative process to determine what the people actually think. The 1776 example is a case in point - the British claimed that Parliament was representative of the Americans, but a majority of Americans thought otherwise.

The point remains that only those living under a government have the right to determine if that government is tyrannical and only they have the duty to overthrow it should they determine that tyranny is intolerable. No other people or nation has either the right or the duty.

The intervention by another nation violates this sovereign right of the People of that nation regardless of the intentions or results.

mikado · 03-31-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

The point remains that only those living under a government have the right to determine if that government is tyrannical and only they have the duty to overthrow it should they determine that tyranny is intolerable. No other people or nation has either the right or the duty.

The intervention by another nation violates this sovereign right of the People of that nation regardless of the intentions or results.

That's Alice in Wonderland logic. You're essentially saying that if there's a nation where the minority oppresses the majority then nobody external should intervene on behalf of that oppressed majority because to do so would violate the sovereign right of that majority. That's carte blanche for any repressive government to do whatever they like. "Gassing your Jews? Carry on, we wouldn't want to violate your sovereign rights..."

Again, a government is only legitimate (from the philosophical point of view arising from Natural Rights) if it represents the governed. It is only legitimate (to judge from the UN Charter) if it behaves with certain standards towards its own population.