Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:31 am    Post subject: Should we be spreading democracy? Reply with quote

I was just thinking about this.
Clearly it would only work when we are more powerful. Is democracy always a good thing?
You have countries like China which have become more advanced than India by not being democratic, but my thoughts were more about how democracy changes the social order and destablizes what was working in some cases (ie in Iraq a minoirty used to run the country, as in Rwanda (back and forth of course) and as still happens in Burundi and Sudan).
I am not convienced that we should be spreading it by anything besides example.
Not to mention all the Arab countires whose people hate us and leaders are friendly to us.
So what do you all think?
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

China has only grown because America a Constitution Republic which is officially considered as a democracy according to the UN has propped them up, as a result the free market has taken over socialism, well almost the government itself rules with outright Communist style totalitarianism. China without the United States would still be a back water nation had it not been for foreign investments.
Luke-fu





Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9
Location: York

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When you study politics, you will find interesting anomalies.

First, no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.
Second, no two countries that contain McDonald's franchises have ever gone to war with each other.

Before you ask, no I don't know how this applies to Israel and Palestine.

Democracy eventually creates stability. I say eventually, because in the first 10 years of their existence they are more likely to go to war than before. But that pressure eases, since people usually become more concerned with their own well being than the destruction of their enemies.

In a democratic society, the easiest way to conquer the country is to win their election. You can't win the election without the support of the people, and the easiest way to get their support is to improve their quality of life. This improves human rights, civil liberties, and economic stability (stable countries seldom fight each other - that is the significance of the McDonald's statistic.)

But do we have the right to spread democracy? I don't think it's a simple enough question to answer with a "yes" or "no." If the country's already stable and hasn't attacked us, leave them alone, what they have is working. But if we invade a country and topple the government, we have no right to replace that person with a dictator of our choosing. Set up a democracy, and let the people choose their own leader.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some democracies take a lot longer than others. The British democracy came out of hundreds of years of trying things, wars, conflict religious and otherwise, imperial ambitions, etc. In france, they went through much the same. To expect to be able to go into some place, and set up a stable democracy in a few months is really unrealistic. If we were a nation of adults, we would realize that our commitment in Afghanistan is going to measured in decades, not years.

As it stands, I think the question is moot; we do not have the will or the vision to do it.

Freedom comes at a price, which Canada it seems is unwilling to pay. Therefore, as much as I hate to say it, not only will we be unable to bring peace and stability to any other region of people, we will probably eventually lose it ourselves.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
First, no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.
Second, no two countries that contain McDonald's franchises have ever gone to war with each other.


Unless you count Israel VS Lebanon.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should be giving preferential treatment to democracies especially in terms of aid and trade.

IMO, for the Liberals should have been spending more time building a relationship with India than with China.

FYI: China isn't that "advanced". They're social order is about 30 years away from total breakdown. Adopting capitalism is the only thing that's prevented disaster.

Beyond all the hype we have a state that has a space program but 90% of its people live in 3rd world conditions. They have a fast growing economy but no universal pension system. Their one-child policy is gonna bite them in the ass when they have 20 elderly people for every 1 working taxpayer. China has managed to get the worst of both capitalism and communism.
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why not?
Cameron





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 61
Reputation: 56.9
Location: North Vancouver

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spread Liberty.

Democracy can be a means to protect liberty, but it can also be used to stifle it. Colonial Hong Kong was no democracy, yet its people were free.

The US has had democratic elements in its "Representative Republic;" but democracy can be used to oppress and enslave minorities.
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should not spread democracy.

I have concluded that democracy is antithetical to the tradition of liberty. Constitutional monarchies or republics are far preferable to democracy, which essentially boils down to majority rule. Unfortunately we don't have any monarchies or republics left in this world, at least not in their purest form. The American republic died sometime after the Civil War and the Canadian constitutional monarchy died sometime after the Charter.

Democracies operate on majority vote. But what stops the majority from intruding on the liberty of a minority? Individual rights? But how can we expect the majority to enforce individual rights (like the right to one's income for example) when the temptation to expand the state by creating a system of expropriation and dependency is so appealing? I don't think we can.

So we should not spread democracy. In fact, we should rein it in.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally I do beleive in Spreading Democracy to ensure allies and create a better future for ourselves and those in the Middle East. Why should we wait since we allow tyrants to screw things up. Now i know there are some who will disargee but i personally feel that spreading democracy should be done by like-minded Nations like Canada and USA. If we don't do anything we can kiss our future goodbye.
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The paradox of democracy is that it isn't very democratic. The larger the electorate, the less each individual vote matters. This can be demonstrated through simple arithmetic.

If the electorate of one democracy totals 100 voters, then the influence of a single vote amounts to one percent.

But if the electorate of a democracy totals 1 million voters, then the influence of a single vote amounts to one one-millionth.

In a democracy of several tens of millions, an individual’s vote is virtually worthless. (Although, I suppose if citizens were allowed to sell their vote on the market, they could potentially reap a small fortunate from the moneyed class who would be willing to pay substantial sums to buy votes so they could decide an election. However, the way we might normally apply the law of supply and demand to this situation might not be appropriate. Votes would only have value in bulk since it would require many votes to decide an election. Tens of thousands of voters would need to sell their votes to spark any interest among the moneyed class. In that case they would go to the highest bidder.) A single vote is very unlikely to decide the outcome of an election. The 2000 US Presidential election was decided by 500 votes in Florida. But of those 500, one vote still only amounts to a 0.2% influence on the outcome.

The other problem with democracy is that it places the majority above individual autonomy. Democracy is fundamentally based on collectivism, because the electorate as a collective entity is entrusted with choosing public officials. Moreover, those public officials, respecting the wishes of their voters, may in the course of their time in office enact such policies or programs, which, irregardless of man’s equality with the law, lead to the expropriation of person and of private property for the benefit of the holder’s of office and their preferred groups or the groups that fund and support politicians. Essentially, democracy is “public government”, a brand of collectivism, which is subject to the same flaws as any other collectivist creed.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Unless you count Israel VS Lebanon.


I'm realize I'm picking nits here, but Israel never declared war on Lebanon and did not engage in battles with Lebanese troops. Although civilian infrastructure was targeted by air strikes, this was only with the goal of hemming in Hezbollah.

On topic, I think I agree with Joahob, at least in the sense that an unrestrained direct democratic goverment could result in a 'tyranny of the majority'. That is why I prefer the term 'constitutional government', which could include both Republics, and Constitutional Monarchies. Elected representatives are an important part of this style of government, however.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:16 am    Post subject: Re: Should we be spreading democracy? Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
You have countries like China which have become more advanced than India by not being democratic


Ummm. You need to take a course in Logic 101. Just because two things are true does not mean they are correlated. North Korea is not democratic but it is the farthest thing from advanced. I'm not sure where you got the impression that China was growing by 10% because it is not democratic. I think most reasonable people and nearly all economists would agree that China would be growing even faster as a free and democratic society.

But back to the question. Should we be spreading democracy? Sure. But not how you think. We should be imperialistic. We should be taking over nations.
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

India will surpass China eventually. Probably within the next 10 years. It's inevitable.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest problem with our democracy is that multi-billion dollar companies and taxpayer funded organizations are allowed to spend limitless amounts of money influencing the electorate while organizations like the NCC are not allowed to use their money to influence the electorate.

The media is exempt from the rules simply because they CLAIM to be unbiased in their reporting.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Should we be spreading democracy?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB