Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

Democracy is a system of majority rules.

Iraq has large ethnic divides. Many of these groups have strong ties and relationships to other large scale nations, like the Shiites and Iran, that support these divisions.

The political forum empowers one group to benefit at the expense of minorities.

Shiite plurality, and therefore dominance, invites prior Iranian influence (which was mostly foreign aid to formerly oppressed Shiite citizens) to convert into politically dominating factions. Iran as a regional player incurs further benefits in defending against foreign intrusion by over seas nations. Iranian funds and man power that once went to social aid, as indicated, begins to flow towards efforts for and maintenance of societal dominance.

Lets also not forget that there are lots of vital public services and resources that are at play.

So, with power and resources stripped, incentives for minorities to improve political standing by means of insurgency are abundant.

As a result of the above, a civil war is virtually inevitable.


The solution?

Marketize and privatize. Get rid of the political forum that is being pursued for the control and dominance of one ethnic group over another. In addition, privatizing resources is an important step. Oil for example, should be dealt with as follows:

Issue each Iraqi citizen a share in the oil resources. Shareholders can now work to grow their wealth - perhaps divide the company or sell their shares if they wish. Why should a majority deserve full absolute control?

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

Iraq has large ethnic divides. Many of these groups have strong ties and relationships to other large scale nations, like the Shiites and Iran, that support these divisions.

The political forum empowers one group to benefit at the expense of minorities.

Shiite plurality, and therefore dominance, invites prior Iranian influence (which was mostly foreign aid to formerly oppressed Shiite citizens) to convert into politically dominating factions. Iran as a regional player incurs further benefits in defending against foreign intrusion by over seas nations. Iranian funds and man power that once went to social aid, as indicated, begins to flow towards efforts for and maintenance of societal dominance.

Lets also not forget that there are lots of vital public services and resources that are at play.

So, with power and resources stripped, incentives for minorities to improve political standing by means of insurgency are abundant.

As a result of the above, a civil war is virtually inevitable.


The solution?

Marketize and privatize. Get rid of the political forum that is being pursued for the control and dominance of one ethnic group over another. In addition, privatizing resources is an important step. Oil for example, should be dealt with as follows:

Issue each Iraqi citizen a share in the oil resources. Shareholders can now work to grow their wealth - perhaps divide the company or sell their shares if they wish. Why should a majority deserve full absolute control?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really think this will work right? Issuing each Iraqi a share of the oil profits??? And what's to insure they get them, as opposed to a group of people with the power to take/keep said profits.

Here's an idea (that could actually work): Just divide the country into ethnic "sections". Iraq hasn't been a country that long anyway, and with no real government to speak of, nationalism won't be much of a problem. Work from there. Might fall right back into the despotic whirlpool, but at least there's a chance of order without the ethnic groups warring.

Cody

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

Iraq has large ethnic divides. Many of these groups have strong ties and relationships to other large scale nations, like the Shiites and Iran, that support these divisions.

The political forum empowers one group to benefit at the expense of minorities.

Shiite plurality, and therefore dominance, invites prior Iranian influence (which was mostly foreign aid to formerly oppressed Shiite citizens) to convert into politically dominating factions. Iran as a regional player incurs further benefits in defending against foreign intrusion by over seas nations. Iranian funds and man power that once went to social aid, as indicated, begins to flow towards efforts for and maintenance of societal dominance.

Lets also not forget that there are lots of vital public services and resources that are at play.

So, with power and resources stripped, incentives for minorities to improve political standing by means of insurgency are abundant.

As a result of the above, a civil war is virtually inevitable.


The solution?

Marketize and privatize. Get rid of the political forum that is being pursued for the control and dominance of one ethnic group over another. In addition, privatizing resources is an important step. Oil for example, should be dealt with as follows:

Issue each Iraqi citizen a share in the oil resources. Shareholders can now work to grow their wealth - perhaps divide the company or sell their shares if they wish. Why should a majority deserve full absolute control?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really think this will work right? Issuing each Iraqi a share of the oil profits??? And what's to insure they get them, as opposed to a group of people with the power to take/keep said profits.

Here's an idea (that could actually work): Just divide the country into ethnic "sections". Iraq hasn't been a country that long anyway, and with no real government to speak of, nationalism won't be much of a problem. Work from there. Might fall right back into the despotic whirlpool, but at least there's a chance of order without the ethnic groups warring.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

America got control of the oil to hand over to the Iraqi government. I'm talking about this from the perspective of US coalition policy.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

You may or may not be right that democracy is doomed to fail in Iraq. I agree that the political landscape there is "sectarian". But two "hopeful" concepts I would like to point out are:

1. Proportional representation democracy would not allow for a minority sect to dictate to all others.

2. The sects are creating a lot of damage with their conflict. Don't you think that the majority of people may prefer that the sectarian zealots just stop? Can democracy help that to happen?

In conclusion, the failure of democracy in Iraq may end up having a lot more to do with non-democractic foreign intervention and sectarian thuggery. I don't really see the violent removal of democratic action from an electoral system as being a failure of democracy.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Issue each Iraqi citizen a share in the oil resources. Shareholders can now work to grow their wealth - perhaps divide the company or sell their shares if they wish. Why should a majority deserve full absolute control?

[/ QUOTE ]

Zygote I couldn't agree with you more and I've advocated this exact thing from the time Hussein was ousted. I'm afraid that you're probably correct in your assessment and that a state oil company in Iraq will preclude any kind of long run "democratic" government solution.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

No one can 'plan' a safe Iraq. The U.S. should just leave these people alone and stop killing them, and allow them to develop whatever political structure they may develop. Maybe it sucks, maybe it doesn't... there's nothing you can do about it.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. should just leave these people alone and stop killing them

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you 12?

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
No one can 'plan' a safe Iraq. The U.S. should just leave these people alone and stop killing them, and allow them to develop whatever political structure they may develop. Maybe it sucks, maybe it doesn't... there's nothing you can do about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this plan also. What if we took all the money we're spending on the war and invested it in developing fuel sorces that aren't oil-based. Hell we could even run a "uclear power is ok" campaign and start building those plants.

I always thought that would be a more effective use of that money. That way, in 10 years, we won't have to care about what goes on in that region any longer.

Cody

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. should just leave these people alone and stop killing them

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you 12?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it immature to ask people to stop killing people?

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. should just leave these people alone and stop killing them, and allow them to develop whatever political structure they may develop. Maybe it sucks, maybe it doesn't... there's nothing you can do about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Ignorant Post Of The Day. That's quite an accomplishment in this forum.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

My bad; do you mind supplying me with a list of opinions I should hold in order to not be 'ignorant'?

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
My bad; do you mind supplying me with a list of opinions I should hold in order to not be 'ignorant'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. You can start with the only thing keeping Iraq from devolving into complete and total chaos with the resulting death of countless civilians and then becoming the next Afghanistan are MNF-I forces helping the fledgling Iraqi government maintain a semblance of security.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

Pro war apologists claimed the same thing with Vietnam; it wasn't true there and it isn't true in Iraq. I could take your word for it, or I could take Dick Clarke and Ron Paul's opinion; but I forget, you probably have super secret spy briefings in your parents basement.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

What I have is personal experience from spending most of 2003 in Baghdad, As Samawah, Diwaniya, and Ramadi. Does your resume include anything besides being just another keyboard commando?

Edit: Also, lol at your Vietnam reference. Please tell the class what happened in Saigon in 1975.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

"Also, lol at your Vietnam reference. Please tell the class what happened in Saigon in 1975. "

Why don't you tell the class what happened in Saigon in 2007 (we trade and invest with them). I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who participated in an unjust war of aggression against an enemy who had done no harm to your country qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion, but I still think Richard Clarke is more qualified to comment on this than you. He had access to briefings and stuff.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Also, lol at your Vietnam reference. Please tell the class what happened in Saigon in 1975. "

Why don't you tell the class what happened in Saigon in 2007 (we trade and invest with them). I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who participated in an unjust war of aggression against an enemy who had done no harm to your country qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion, but I still think Richard Clarke is more qualified to comment on this than you. He had access to briefings and stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoted For Awesomeness And Stuff. Also, Linky!

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

I don't see anything wrong with leaving if there's not much progress by September. It'll be at least until then before Republican congressman consider changing their votes. We've had 4.5 years to do this. At what point do you say it's just not working, let's stop spending $12 billion a month on this war and losing thousands of American soldiers. It seems like ever since we captued Sadaam the only thing that has been accomplished by staying is enciting more hatred towards America. Should American soldiers continue to die in a civil war that only citizens of Iraq can win? We've heard generals say that no military solution can fix Iraq so if General Patreas reports the same in September then enough is enough and we need to pull out.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Also, lol at your Vietnam reference. Please tell the class what happened in Saigon in 1975. "

Why don't you tell the class what happened in Saigon in 2007 (we trade and invest with them). I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who participated in an unjust war of aggression against an enemy who had done no harm to your country qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion, but I still think Richard Clarke is more qualified to comment on this than you. He had access to briefings and stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who spent nearly a year on the ground, interacting with the people, understanding their issues and desires, attempting to protect many of the from violence from their supposed countrymen, and getting shot at whilst doing it, qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion

NVM Little point in the discussion. It's all black and white, and the best analysts are clearly those who have never been there, never risked anything there, and never cared about anyone who has been there or lives there.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't really think this will work right? Issuing each Iraqi a share of the oil profits??? And what's to insure they get them, as opposed to a group of people with the power to take/keep said profits.
[ QUOTE ]


Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wont it work. Every Kuwaiti is a zillionare.

Kuwaiti money destroys I MEAN destroys the U.S. dollar.

Most of them don't even work.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. should just leave these people alone and stop killing them

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you 12?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it immature to ask people to stop killing people?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's immature to think think the second we pull out the death rate won't quadruple.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

Well, we'll never really know if being there helps or hurts a person to assess the situation. Hypothetically, a soldier who believes:

- That the U.S. has a morally justified mandate to set standards for the world; and
- That the use of violence is the best tool to make sure that those standards are met

will go to a place like Iraq and conclude:

- Standards are not being met; and
- Lot's of force is being used; and
- Therefore even more force in necessary to fix the problem.

Now, the fact that this hypothetical soldier sees a situation and can interpret it as supporting his own beliefs does not necessarily make his beliefs logically valid. In fact, in the emotional maelstrom of a warzone the ability to use rational thought is going to be seriously inhibited by the constant exposure to emotional stimulation.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Also, lol at your Vietnam reference. Please tell the class what happened in Saigon in 1975. "

Why don't you tell the class what happened in Saigon in 2007 (we trade and invest with them). I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who participated in an unjust war of aggression against an enemy who had done no harm to your country qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion, but I still think Richard Clarke is more qualified to comment on this than you. He had access to briefings and stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who spent nearly a year on the ground, interacting with the people, understanding their issues and desires, attempting to protect many of the from violence from their supposed countrymen, and getting shot at whilst doing it, qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion

NVM Little point in the discussion. It's all black and white, and the best analysts are clearly those who have never been there, never risked anything there, and never cared about anyone who has been there or lives there.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT but you'll never hear Goodforyouwin admit how wrong he is.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just for discussion purposes tell me of one democratic country? By that, I mean, not where the mantra is repeated about the system, but where it is actually so.

Just to make things clear. I am pro-democratic, I simply think that your definition isn't correct and therefore worth thinking about as a concept and I am definitely not a supporter of any from of AC as I see their statements as even more naive/childish/unrealistic than your own, about democracy.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just for discussion purposes tell me of one democratic country? By that, I mean, not where the mantra is repeated about the system, but where it is actually so.

Just to make things clear. I am pro-democratic, I simply think that your definition isn't correct and therefore worth thinking about as a concept and I am definitely not a supporter of any from of AC as I see their statements as even more naive/childish/unrealistic than your own, about democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there are any true blue democracies. That would involve direct referendum-style voting on every law. I think the closest are those that allow for proportional representation, which is common in Europe.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just for discussion purposes tell me of one democratic country? By that, I mean, not where the mantra is repeated about the system, but where it is actually so.

Just to make things clear. I am pro-democratic, I simply think that your definition isn't correct and therefore worth thinking about as a concept and I am definitely not a supporter of any from of AC as I see their statements as even more naive/childish/unrealistic than your own, about democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to point out something actually wrong with my definition?

when you say you are pro-democratic... what do you mean by
that?

I'll probably accept any country you want to throw out as democratic. I already gave an example though - Iraq.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
care to point out something actually wrong with my definition?


[/ QUOTE ]
majority
[ QUOTE ]

when you say you are pro-democratic... what do you mean by
that?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the USA, Russia, most countries, in fact are, as they claim, democratic by their definitions.
[ QUOTE ]


I'll probably accept any country you want to throw out as democratic. I already gave an example though - Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I like, which is the anti-thesis of AC, for instance. I think it is the failing of democracy, the slowness of it in overturning decisions. That is its redeeming feature: it is slow and not necessarily popular or a view of the majority. It prevents the "might is right" success.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
majority

[/ QUOTE ]


Why dont you redefine democracy for me. Actually state a definition.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the USA, Russia, most countries, in fact are, as they claim, democratic by their definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

please just define democracy for me.

[ QUOTE ]

That is what I like, which is the anti-thesis of AC, for instance. I think it is the failing of democracy, the slowness of it in overturning decisions. That is its redeeming feature: it is slow and not necessarily popular or a view of the majority. It prevents the "might is right" success.

[/ QUOTE ]

im not sure what your talking about here and would appreciate you expanding.

How do you relate your views about democracy to success in Iraq? since that is the topic at hand...

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

majority




Why dont you redefine democracy for me. Actually state a definition.


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that democracy had any reality beyond you using it as a reason, OR NOT, to invade Iraq!
I think that democracy is always defined as it is suitable to its citizens. It just happened to be different from country to country and from time to time.

I know of no real absolute/definitive way of defining democracy. Personally I have experienced it in many different ways, but it always was slow in responding to extreme absolutist ways. I hope it keeps this way!

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]


I never claimed that democracy had any reality beyond you using it as a reason, OR NOT, to invade Iraq!

[/ QUOTE ]

You said you were pro-democracy?

[ QUOTE ]
I think that democracy is always defined as it is suitable to its citizens. It just happened to be different from country to country and from time to time.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is the style of system decided? do you support colonial nation building?

how are constitutions amended in all the countries you claim to be democratic but somehow think majorities don't rule?

[ QUOTE ]

I know of no real absolute/definitive way of defining democracy. Personally I have experienced it in many different ways, but it always was slow in responding to extreme absolutist ways. I hope it keeps this way!

[/ QUOTE ]


if you cant define it, how do you know you've ever experienced it? Further, under this assumption, how do you know my definition is wrong?

Also, id appreciate if you can somehow relate this to my comments about a failing democratic Iraq.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you redefine democracy for me. Actually state a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zygote - I know you're engaging MidGe here but I'll throw in my two cents as on of the few on the board that does not retch at the notion of democracy.

Democracy: The political philosophy that the best way to define laws and mediate conflicts is by measuring the preference of the majority.

Democratic State: The organization of a geographic area that defines who comprises the majority and the procedures used to ascertain the preference of the majority.

Many people on this board attack the concept of democracy by pointing out the failures or specific democratic states. To me, the question of whether or not democracy is a valid philosophy due to specific failures to create a functioning democratic state is not definitively answered. Certainly, a valid thesis would be that the failures of democratics states to enact democracy is evidence of the futility of the vision of democracy. Whether of not one accepts that thesis is still up for debate, I think.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

Democracy will never succeed?

Prior to democracy and modernization, Catholics and Protestants in Europe were constantly warring (see Hundred Years War).

Today all European nations have some Catholics and some Protestants. In some countries, Catholics are dominant and in others, Protestants are dominant. But the governments are all basically secular; I don't think the people of one faith fell "oppressed" when their country is lead by a person of another faith (except perhaps in Ireland).

What Iraq needs is for the ideology of democracy to replace or at least co-exist with the ideology of their religion, so that over time, religion becomes much less important in their public life, like it has in Europe. If we really want to foster democracy in Iraq, we need to be building schools that will teach the children something other than fundamentalist Islam, and building economic infrastructure that will show the people that life is actually better under Western values.

There is no reason to believe at this point that the US or any other country is willing to commit the resources to try to do this, but that does not mean it cannot be done. It would also take several generations, but never is a very long time.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
but never is a very long time.


[/ QUOTE ]

"never" is too strong a word. I will say given the current context and recent history democracy is extremely unlikely to succeed in the foreseeable future and a much more reasonable way of dealing with these issues is privatization.

I dont want to leave out the fact that democracy itself is part of the problem why the current situation is not succeeding and is actually fuelling and creating many of the core problems.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

"
What Iraq needs is for the ideology of democracy to replace or at least co-exist with the ideology of their religion, so that over time, religion becomes much less important in their public life, like it has in Europe. If we really want to foster democracy in Iraq, we need to be building schools that will teach the children something other than fundamentalist Islam, and building economic infrastructure that will show the people that life is actually better under Western values. "

lol yeah, let's indoctrinate them in our schools that will solve all their problems. How do you plan to build these schools anyway? With what money? Who is going to to work on the scaffolding with jihadists tossing bombs around?

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you redefine democracy for me. Actually state a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zygote - I know you're engaging MidGe here but I'll throw in my two cents as on of the few on the board that does not retch at the notion of democracy.

Democracy: The political philosophy that the best way to define laws and mediate conflicts is by measuring the preference of the majority.

Democratic State: The organization of a geographic area that defines who comprises the majority and the procedures used to ascertain the preference of the majority.

Many people on this board attack the concept of democracy by pointing out the failures or specific democratic states. To me, the question of whether or not democracy is a valid philosophy due to specific failures to create a functioning democratic state is not definitively answered. Certainly, a valid thesis would be that the failures of democratics states to enact democracy is evidence of the futility of the vision of democracy. Whether of not one accepts that thesis is still up for debate, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]


i accept your definitions.

i personally believe demoracy is inherently bad at mediating conlficts, regardless of specific states.

If 51 people want to jump off bridge but 49 object, do 51 have a right to jump AND push the 49 who refuse?

Markets and privatization are much more effective at dealing with these issues. Just because majorities likes Britney Spears and Wal-Mart does mean i must listen to her music and shop at Wal-Mart. On the other hand, just because a large share of Americans wanted to pay for and support a war in Iraq meant that all Americans had to support and pay for a war in Iraq - those that didn't want to jump were pushed.



This case is partially made by Bryan Caplan throughout these works. I havent read the book yet but do plan on doing so.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/...ational-voter/
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-.../dp/0691129428

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy will never succeed?

Prior to democracy and modernization, Catholics and Protestants in Europe were constantly warring (see Hundred Years War).


[/ QUOTE ]
First of all I beleive you are referring to the 30 years war and not the 100 years war.

That said, what does democracy have to do with the lack of religious wars amoung Christians? There haven't really been any conflicts of that type since Westphalia created the entire system of international relations we have used since. Westphalia was in ~1650 or so. Democracy in Europe didn't really begin to occur until the French Revolution a hundred and fifty years later. The end of major religious warfare has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the weakening power of the catholic church (as well as the glory of capitalism).

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
i accept your definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great! That was easy.

[ QUOTE ]
i personally believe demoracy is inherently bad at mediating conlficts, regardless of specific states.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right.

[ QUOTE ]
If 51 people want to jump off bridge but 49 object, do 51 have a right to jump AND push the 49 who refuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

The immorality of the minority being forced to do what the majority wants in an inarguable weakness of democracy. Most proponents of democracy argue that it is a "best case" scenario, not a "perfect" scenario. I don't think any political philosophy argues from the standpoint that their philosophy in action creates utopia.

[ QUOTE ]
Markets and privatization are much more effective at dealing with these issues. Just because majorities likes Britney Spears and Wal-Mart does mean i must listen to her music and shop at Wal-Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have found an example where market forces are a better solution than democratic forces, and the democratic state you are in acknowledges that (there is not Federal Britney Spears at Wal Mart Act that I am aware off) so I am not sure that you have made a convincing case against democracy.

On a higher level, I think that a democracy really has to enact it's majority rule in two stages (I have had this argument with pvn before so forgive me if I am repeating myself):

- Stage 1: The majority determines the scope of the laws/regulations.
- Stage 2: The majority determines the laws and regulation governing interactions within the scope of Stage 1.

I think this "two stage" approach, which is essential in all Democratic States (my personal definition from above), debunks many of the "ZOMG I like Pepsi but the democracy be stealing my Pepsi and making me buy Coke!" arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, just because a large share of Americans wanted to pay for and support a war in Iraq meant that all Americans had to support and pay for a war in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're on to something more important. This is a real conflict among the members of the majority regarding the scope of the state's power. Now, obviously there can be only two reasons for this to happen:

- The majority of people don't want the state to have this kind of action included in the scope of their powers. To the extent this is true, it is a failure of the Democratic State to pursue Democracy. This is not an automatic proof of the inherent problems with democracy.
- The majority of people want the state to have this kind of action included in their scope. If this is so, then the supporter of democracy must conclude that even though we disagree with the majority, this is part of the necessary conditions that go with accepting democracy to attain "best possible" results. It is not pleasant for us, but the alternative would be less pleasant.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most proponents of democracy argue that it is a "best case" scenario, not a "perfect" scenario. I don't think any political philosophy argues from the standpoint that their philosophy in action creates utopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

and im arguing its not the best case scenario. Letting 51 jump and 49 walk away is the best case scenario.

[ QUOTE ]


You have found an example where market forces are a better solution than democratic forces, and the democratic state you are in acknowledges that (there is not Federal Britney Spears at Wal Mart Act that I am aware off) so I am not sure that you have made a convincing case against democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our current democracy gives individuals this leeway in these cases but the problem is the democracy inherently has the power take that away. There technically could be a Britney Spears Act or Wal Mart act.

[ QUOTE ]


On a higher level, I think that a democracy really has to enact it's majority rule in two stages (I have had this argument with pvn before so forgive me if I am repeating myself):

- Stage 1: The majority determines the scope of the laws/regulations.
- Stage 2: The majority determines the laws and regulation governing interactions within the scope of Stage 1.

I think this "two stage" approach, which is essential in all Democratic States (my personal definition from above), debunks many of the "ZOMG I like Pepsi but the democracy be stealing my Pepsi and making me buy Coke!" arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

you assume democratic rights are inherent but there never needs to be something of this sort.

Also, what if the majority determines the scope to include soft drinks?



[ QUOTE ]


- The majority of people want the state to have this kind of action included in their scope. If this is so, then the supporter of democracy must conclude that even though we disagree with the majority, this is part of the necessary conditions that go with accepting democracy to attain "best possible" results. It is not pleasant for us, but the alternative would be less pleasant.

[/ QUOTE ]

its not the most pleasant. that is always assumed to be true without proof. how is it more pleasant than markets?

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
and im arguing its not the best case scenario. Letting 51 jump and 49 walk away is the best case scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is addressed in my "two stage" discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Our current democracy gives individuals this leeway in these cases but the problem is the democracy inherently has the power take that away. There technically could be a Britney Spears Act or Wal Mart act.

[/ QUOTE ]

In anarcho-capitalism, Bill Gates could buy a donut of land around your property and starve you to death. Prediciting such actions requires subjective assertions about the actions of man. To fully buy into a free market world, one usually appeals to assumptions such as "Individuals will act rationally in their best interest." Individuals will not rationally contribute to the creation of heavy handed restrictions unless they want similar restrictions to come back at them in the future.

[ QUOTE ]
you assume democratic rights are inherent but there never needs to be something of this sort.

Also, what if the majority determines the scope to include soft drinks?

[/ QUOTE ]

As noted, are you really afraid that the majority of people will enact such a rule?

[ QUOTE ]
its not the most pleasant. that is always assumed to be true without proof. how is it more pleasant than markets?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I appreciate your demands here, descriptions of why certain people prefer democracy forces to market forces will start a 2,000 post thread about common resources, the tragedy of the commons, game theory, etc. etc. that has been engaged many, many times before. I am not sure we want to get away from "define democracy" and into "defend democracy" because we'll all end up hammering our heads against the wall within 2 hours. But I hope that my posts have at least clarified the perspective of supporters of democracy, even if you don't agree with that perspective.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is addressed in my "two stage" discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

i must not understand [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

please explain further.

[ QUOTE ]

In anarcho-capitalism, Bill Gates could buy a donut of land around your property and starve you to death. Prediciting such actions requires subjective assertions about the actions of man.

[/ QUOTE ]

he could. but i could also move. And if he chooses to try the necessary costs and consequences will be felt by him. Other wealthy members or groups of society may rebel as well against his actions. He also very well may not be able to because i likely wont move into a area that is so vulnerable. I will already have ownership contracts and rights to the streets around me and things can only go for sale so as they don't break contracts. Shareholders must consent to terms for example and companies must meet all their obligations.

this is all speculation though.

My main point is bill gates right to buy things freely and others right to sell things freely is of value while the rights of majorities to control the social life of the whole is not.

What about national health care or education systems that monopolize the production?

Right now i dont have the choice to smoke dope because the majority has a problem with it.

[ QUOTE ]

To fully buy into a free market world, one usually appeals to assumptions such as "Individuals will act rationally in their best interest."

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all. the more irrational people are the more ineffective a democracy or dictatorship will likely be.

[ QUOTE ]

Individuals will not rationally contribute to the creation of heavy handed restrictions unless they want similar restrictions to come back at them in the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

so...?

[ QUOTE ]


As noted, are you really afraid that the majority of people will enact such a rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, to a degree. as noted above, many of these rules already exist with other variables.

Re: Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is addressed in my "two stage" discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

i must not understand

please explain further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, sorry if I wasn't clear.

What I mean is: The issue of whether or not democracy will create a Forcing the Minority to Jump Off Bridges Act is really a nonissue, since I do not think it is plausible that any group will contain a majority that thinks this is a good idea. Therefore, under Stage 1 the state would not gain this kind of power.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In anarcho-capitalism, Bill Gates could buy a donut of land around your property and starve you to death. Prediciting such actions requires subjective assertions about the actions of man.

[/ QUOTE ]

he could. but i could also move....

this is all speculation though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely so. These edge conditions are fun for fleshing out ideas, but they are unlikely to change anyone's mind about how the real world should work.

[ QUOTE ]
My main point is bill gates right to buy things freely and others right to sell things freely is of value while the rights of majorities to control the social life of the whole is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. "Value" is a pretty subjective term, so I'm not sure how to respond to that.

[ QUOTE ]
What about national health care or education systems that monopolize the production?

Right now i dont have the choice to smoke dope because the majority has a problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the problems from your perspective, but again you need to:

- Separate the impact of Democracy and the impact of the failure of the Democratic State to arrive a democratic results.
- Argue not only that something bad is happening to you, but also that a change would make that something bad go away without introducing something equally bad to others.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To fully buy into a free market world, one usually appeals to assumptions such as "Individuals will act rationally in their best interest."

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all. the more irrational people are the more ineffective a democracy or dictatorship will likely be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about a condition of free markets, not democracy or dictatorship.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Individuals will not rationally contribute to the creation of heavy handed restrictions unless they want similar restrictions to come back at them in the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

so...?

[/ QUOTE ]

So hypothosizing that they will doesn't constuct a convincing argument against democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As noted, are you really afraid that the majority of people will enact such a rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, to a degree. as noted above, many of these rules already exist with other variables.

[/ QUOTE ]

For every "variable" there is a degree to which others are impacted by your choices that may make them start to prefer democracy for that variable instead of the market. Democracy is not a "one size fits all" solution to all "variables". It isn't and it doesn't have to be (review two stages post). It is not a given that a Democractic State results in democracy for all "variables", so finding one variable where applying majority rule is a bad idea does not discredit democracy.