22 Nov 07
1 edit
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1121/p01s02-usgn.html
"...Freedom House rates 90 countries in the world as fully free, meaning they are democracies with established liberties. Fifty-eight are partly free, and 45 are not free...."
"What we know as democracy today is really the fusion of two things ... popular sovereignty, or voting; and individual liberty or freedom. It's easy to hold a national referendum, but establishing liberty is much more difficult, as it requires laws, police, legislatures, and other institutional trappings of freedom."
There is a nice map that doesn't appear in the on-line version. Venezula, Turkey, Columbia, and Afghanistan are all labeled partly free. Mexico, Brazil, Ukraine, and India are free. Russia, China, Belarus, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are not free. Of course, Venezula is headed for 'not free' status soon.
Can we declare the march of democracy done when we are only just over half-way there?!?!?! (Where are the Swedes when you really need them? 😉)
Is democracy vs. non-democracy the new Cold War?
22 Nov 07
Originally posted by spruce112358A perfectly understandable downturn imho. The world economy has reached the point, mainly due to energy monies, that oponents of freedom offer alternatives to peoples of poor (also rich - using different methods) countries who will sell freedoms for security.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1121/p01s02-usgn.html
"...Freedom House rates 90 countries in the world as fully free, meaning they are democracies with established liberties. Fifty-eight are partly free, and 45 are not free...."
"What we know as democracy today is really the fusion of two things ... popular sovereignty, or voting; and individual li ...[text shortened]... des when you really need them? 😉)
Is democracy vs. non-democracy the new Cold War?
The USA has reached the tipping point where it's influence is in decline and it's economy simply cannot afford to support fledgling democracies as it did in the 20th century.
22 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainThe US could support fledgling democracies if it trimmed its Military expenditures by a few trillion and/or moved its foreign aid budget out of last place when ranked against the rest of the democratic countries. (% of GDP)
A
The USA has reached the tipping point where it's influence is in decline and it's economy simply cannot afford to support fledgling democracies as it did in the 20th century.
23 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessSorry, we're too busy supporting your economy (we buy 85% of your goods and services).
The US could support fledgling democracies if it trimmed its Military expenditures by a few trillion and/or moved its foreign aid budget out of last place when ranked against the rest of the democratic countries. (% of GDP)
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by spruce112358[/b]Is democracy vs. non-democracy the new Cold War?[/b]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1121/p01s02-usgn.html
"...Freedom House rates 90 countries in the world as fully free, meaning they are democracies with established liberties. Fifty-eight are partly free, and 45 are not free...."
"What we know as democracy today is really the fusion of two things ... popular sovereignty, or voting; and individual li ...[text shortened]... des when you really need them? 😉)
Is democracy vs. non-democracy the new Cold War?
Nope. Peoples desires for liberty have been ongoing since the begining.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkBut as macswain points out, the populations of many countries seem to be ready to trade freedom for stability. This means that we should see more and more suspensions of constitutions, military coups, and lifetime heads of state.
Is democracy vs. non-democracy the new Cold War?[/b]
Nope. Peoples desires for liberty have been ongoing since the begining.[/b]
Which do people prefer -- to be taken care of like children in the short-term, or face the trade-off of having greater freedom but also greater adult responsibility in the long-term?
Democracy is hard. Dictatorship is easy. Will more and more countries opt for the easy road -- and should other democracies get involved, or simply leave them to their own devices?
24 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Except for the Dictator himself, Dictatorship is the antithesis of stability. And about the worst way there is for people to get themselves "taken care of".
But as macswain points out, the populations of many countries seem to be ready to trade freedom for stability. This means that we should see more and more suspensions of constitutions, military coups, and lifetime heads of state.
Which do people prefer -- to be taken care of like children in the short-term, or face the trade-off of having greater fre ...[text shortened]... sy road -- and should other democracies get involved, or simply leave them to their own devices?
The populations of many countries have been willing to trade freedom for percieved stability. 200 years ago there was a lot more countries willing to do so.
Any observation of slowing or quickening of democracies spread are mere snapshots in a what amounts to a millenuims long trend. Peoples desire for freedoms began centuries ago and will continue.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by spruce112358Political democracy is wholly inadequate. A truly democratic system requires economic democracy as well. When the workers get to vote for who their bosses and their CEOs will be, then you'll have a democratic system.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1121/p01s02-usgn.html
"...Freedom House rates 90 countries in the world as fully free, meaning they are democracies with established liberties. Fifty-eight are partly free, and 45 are not free...."
"What we know as democracy today is really the fusion of two things ... popular sovereignty, or voting; and individual li ...[text shortened]... des when you really need them? 😉)
Is democracy vs. non-democracy the new Cold War?
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by rwingettYes. That'll be great. Cuz then the economy can fail miserably and all can hail the return of the Despot King.
Political democracy is wholly inadequate. A truly democratic system requires economic democracy as well. When the workers get to vote for who their bosses and their CEOs will be, then you'll have a democratic system.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkThat's a truly bizarre response. How could getting to vote for more things lead to despotism? By that token, why doesn't voting for political office lead to despotism?
Yes. That'll be great. Cuz then the economy can fail miserably and all can hail the return of the Despot King.