Why Do Westerners Hate Authoritarianism? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14806810
MememyselfandIJK wrote:I highly doubt choosing between two choices is "democracy" (See US two party system).


I am refering to the lawmakers, they always vote on two alternatives*. In America that is congress. Representation is a different topic.

*When it comes to changes to the constitution, a supermajority is required, which violates neutrality.
#14806838
Why? Because they grew up free from Authoritarianism. That's why. Once you know freedom, you don't want to go back to slavery.
#14806872
Godstud wrote:Why? Because they grew up free from Authoritarianism. That's why. Once you know freedom, you don't want to go back to slavery.


I think it is more around the perception that absolutists abuse their power. If you had a meritocracy (i.e. Ancient China) or a "Constitutional" dictatorship where it is agree that the ruler cannot violate certain rights, you could in theory get much better results. People who earn their (restricted) power would in theory be much less likely to abuse it. Furthermore, if a dictator were to leave along civil rights as well as political freedoms such as speech and the press, you could have a very happy, successful regime. You could even implement a little "democracy" (Well more democratic than the US anyway) by allowing people to elect advisors who have no political power, but can share the needs and wants of the people.
#14806883
MememyselfandIJK wrote:I think it is more around the perception that absolutists abuse their power. If you had a meritocracy (i.e. Ancient China) or a "Constitutional" dictatorship where it is agree that the ruler cannot violate certain rights, you could in theory get much better results. People who earn their (restricted) power would in theory be much less likely to abuse it. Furthermore, if a dictator were to leave along civil rights as well as political freedoms such as speech and the press, you could have a very happy, successful regime. You could even implement a little "democracy" (Well more democratic than the US anyway) by allowing people to elect advisors who have no political power, but can share the needs and wants of the people.


So this dictator is going to grant civil rights to his subjects out of the goodness of his heart, even though it will inevitably threaten his grip on power?

That's the biggest nonsense I've read here in a while.
#14806924
Rugoz wrote:So this dictator is going to grant civil rights to his subjects out of the goodness of his heart, even though it will inevitably threaten his grip on power?


What do you think a constitution is for?
#14806942
MememyselfandIJK wrote:So this dictator is going to grant civil rights to his subjects out of the goodness of his heart, even though it will inevitably threaten his grip on power?

What do you think a constitution is for?

A dictator who is carefully bound by a set of rules he can't change? In that case, how is he a dictator?
#14806969
It was a rationale for Western colonialism. The British presumed that parliamentary democracy in Britain was the highest form of governance and their duty was to implement political reforms in India and other parts of world that were affected by Asiatic despotism. The Americans have taken over the White Man's Burden to spread democracy worldwide in the post-war era. The misguided notion of cultural superiority is closely linked to white supremacy that had been an unshakable belief in the colonial era but we can laugh about it now.

#14806976
MememyselfandIJK wrote:The Queen of England is bound by a set of rules she can't change? In that case, how is she a queen?

The Queen doesn't dictate shit (and queens have historically been powerless anyway. But a constitutional king is a minor part of a society, anyway; saying somewhere is a 'constitutional monarchy' means the monarch is not in charge, but it tells you nothing about who is). A dictator literally gets to say what happens in a country.
#14806996
i have been told that democracy is a good thing since i was little, yet the problem is: its not perfect at all.
in most democratic nations people win because the media supports them, now this is dangerous as the media is mostly controleed by 6 jewish families who all have the same ideoligies.

but the biggest problem is: a democratic leader would sell his nation out much quicker then any king would as the kings are rulers till death whilst anyone who was raised as an enemy of the single nation he or she becomes president of can be in danger that way
#14807014
ThirdTerm wrote:It was a rationale for Western colonialism. The British presumed that parliamentary democracy in Britain was the highest form of governance and their duty was to implement political reforms in India and other parts of world that were affected by Asiatic despotism. The Americans have taken over the White Man's Burden to spread democracy worldwide in the post-war era. The misguided notion of cultural superiority is closely linked to white supremacy that had been an unshakable belief in the colonial era but we can laugh about it now.


Utter nonsense.

The colonial powers had not interest in bringing democracy to their colonies.
#14807021
Rugoz wrote:Utter nonsense.

The colonial powers had not interest in bringing democracy to their colonies.


I don't think ThirdTemr was arguing that they did. I think he was pointing out that they told themselves a myth about "white man's burden" and later "manifest destiny" as a way of rationalising imperialism and authoritarianism.

Much like the west currently uses "freedom, democracy and anti-terrorism" as rationales for unilateral military intervention.
#14807027
I don't think ThirdTemr was arguing that they did. I think he was pointing out that they told themselves a myth about "white man's burden" and later "manifest destiny" as a way of rationalising imperialism and authoritarianism.

Much like the west currently uses "freedom, democracy and anti-terrorism" as rationales for unilateral military intervention.

Every imperium must have its founding myth, its rationale for bullying and exploiting its subject colonies. The "white man's burden", to use Kipling's phrase, was ultimately derived from Virgil's exhortation to the Roman people and their leaders to civilise the barbarian world, to humble the proud and insolent and to bring universal peace to the world. Virgil was, of course, writing a work of propaganda for Augustus Caesar's new regime, and Kipling and the modern imperialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries took his justification for imperialism even further than Virgil himself would probably have thought seemly. The racism of the modern European imperialists also gave his idea a new and unwholesome twist. The racism has largely gone, at least as an explicit belief, but the insolence and arrogance which Kipling and others added to Virgil's exhortation have remained - it is not merely a well-meaning paternalistic narrative, but is openly aggressive and oppressive. To be given the blessings of modernity, the 'natives' must have their freedom and their agency violently taken away from them. This was the paradox at the heart of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - to free the Iraqi people, we had to invade their nation, destroy their institutions, and impose 'democracy' on them by force. We had to destroy the village to save the village. This internal contradiction is what ultimately caused the failure of the entire enterprise (except in its aim to remove Saddam from power), just as it will ultimately cause the failure of all neo-liberal interventions to 'democratise' the world. You cannot force people to be free by pointing a gun at their heads. The really disturbing thing is that our lords and masters seem to be unable to even perceive the contradiction involved here.
#14807031
Potemkin wrote:Every imperium must have its founding myth, its rationale for bullying and exploiting its subject colonies. The "white man's burden", to use Kipling's phrase, was ultimately derived from Virgil's exhortation to the Roman people and their leaders to civilise the barbarian world, to humble the proud and insolent and to bring universal peace to the world. Virgil was, of course, writing a work of propaganda for Augustus Caesar's new regime, and Kipling and the modern imperialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries took his justification for imperialism even further than Virgil himself would probably have thought seemly. The racism of the modern European imperialists also gave his idea a new and unwholesome twist. The racism has largely gone, at least as an explicit belief, but the insolence and arrogance which Kipling and others added to Virgil's exhortation have remained - it is not merely a well-meaning paternalistic narrative, but is openly aggressive and oppressive. To be given the blessings of modernity, the 'natives' must have their freedom and their agency violently taken away from them. This was the paradox at the heart of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - to free the Iraqi people, we had to invade their nation, destroy their institutions, and impose 'democracy' on them by force. We had to destroy the village to save the village. This internal contradiction is what ultimately caused the failure of the entire enterprise (except in its aim to remove Saddam from power), just as it will ultimately cause the failure of all neo-liberal interventions to 'democratise' the world. You cannot force people to be free by pointing a gun at their heads. The really disturbing thing is that our lords and masters seem to be unable to even perceive the contradiction involved here.


Didn't they, though?
#14807100
Didn't they, though?

Indeed they did. Under the reign of the Five Good Emperors, in particular, the Roman world achieved its apogee, in terms of peace, prosperity and a polity guided by 'virtue' (though there was that unfortunate business with the Jews under Hadrian's reign). You'll notice that I didn't say anything negative about Virgil in my diatribe. My criticism was directed at the modern distortion of Virgil's exhortation in the Aeneid - it was given a racist twist, and was, in reality, more about capitalism's need to open up new markets and obtain new resources and new sources of human labour which chased the European imperialists all over the world smashing the remnants of ancient civilisations and stealing entire nations from the natives. In other words, it was a vulgarisation of Virgil - just as the bourgeoisie pretend to be aristocrats but are actually a vulgar version of the aristocratic class, so Kipling was pretending to be Virgil, but was actually just a vulgar version of Virgil. They were (and still are) upstarts aping the mannerisms of their betters. Rather like Donald Trump pretending to be 'Presidential'. Lol.
#14807203
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:The Queen doesn't dictate shit (and queens have historically been powerless anyway. But a constitutional king is a minor part of a society, anyway; saying somewhere is a 'constitutional monarchy' means the monarch is not in charge, but it tells you nothing about who is). A dictator literally gets to say what happens in a country.


Ok I yield. I would just like to point out that democracy had elected Hitler, and now Trump.
#14807404
Opposing suppression ? It has also absolutely nothing to do with "being westener". Thats basic human nature. Everyone wants to be free. Everyone wants their leaders to be just. Everyone wants leadership to be justified.

Certain countries, such as Japan, have a very unfortunate tradition of both brutally suppressing their own population and isolating their country. That can be demonstrated for example by the riddiculously mellow reaction of the Japanese towards Fukushima. Basically no protest whatsoever on a massive leadership failure that has poisoned a huge part of the small japanese landmass, including the capital city itself. Which also demonstrates quite drastically how problematic such a state of mind is.

According to the bible, the only justification of leadership is to serve ones subjects:
Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all. - Mark 9:35

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. - Mark 10:42-45

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave, just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. - Matthew 20:25-28
#14807531
Negotiator wrote:Everyone wants to be free. Everyone wants their leaders to be just. Everyone wants leadership to be justified.
Exactly what I was talking about. It seems that throughout history, all else has taken a back seat to imposing our will on the world. History is absolutely flooded with special pleading and foreign policies are nearly all case studies in hypocrisy. Here in the U.S., especially recently, we do not entertain candidates notable for their noble sentiments or compassion. Left and right, we shut those candidates out and elect the most ambitious baboons we can find, (not just Trump - ALL of them). Everywhere in the world, we humans make it a nasty habit of electing those least noble, the least interested in doing what is morally or ethically right for everyone.
We rather consistently select the wrong kind of people to lead us.

Which brings me to another point that is not entirely off topic. We may never select better leaders when the average human regularly abuses his own intellect. Both studies and history show that the average human makes decisions first, then engages his intellect to *justify or rationalize* that decision. It's the complete opposite of what we are supposed to do with our brains. It brings to mind something said of Eddy Bernays' theories - that you can change the minds of millions but not the opinion of one man. The single man can be intelligent, thoughtful, rational, and logical. But not the masses. The masses are ruled by their emotions and seek justification or rationalization for their feelings. This is the 'Achilles heel' of democratic and representative systems. The average man does not "correctly think"* and, thus far, no amount of education has managed to adequately alter this condition.

The western world incorporates a good measure of authoritarianism into itself. Most have strong central governments and robust investigative branches. And don't get me started on the ludicrous levels of enforcement in some countries. Freedom and liberty especially take a hypocritical back seat in western foreign policies. So while western governments and citizens pay lip service to the ideals of liberty and freedom, their actions are increasingly authoritarian. Even those who claim to be libertarian are often exposed to be just trying to install themselves as the next authoritarian. Their attitudes completely reverse once they obtain the powerful position they desire.


* "correctly think" means to apply logic and reason to arrive at a decision as opposed to "think correctly" which might be interpreted as merely accepting popular or state opinions.

[quote="blackjack] Neither of the suspects w[…]

Healthcare policy in Singapore is like a headles[…]

Pope Francis and His Lies

I and the Father are one. John 10:30 :) Jesu[…]

US bombers have flown close to North Korea's east […]