League of democracies

[egb_hibs]

I was reading a review of a book called 'the return of history' which is a bit of a reposte to fukuyama's neo con fantasy, and is written by one of john mccain's advisers.

anyway, apparently this guy is big on advising mccain that what we need to check US unilateralism without getting mired down by tinpot dictators and fascist states, is a league of democracies as an alternative to the UN.

is this a good idea - the obvious flaws is whether the US will ever allow itself to be checked if it really has a mind to do something, but that already exists anyway.

other than that it seems a potentially good idea to me. although that said, it may open up a distance with the bam states, that might inhibit moving them away from bampottery.

[wee 162]

Sounds a completely flawed idea to me. The UN has more than its fair share of problems and issues, but it is surely worth trying to fix that rather than engaging in some fantasy type good guys international enforcer coalition that would have absolutely no international legitimacy other than the force of arms.

BTW Fukuyama has changed his mind about the neo-cons. To go along with his apparent conversion to 20 years ago not actually being "the end of history" I would suggest that his judgement should not be taken particularly seriously.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Sounds a completely flawed idea to me. The UN has more than its fair share of problems and issues, but it is surely worth trying to fix that rather than engaging in some fantasy type good guys international enforcer coalition that would have absolutely no international legitimacy other than the force of arms.

what is international legitimacy?

it's an entirely made up and subjective concept. from my point of view i can't think what would be more legitimate than a league of democracies. the UN's own legitimacy is injured by the inclusion of dictatorships.

of course in the real world dictatorships need to be worked with, but let's not pretend that's a legitimising thing.

BTW Fukuyama has changed his mind about the neo-cons. To go along with his apparent conversion to 20 years ago not actually being "the end of history" I would suggest that his judgement should not be taken particularly seriously.

i'm not talking about fukuyama Al, i'm saying this guys book is a riposte / rebuke to fukuyama's infamous theory

[Colr]

They could call in The Federation.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

They could call in The Federation.

a goth and a trekkie

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

a goth and a trekkie :yikes

Its Blakes 7, numbnuts.

They may also go for Oceania.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

Its Blakes 7, numbnuts.

at least i've proved my ignorance of both

altoughh servalan was a dirty cow

They may also go for Oceania.

is that a reference to harrington or orwell - or perhaps both in a post modern irony-tastical sense.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

what is international legitimacy?

it's an entirely made up and subjective concept. from my point of view i can't think what would be more legitimate than a league of democracies. the UN's own legitimacy is injured by the inclusion of dictatorships.

But presumably Venezuela under Chavez would not be admitted to this for example? After all he's been described as a dictator by numerous commentators and US politicians including John McCain. So despite widening the democratic base of their country, having what amounts to fair and free elections which shames many western "democracies", and allowing dissent in the national media which would have journalists in other countries up for treason they would not be allowed because they are not following the policies of these countries. I think that's the opposite of democracy, so how could you have any legitimacy even as a so called league of democracies? You'd also be likely to end up with somewhere like Afghanistan being in it as long as they don't let new training camps for Al-Qaeda be set up.

So basically democracy as a concept is something that means different things to different people. And the person talking about this is part of a political structure which twists the fundamental meaning of democracy to serve its own interests.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

of course in the real world dictatorships need to be worked with, but let's not pretend that's a legitimising thing.

The UN should basically be responsible for setting and enforcing international law imo. If you can outlaw dictatorships, go ahead and prosecute those countries which are dictatorships.

The other UN roles (ie UNICEF, peacekeepers etc) could remain part of it, but these should be secondary roles. And the only way that you can do the primary role is by having as inclusive a body as possible. There is no way on earth that you are ever going to get complete agreement from every country in the world about anything, but getting a set of international principles which every country has to adhere to even if it is not popular to start with is the way to deal with this.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i'm not talking about fukuyama Al, i'm saying this guys book is a riposte / rebuke to fukuyama's infamous theory

Which even Fukuyama has disowned as having been utter shite. Good for him, but rather pointless afaic. It is a bit like me writing something disagreeing with Hitler. I may be right, but it's kindae a bit pointless by now.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

at least i've proved my ignorance of both

altoughh servalan was a dirty cow

is that a reference to harrington or orwell - or perhaps both in a post modern irony-tastical sense.

I've always hated Harringtons.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

what is international legitimacy?

it's an entirely made up and subjective concept. from my point of view i can't think what would be more legitimate than a league of democracies. the UN's own legitimacy is injured by the inclusion of dictatorships.

of course in the real world dictatorships need to be worked with, but let's not pretend that's a legitimising thing.
i'm not talking about fukuyama Al, i'm saying this guys book is a riposte / rebuke to fukuyama's infamous theory

I question the legitimacy of western style modern democracy: in fact I brand it a bastard. Pluralistic party politics offer a mere veneer of legitimacy to a system that is in fact both corrupt and weak. Why is a league of nations afflicted in this way a good idea. It sounds like a wet 5lb haddock to me.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162

But presumably Venezuela under Chavez would not be admitted to this for example? After all he's been described as a dictator by numerous commentators and US politicians including John McCain. So despite widening the democratic base of their country, having what amounts to fair and free elections which shames many western "democracies", and allowing dissent in the national media which would have journalists in other countries up for treason they would not be allowed because they are not following the policies of these countries. I think that's the opposite of democracy, so how could you have any legitimacy even as a so called league of democracies? You'd also be likely to end up with somewhere like Afghanistan being in it as long as they don't let new training camps for Al-Qaeda be set up.

So basically democracy as a concept is something that means different things to different people. And the person talking about this is part of a political structure which twists the fundamental meaning of democracy to serve its own interests.

Al, spare us yet another Chavez hagiography. this one is of stomach churning proportions.

anyway, i see no reason for excluding venezuela if they can demonstrate fair electoral processes, and if they cease to assist really despotic regimes and terrorist outfits.

The UN should basically be responsible for setting and enforcing international law imo. If you can outlaw dictatorships, go ahead and prosecute those countries which are dictatorships.

the UN is in large part composed of dictatorships.

The other UN roles (ie UNICEF, peacekeepers etc) could remain part of it, but these should be secondary roles. And the only way that you can do the primary role is by having as inclusive a body as possible. There is no way on earth that you are ever going to get complete agreement from every country in the world about anything, but getting a set of international principles which every country has to adhere to even if it is not popular to start with is the way to deal with this.

the peacekeepers are a joke that's part of the problem. they're better at running prostitution rackets than intervening to help anyone.

Which even Fukuyama has disowned as having been utter shite. Good for him, but rather pointless afaic. It is a bit like me writing something disagreeing with Hitler. I may be right, but it's kindae a bit pointless by now.

i don't think it's pointless. there's much to be said for admitting where you've been wrong.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

I question the legitimacy of western style modern democracy: in fact I brand it a bastard. Pluralistic party politics offer a mere veneer of legitimacy to a system that is in fact both corrupt and weak. Why is a league of nations afflicted in this way a good idea. It sounds like a wet 5lb haddock to me.

brilliant

i share your reservations, but you've still not successfully overturned churchill's 'worst system except all the others' point, in a way thats convinced me.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

brilliant

i share your reservations, but you've still not successfully overturned churchill's 'worst system except all the others' point, in a way thats convinced me.

If the western powers were really so keen on the rpinciple of democracy they would strengthen it and allow people to vote on every issue. The technology exists to do that, but that would actually mean giving power to the people and the politicians want it for themselves.

The truth is that democracy as practiced today is a sham, given the air of legitimacy by worldwide respect for a principle that is being corrupted and spat upon by 'democratic' governments. You may as well go for an elective dictatorship, just about as democratic and far more effective.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

If the western powers were really so keen on the rpinciple of democracy they would strengthen it and allow people to vote on every issue. The technology exists to do that, but that would actually mean giving power to the people and the politicians want it for themselves.

The truth is that democracy as practiced today is a sham, given the air of legitimacy by worldwide respect for a principle that is being corrupted and spat upon by 'democratic' governments. You may as well go for an elective dictatorship, just about as democratic and far more effective.

so you're advocating an end to liberalism then, because that's what that kind of democracy would mean.

not saying that's wrong by the way, just seeking to clarify.

i personally feel that all the many reasons to fear democracy might come true there.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

so you're advocating an end to liberalism then, because that's what that kind of democracy would mean.

not saying that's wrong by the way, just seeking to clarify.

i personally feel that all the many reasons to fear democracy might come true there.

I don't see that liberalism, as I understand the term, would necessarily fall with party politics.

I don't understand your last sentence either mate

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

I don't see that liberalism, as I understand the term, would necessarily fall with party politics.

i think there's a substantial risk. unless you tightly controlled what things were made available to vote - which would defeat the point of what i think you're advocating - then i think you see the popular will manifested for what it is; and it sho' ain't liberal in many cases.

I don't understand your last sentence either mate

quite a few thinkers from the ancients to the enlightenment sorts feared the appetites of t'mob did they not. i think what you're suggesting my lead to the realisation of those fears.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i think there's a substantial risk. unless you tightly controlled what things were made available to vote - which would defeat the point of what i think you're advocating - then i think you see the popular will manifested for what it is; and it sho' ain't liberal in many cases.

I see now what your point is. Yes I agree, there aren't many liberals in the street, and liberals wouldn't like many of the reforms that would quickly be passed. Immigration bans, capital punishment, perhaps corporal punishment would all follow. But I wasn't really advocating the widening of democracy, only pointing out that western governments are anything but democratic.

quite a few thinkers from the ancients to the enlightenment sorts feared the appetites of t'mob did they not. i think what you're suggesting my lead to the realisation of those fears.

Maybe... so why is democracy such a good thing then, when the results of its truest and simplest form are unacceptable? How can democrats claim the moral high ground by asserting that rule by consent and consultation is the way to go, and yet at the same time reject ultra-democracy as mob rule?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

I see now what your point is. Yes I agree, there aren't many liberals in the street, and liberals wouldn't like many of the reforms that would quickly be passed. Immigration bans, capital punishment, perhaps corporal punishment would all follow. But I wasn't really advocating the widening of democracy, only pointing out that western governments are anything but democratic.
Maybe... so why is democracy such a good thing then, when the results of its truest and simplest form are unacceptable? How can democrats claim the moral high ground by asserting that rule by consent and consultation is the way to go, and yet at the same time reject ultra-democracy as mob rule?

well speaking for myself i have no qualms about prioritising liberalism over democracy.

real democracy would lurch between anarchy and fascism.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Al, spare us yet another Chavez hagiography. this one is of stomach churning proportions.

anyway, i see no reason for excluding venezuela if they can demonstrate fair electoral processes, and if they cease to assist really despotic regimes and terrorist outfits.

How about funding movements designed to violently overthrow democratically elected governments? Would they be barred if they did that? I'd assume not or the US wouldn't be allowed because of their actions in, funnily enough, Venezuela.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

the UN is in large part composed of dictatorships.

Really? That's interesting. Can you provide a list please of which countries you think are dictatorships and why please. There're 192 countries in it, so a simple majority of 93 will be ample. I'm sure with your informed view which you are so stridently proclaiming here you should have no problem with that.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

the peacekeepers are a joke that's part of the problem. they're better at running prostitution rackets than intervening to help anyone.

Really? So the peacekeepers who were allowed to take the action they felt most appropriate were useless. What were the limits on their actions that caused them to be useless do you think? Couldn't possibly be the limits put on by several countries who've agreed to send them could it?

What's your wonderful idea to replace them after the end of the UN btw? UK & US troops populating every trouble spot in the world? They can't handle two pretty small countries in the middle east and subcontinent of India ffs!

Originally Posted by egb_hibs