posted 08-10-99 03:45 PM ET     

Now before you begin a flame war, consider how democracies wage war. First, those who desire war must justify the war. They cannot do this by saying that the purpose of the war is to secure natural resources, control a trade route, or contain a foe. Instead, the electorate is told that their way of life is in imminent danger. "The enemy will kill your children, and plunder your goods!" A more sophisticated approach is to tell people that they are fighting for a principle. "We fight for honour, or human rights, or democracy!" War is necessary to prevent disaster. The only alternative is war.

The next step in attacking another nation state is demonization. Before we attack the enemy, we must make them sub-human. "Kill the Huns, the Nips, or the Gooks!" The various thought control agencies of our societies must strip the enemy of their basic human rights. Ideally, instead of being human beings much like ourselves, they become targets, or kills waiting to be terminated. The fact that they are cowed, hungry people, guilty only of being born in a certain place, must be ignored. The citizens of the democracy must not hear or see too much evidence of the humanity of the foe.

Once the foe becomes sub-human, the rest is easy. Our soldiers are not murdering sons and daughters, mothers and children; they are terminating with extreme prejudice. They are not blowing frightened teenage conscripts into bloody rags; they are clearing a zone. They are not killing people; they are killing things.

I am wondering whether this demonization challenges an enlightened civil society. Once the foe is an animal who deserves to die, all manner of atrocity can be justified. I believe that this puts us on a slippery slope. At one time, wars were fought between militaries. For example, much of the First World War was fought between armies. However, in the Second World War (and interestingly enough, phases of the U.S. Civil War), civilians were targets. Now, in for example, the Gulf War, civilians bear much of the brunt of the war. I see this as barbaric. Worst of all, this atrocity is accepted. The slaughter of innocents is seen as a legitimate part of war. Regrettable perhaps, but necessary.

Is this necessary? Maybe it is. However, it seems that if it is necessary to murder babies to win a war, even the winners are losers. What the winners have lost is their humanity.

However, to return to the point, modern democracies must justify war. To justify war, the electorate is made to believe that the enemy threatens their way of life, and is sub-human. This allows the war to be fought, but also allow atrocities to be committed and justified. Tolerance of atrocity deadens our humanity and makes us barbarians.

posted 08-10-99 06:31 PM ET            

it is my personal beleife that there is NO justification for killing a human no matter whom,

posted 08-11-99 12:09 AM ET            

On the other hand, excessive barbarism obviously leads to self-destruction of a different kind -- without a morally authoritative government, without clear and compelling motives for people to follow the rules, corruption and power struggles will consume a civilization's resources, and its barbarism will destroy it.

So a more pertinent question is not whether Democracy leads to barbarism but rather what level of barbarism is necessary for a stable and just society and what quantitative correlation exists between barbarism and Democracy.

posted 08-11-99 01:57 AM ET            

Oh, and on the original topic, Democracy doesnt lead to barbarianism, it is barbarianism. What were Jeff and George thinking when they decided it would be alright for the common citizen (the common citizen is motivited by greed and self gain, mind you) to vote on such important topics as education and where other taxes end up. Take for example, Jesse Ventura (for all of you non-americans, he was a former body builder/wrestler/actor who was elected as Minnisota's govener). It is painfully obvious that the citizens didnt really care what the hell he was going to do to the state, they just wanted someone exciting in the office. If only intelligent citizens would have voted, he would have been shoot down as soon as he announced he would be running for the Reform party (think Ross Perot). Another example: I attend public high school in Florida. As you may or may not know, Florida has one of the worst (and largest) public school systems, and it has the highest number of drop-outs per year. Why? Who holds most of the voting sway here, retired citizens. They don't have any kids in school, so why should they pay some for obnoxious little whipersnapper's education? After all, all they wanted to do was spend the "golden years" of thier life in the sweltering heat and humidity.

Belive me, if executed proporly, with the common good truly in mind, despotism could very well work. The problm is, when most democracy-poisoned minds think of despotism, they think of-

A) Hitler

B) Communism

C) Oppression

posted 08-11-99 06:44 AM ET            

>>Yes, in fact I think it will. Just look at the recent terror bombings of Jugoslavia by 13 alledgedly democratic states, it was said that these atrocities were being perpetrated because Jugoslavia was ethnically cleansing the albanians out of Kosova. How many really belive it to be so ? Not I, there�s dussins of places in the world were people are being equally cruel against each other, but they don�t get a social call by NATO-bombers. (I will try not to turn my post in to USA-bashing, but it�s just that these are the most recent atrocities perpetrated by "democratic" nations).

walruskkch
But a democracy's true strength lies
in it's citizens ability to make free judgments of the validity of their government's
arguments. And to be free to remove their government, through the ballot box, when
it finds their conduct is not to their liking.

>>Yes, but that only applies if the government isn�t using "dirty tricks" like indoctrination through media (which is the main instrument for governments everywhere). People belive it is the truth that is fed them through TV and newspapers, when it�s in fact more or less fabricated lies.

The danger in democracies is the people not
caring, or being well enough informed, to make those kinds of decisions. They then to
fall prey to the government's propoganda.

>>This is exactly as the goverment wants it to be, in fact a well educated populace is a threat to the goverment. Because then they can�t do as they please and blame "the good of the country" for it.

If Democracies fall into barbarism the blame
lies in the people themselves, not the government seperately because in a Democracy
the people ARE the government.

>>We think we are the government, when in fact we�re nothing more than puppets skillfully manouvered to serve the Machiavellan schemes of our masters. (Bourgouise)Democracy is nothing other than a form of dictatorship, albeit in a golden cage.

[..]I would say that type
of mass atrocity is hard to justify in a real democracy as well as get away with.

>>No argument there, just that there isn�t any real democracys around, and there has been very few in history alltogether.

ViVicdi
The real question is whether "barbarism" is per se an inferior lifestyle choice.[...]

>>True, you can be the barbarian survivor or you can be the most highly enlightened corpse on the cemetary. It�s not that hard a choice.

[..]what IS required is the belief that one's ally is worth liberating.
The logic is so simple and irrefutable a child could understand: Our friend was in
trouble and needed our help. We helped.

>>Yes, or that there is something worth "liberating" with a more mundane description: Our "friends" had something we wanted. We took it.

Dreadnought
I agree with you buddy, If only I were in charge

Bishop

posted 08-11-99 06:52 AM ET         

Not necessarily, shoot to incapacitate him maybe ?

Pericles: Whilst the links you make can and no doubt are used, it would be wrong to assume they are the only way to war.

For example whilst it may placate the public to make out you are going to war for a principle, it is perfectly possible to really for to war for a principle.

War, what is it good for ? Stopping a evil leader taking over and doing what he/she likes for one thing.

ViVicdi: I believe that pacifism can claim to be superior not because of any improved survival ability (although there might be, I don't feel inclined to dig that deep) but by virtue that it will be seen as on a higher moral level. Depends on the scale you use to measure things. At least I think not causing harm to others is on a higher moral level than the "kill anyone who isn't one of of us" philosophy.

posted 08-11-99 06:56 AM ET         

"Jugoslavia was ethnically cleansing the albanians out of Kosova. How many really belive it to be so ?" Most of us I hope.

posted 08-11-99 10:53 AM ET            

It seems that someone wrote a book about the rise and fall of a republic.
That book contained one of my all-time favorite quotes. Here �tis:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public
treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a
democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a
dictatorship."
"The average age of the world�s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These
nations have progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual
faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty
to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from
complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back into bondage."

The quote is from historian Alexander Frazier Tyler. He died in 1813, so he could hardly
have been writing about the Republic of the United States. Actually, he was writing about
Athenian Republic.

Is there one person reading his words who does not see a direct parallel to the United
States at the end of the 20th Century? Do we have voters who have discovered that they
can use their vote to plunder the pockets of others? You bet you sweet butkus we do. And
do we have politicians who know just how to go out there and get those votes? Not only
yes, but HELL yes. And what�s that about loose fiscal policies? Why, our national debt is
increasing by $250 million each and every day, yet our politicians feed us the lie of a
balanced budget and even a surplus!

The only debatable issue in Tyler�s statement is just what stage we have reached. I think
we�re in the complacency/apathy stage myself.

posted 08-11-99 03:04 PM ET            

Not so much that I don't believe it, but more that that explanation is incomplete. If you you added "and this is a location that could treaten the stability of Europe" you'd be a lot more correct. And you can't really discount the political angle at home. Of course, the abridged version plays a lot better in Peoria; the other brings "security interests", which seems to have become a dirty concept, into play.

"People belive it is the truth that is fed them through TV and newspapers, when it�s in fact more or less fabricated lies."

I'd say less. If you'd said incomplete truths I'd agree. But then again, one of the best ways to lie is to tell most of the truth(the best, of course, is to tell the absolute whole truth in a way no one believes).

"We think we are the government, when in fact we�re nothing more than puppets skillfully manouvered to serve the Machiavellan schemes of our masters. (Bourgouise)Democracy is nothing other than a form of dictatorship, albeit in a golden cage."

posted 08-11-99 03:06 PM ET            

h define democracy. If fact I don't think a country
can survive if we are all debating each political issue all the time. So you are forced to
run with representatives, and as far as I am concerned that is a legitimate democracy
(by any other name).

>>Yes, that would be fine if it just worked as it�s supposed to. Instead you have a bunch of twats who only care about you when it�s time to give them renewed confidence, so they can spend your hard earned money on visits to porno clubs in Brussel and alledged study trips with the Mrs to Rome or Madrid.

In fact, they don�t give a rats ass about us or what we think, just to illustrate this I�ll take an example from Sweden. Some time ago our democracy minister (yes we actually got one of those) Britta Leijon put out a suggestion that the public should be allowed to submit motions before the city council without having to go via a member of the city council. This in order to deepen the local democracy, needless to say it was buried just as soon as it was put out.

posted 08-11-99 04:08 PM ET            

>>Ah, but then were back to differing views as to why USA/NATO bombed Jugoslavia, I don�t belive that USA does anything without an economic alterior motive. All this talk about destabilizing the Balkans is a bunch of crap as far as I�m concerned �Tis true that the Balkans needs another war as much as the average politician needs a brain, but thats not the main reason for the bombings.

I'd say less. If you'd said incomplete truths I'd agree.

>>Well yes, but the way they twist the facts to suit (?) their purposes it could as well be lies.

A bit cynical today, eh?

>>LOL ! Well, just a bit

Democracy today is based on the assumption that
government is a necessary evil(an assumption I agree with, at least for the current
state of the world(even socialists generally acknowledge the need for some
government))

>>Yes, even after the revolution (whatever it will be like) there will be need for some form of government. That will not change. I wish I could agree with Lenins utopian predictions in "The revolution and the state", but it will not happen.

posted 08-11-99 06:27 PM ET            

And a destabilized Europe isn't an economic problem?

posted 08-12-99 12:55 AM ET            

I think you're confusing Socialists with Communitarians. Socialists believe in Big Government, as in U.N.-sized Big, while Communitarians believe in Big Government at the local level, where at least citizens who don't like it may vote with their feet and go somewhere the government ain't quite so big.

Socialists love the U.N. and big Federal social programs while Communitarians love (I guess) "progressive" cities like Seattle. The difference of course is that one may choose not to live in Seattle ...

posted 08-12-99 10:32 AM ET            

ViVicdi: "Evolution teaches that that which survives is superior to that which allows itself to be destroyed"

Natural selection is not a very good base for a moral code.

walruskkch: "The danger in democracies is the people not caring, or being well enough informed, to make those kinds of decisions. They then to fall prey to the government's propoganda."

Bishop: ">>This is exactly as the goverment wants it to be, in fact a well educated populace is a threat to the goverment. Because then they can�t do as they please and blame "the good of the country" for it."

A well educated populace are usually educated by the state, so the schools may very well be instruments of indoctrination. In fact, they often are. However, all indoctrination is not bad. Indoctrination against racism is good, for example.

ViVicdi: "Socialists believe in Big Government, as in U.N.-sized Big, while Communitarians believe in Big Government at the local level, where at least citizens who don't like it may vote with their feet and go somewhere the government ain't quite so big. ... Socialists love the U.N. and big Federal social programs while Communitarians love (I guess) "progressive" cities like Seattle."

Socialism is a broader term than that. It encomprises many political views, like anarchism, socialdemocracy, syndicalism, marxism, St Simon, Fourier. Even John Stuart Mill, who nowadays are usually considered a liberal, once stated that he was a socialist. And all socialists do not approve of the UN.

posted 08-12-99 11:45 AM ET            

Main Entry: so�cial�ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of
goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and
controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work
done

posted 08-12-99 11:46 AM ET            

1. Those who would force me to contribute.

2. Those who would live and let live.

posted 08-16-99 08:48 PM ET            

First:
The temptation is to think of Iraquis as being just like us with funny towels on their heads. They're not! You neighbour is nothing like you, your best friend is nothing like you! You might think you're pretty similar and on the surface you might be but everbody thinks completly differently.
Sometimes the person you think you know best will turn around and say something and you'll think : "Where the f*** did that come from"!
How could someone from half way across the world, in some god-forsaken sand-pit, who lives a totally diffent life to you, who was raised a different way, with differnt beliefs and values be the same as "us"?
A dictatorship is a system based on power and the fear of people with power. How many of us would try to stand up for our rights if we knew we would probably be beaten, maybe even killed by the secret police? Some people respect those who appear to be strong, and see helping others as weakness.

posted 08-20-99 12:14 PM ET            

When you get married, all your money goes to your family, whose voluntary participants decide what it will be spent on.

When you get Hillaried all your money goes to Washington where the politicians who say things like "there is no them there is only us" decide for "us" how "we" will spend "our" money.

posted 08-21-99 09:42 PM ET            

Natguy
Who really likes Julius Caesar (connection?)

posted 08-23-99 02:18 AM ET         

I don't think there are really any true Socialists of the second type.

Oh, and Pericles, is it just me, or is there a coincidence between your name and this post? Just seems odd(or interesting) to me.

posted 08-23-99 09:56 AM ET            

Fortunately, I'm not the Father of Democracy, so I can.

I've been looking for Karl AMrx's book, just to get the details on Socialism and perhaps dispeell a few myths, or bring a few truths to light.

posted 08-23-99 10:26 AM ET         

Nice to see that a few people caught that.

posted 08-24-99 02:44 PM ET            

Bishop

posted 08-24-99 06:22 PM ET         

You have missed the most crucial point - all of you.

Is blahing a democratic right or a barborous act.

posted 08-26-99 02:42 AM ET            

Marriage is, as I mentioned before, very Socialist, particularly in Community Property states such as Texas, but nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to wed (not anymore, at least).

I love Socialism, if for no other reason than because I'm a "live and let live" kinda guy, and I expect Socialists to return the favor and allow me to live as a Capitalist. Alas, they will not ...

posted 08-26-99 05:20 AM ET            

In a dictatorship the dictator is the government("L'etat est moi."). If he assumes control of all industry then it's socialism.

>>I don�t really follow your reasoning here, just because he�s a dictator and controls the industry doesn�t make it socialist. For example: The little island kingdom of Brunei, there the sultan own the country and controls all the industry (oil). This makes him one of the richest men in the world, now you don�t call this socialism. Or Hitlers Germany, or Moussolinis Italy, or Idi Amins Uganda, or Halie Selassies Etiopia, etc, etc. None of these countries was even remotely socialist, although all were dictatorships.

Bishop