United Democratic Nations

[The USOT]

And why should the UN not be biased? To be frank, an alliance of free nations which value democracy seems like a better and more effective alliance than a democratic nations allied with dictatorships who cant even agree amongst themselves...

The UN is pretty much powerless and is domniated by the big and important nations who can do whatever they want.

It is indeed, but a lot of its powerlessness is due to its conflicting nature and its undemocratic legitimacy (One of many reasons people complain at teh EU for instance.

[Great Nepal]

Are you sure this isn't going to up/isn't already a "us westerners vs. them" thing?

I think that's actually his intention. Why on Earth we'd all want to send our relations with China and Russia and such down the shitter is beyond me.

So that we could give a employment to guy who would put their finger on the red button 24/7?

[Gdstark]

If you assume that the US is a model of democracy, than you don't understand democracy.

The US is a very functioning government somehow. Best example of democracy is definitely...umm....need help/
The US has had an honest self-serving foreign policy for a long time which is perfectly fine in my opinion. As long as we get our oil we need.

A very functioning government? Are you keeping up on current events?

[Voerdeland]

If they were actually controlling Holland and able to enforce their laws on the Dutch territory, then yes, I would let them.

Nobody can say you are not consistent. My response is that, if you design a world where might makes right, you will not have a peaceful world.

Well, I think that Hippostania is the guy who advocates here this principle. Might makes right, so NATO member-states could enforce their system of government upon other nations.

[Distruzio]

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not proposing that we force democracy on anyone. I'm only saying that we help those who seek it by keeping the internet free, by making it known to the world when dictators slaughter their own citizens, and such. I'm not proposing any sort of Bush-like "rescue mission" where we charge in and "free" anybody. That decision ultimately belongs to the people. Unlike you I make NO assumption about approvals. I do not pretend that I know what a people want who do not or cannot vote.

Really? That's the best response you have? This UDN thing is sketchy indeed if healthy criticism from someone opposed to democracy, but in support of your proposition to advocate a United Democratic Nations leads you to backpedal so. I'm curious why you believe that democracies are the only way to attain peace?

In short: how does democracy = peace?

If you assume that the US is a model of democracy, than you don't understand democracy.

The United States is a democracy, no? Be it model or not, it is democratic and it does bestride the globe with arrogance befitting a democratist.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, demonizing is not how it works. The primary goal is to set a good democratic example. You don't convince by demonizing. That's so George Bush. Look, if you fail to coax nations over to democracy, you fail the mission.

You are demonizing authoritarian regimes. You are pushing them out because they're not democracies. Is that not what you're wanting to do, here?

That's all well and good. And now it's time to step it up. Achieve a peaceful world...a world where all of that wasted military spending can go to solving energy problems, improving transportation, exploring the solar system. Look, when nuclear proliferation is moving in the wrong direction, it's time to reevaluate the workings of your global political institution.

What you call "stepping it up" is actually moving backwards. You cannot achieve a peaceful world by isolating -- yes, isolating -- non-democratic states. Despite your beliefs, those states are not going to buy into your peaceful message. They're going to see the Western world forming their own (even more) elite group; they're going to see that as antagonistic.

Members of this UDN are going to have to spend more on their military, because there's going to be more tension and more conflict as a result of splitting the world into two separate groups. This is not the first time the world has been split between democracies and non-democracies. We have a pretty good idea of how non-democracies respond to these situations.

"big bad"? Oh, you're too funny. The UDN would be small and not bad. I distinctly remember writing that.

An IGO consisting of nearly the entire Western world is not "small."

btw, this is why I suspect that the UN will never reform and that the UDN will need to be created on a parallel track.

If the UN can't ever be reformed, then there's zero chance of a UDN coming into existence. The way I see it, both have the same prerequisites. If conditions are ever right for a UDN, then UN reform will happen. It's cheaper to reform the UN than to create a new IGO.

I suspect that will change immediately after the first nuclear terrorist attack, don't you?

Probably not. In the very unlikely scenario that detonate a nuclear bomb, why would states give up their nuclear weapons? Why would people feel an urgency to give up these weapons? We didn't stop using airplanes and building skyscrapers in response to 9/11. We responded by creating a more militarized state, which would probably be the same response to a nuclear terrorist attack.

The odds today that we just happen to need to kill a million people that just happen to be standing within a ten mile radius are growing increasingly remote. Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the rule of law. There...now somebody's challenged the logic.

Maybe challenging some kind of logic, but not nuclear deterrence. Perhaps I should specify that I'm talking about MAD.

Make matters worse? And if it gets worse with the status quo, you may be the one looking for an alternative. Watch when China becomes more militarily assertive...see how well that plays at the UN...

Decreasing cooperation between China and the United States is what would cause major conflict between the two. The only reasons for China to go to war with the US is it's hubris and our fear. Both of which can be substantially reduced through cooperation. Besides, the US can't even control the world through military power alone, and nobody believes that China is going to exponentially surpass the US in military power. So I'm not sure why a rising military within China spells doom for the UN and even less sure why it spells fortune for your UDN.

[Angleter]

I don't get the notion of democratic peace theory. For one, it once again relies on what you consider 'democratic'- take World War One. Essentially, a localised conflict until Germany, Britain, and France got involved. Germany in 1914 had one of the widest suffrages in Europe- indeed rivalling Britain's and France's- and thus elected a Reichstag that at the very least enabled the war and the war effort, and supported the war right up until the end. Britain, a democracy, went to war too. Why? Because of their interests- Germany had contrived to fall out with everyone except Austria in the lead up to the war (not entirely its own fault), was losing its arms race, and basically saw its chance to stop the Entente's encirclement and get a Europe more amenable to its desires. Britain didn't want a Europe amenable to any single nation's interests, and hadn't done since Louis XIV ruled France, so it felt the need to stop Germany smacking France and Russia and thus being in a position to focus on blue water interests.

If a people see that a war is in the interests of their nation, then they shall go to war all the same. Thus hegemonic stability- America makes it so that it is no longer in Egypt's interests to attack Israel, for example. The age of democracy being anything other than a rarity (ie. post-WW2, especially post-1990) just happens to be one where war isn't in anyone's interests to enough of an extent for them actually to do it- part of that is economic globalisation, part of it is American hegemony, and part of it is down to specific regional situations and foreign relations.

[Gdstark]

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not proposing that we force democracy on anyone. I'm only saying that we help those who seek it by keeping the internet free, by making it known to the world when dictators slaughter their own citizens, and such. I'm not proposing any sort of Bush-like "rescue mission" where we charge in and "free" anybody. That decision ultimately belongs to the people. Unlike you I make NO assumption about approvals. I do not pretend that I know what a people want who do not or cannot vote.

Really? That's the best response you have? This UDN thing is sketchy indeed if healthy criticism from someone opposed to democracy, but in support of your proposition to advocate a United Democratic Nations leads you to backpedal so. I'm curious why you believe that democracies are the only way to attain peace?

In short: how does democracy = peace?

As has already been stated, democracies do not tend to attack democracies. And if you don't believe that, try this one on: in a democracy the people tend to change leaders by elections, but in dictatorships people often change leaders by revolution. Clearly less blood is spilled in the democracy, which contributes to world peace. You may disagree with this theory, but at least be aware that it's not something I made up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_peace#Democratic_peace_theory
As for this being the ONLY way to obtain peace, let's just say that it's the only theory I've heard that makes sense. If you prefer another, let us know.

If you assume that the US is a model of democracy, than you don't understand democracy.

The United States is a democracy, no? Be it model or not, it is democratic and it does bestride the globe with arrogance befitting a democratist.

Actually, the answer is "sort of". It's a republic, which is a representative democracy. Personally I'd like to see us dump the electoral college and all that, but another discussion. But your point is a good one...people all over the world see the US as the very definition of democracy. So when our idiotic foreign policy involves occupying nations to beat democracy into them, you can see where that makes my argument in favor of democracy all the more difficult. It's a real problem when the "gold standard" for democracy (in many people's eyes) isn't so golden. My goal for the UDN is not just spreading democracy, but improving existing ones, if that helps.

[Casta Nal]

The US is a very functioning government somehow. Best example of democracy is definitely...umm....need help/
The US has had an honest self-serving foreign policy for a long time which is perfectly fine in my opinion. As long as we get our oil we need.

A very functioning government? Are you keeping up on current events?

Compare it to North Korea, Somalia, Belgium, or Turkmenistan. It is quite functioning compared to them.

[Voerdeland]

A very functioning government? Are you keeping up on current events?

Compare it to North Korea, Somalia, Belgium, or Turkmenistan. It is quite functioning compared to them.

Out of these countries only Somalia doesn't have a functioning government.

[New Freedomstan]

Compare it to North Korea, Somalia, Belgium, or Turkmenistan. It is quite functioning compared to them.

Out of these countries only Somalia doesn't have a functioning government.

I guess Belgium has a functioning state, but a bunch of bickering parties where the government is intended to be. The DPRK and Turkmenistan is fully functional, if very authoritarian, governments though.

[Distruzio]

Clearly less blood is spilled in the democracy, which contributes to world peace. You may disagree with this theory, but at least be aware that it's not something I made up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_peace#Democratic_peace_theory

Orly? You might like this book. I do disagree, my friend, that democracies never or rarely wage war on one another. Personally, I find that democracies are the most democidal and expropriatory of all forms of gov't. Mostly b/c I don't believe that public ownership of something, even gov't, is anything less than robbery of legitimate property owners. If we can agree that nationalization of the financial industry (bailouts) is robbing the private taxpayers (do we agree on that?) then it stands to reason by no small leap of logic that nationalization of the institution of gov't is equally theft. Especially when argued for under the premise of an ideal. It's easy to be compassionate and supportive of egalitarian ideals when someone else is forced to pay the cost. I cater to the ideal of local self-determinism. If that leads to democracy, then so be it. If it leads to anarchy, or anocracy, or oligarchy, or monarchy, or what have you, then so be it. So long as coercive hegemonic and monopolistic institutions are absent. Where they exist, I prefer a great many more. In other words, I prefer an anarcho-monarchist approach to government. Directly related to anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism is the application of the theory of private property to to political anarchy. In other words, I reject egalitarianism entirely and utterly, even when it comes to gov't. No one should have an equal say to me about the gov't that I submit to.

Although personally opposed to democracy, I understand the appeal (and in another thread I'm learning more about the appeal in relation to the multiple posters in NSG so I can better respond to them) for many, especially among the anarcho-libertarian crowd. It is, on its face, an expression of individual liberty in political thought. I disagree. But I won't use my disagreement as a divisive tool. When you present your discursive arguments, I will criticize and pick apart. This is not to alter your opinion, but to help you better refine your presentation. After all, if you can hold your own against an anarchist, then the authoritarians stand no chance (authoritarianism is easily dismissed by merely engaging them in conversation. They respect private property enough to recognize a differing opinion in conversation when they hear it and in doing so they present themselves as perfect hypocrites and inconsistent philosophers).

My goal for the UDN is not just spreading democracy, but improving existing ones, if that helps.

It does indeed. It makes me more skeptical of your intent and the feasibility of this project.

[Distruzio]

Compare it to North Korea, Somalia, Belgium, or Turkmenistan. It is quite functioning compared to them.

Out of these countries only Somalia doesn't have a functioning government.

Belgium has no functional central gov't and hasn't for a while now. All political discourse is deadlocked between rivalrous partisans. It's beautiful.

[Distruzio]

Decreasing cooperation between China and the United States is what would cause major conflict between the two. The only reasons for China to go to war with the US is it's hubris and our fear. Both of which can be substantially reduced through cooperation. Besides, the US can't even control the world through military power alone, and nobody believes that China is going to exponentially surpass the US in military power. So I'm not sure why a rising military within China spells doom for the UN and even less sure why it spells fortune for your UDN.

Especially considering China's increasingly State Capitalist economy and emphasis on quasi-protectionist foreign trade policies. Honestly, war will come from China when Wal-Mart is nationalized by the US gov't.

[Gdstark]

Clearly less blood is spilled in the democracy, which contributes to world peace. You may disagree with this theory, but at least be aware that it's not something I made up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_peace#Democratic_peace_theory

Orly? You might like this book. I do disagree, my friend, that democracies never or rarely wage war on one another.

You only need to establish that democracies wage war less and the idea still succeeds. Throw in a world of cell phone cameras and instant communications, with the dictator stampede already underway and I'd say this theory is actually sounding better by the day.

Personally, I find that democracies are the most democidal and expropriatory of all forms of gov't. Mostly b/c I don't believe that public ownership of something, even gov't, is anything less than robbery of legitimate property owners. If we can agree that nationalization of the financial industry (bailouts) is robbing the private taxpayers (do we agree on that?) then it stands to reason by no small leap of logic that nationalization of the institution of gov't is equally theft. Especially when argued for under the premise of an ideal. It's easy to be compassionate and supportive of egalitarian ideals when someone else is forced to pay the cost. I cater to the ideal of local self-determinism. If that leads to democracy, then so be it. If it leads to anarchy, or anocracy, or oligarchy, or monarchy, or what have you, then so be it.

That's a rather strange preference in government. Perhaps you could try one of those house swapping deals, live in China or North Korea for a week and see if you still feel the same way. I think it would be an eye opener. I think I'd just be afraid. All my badmouthing of dictators.

So long as coercive hegemonic and monopolistic institutions are absent. Where they exist, I prefer a great many more. In other words, I prefer an anarcho-monarchist approach to government.

ok, you're making this shit up. For me the democracy thing is increadibly easy. It's people taking responsibility for themselves, for better or worse, owning the process. What's not to like? Why anyone would move even an inch towards the old king/dictator model is completely beyond me. I really think all those disney fairy tales full of princes and goodly kings did us a real disservice. Those kings of the past would make Gaddafi blush.

Directly related to anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism is the application of the theory of private property to to political anarchy. In other words, I reject egalitarianism entirely and utterly, even when it comes to gov't. No one should have an equal say to me about the gov't that I submit to.
Although personally opposed to democracy, I understand the appeal (and in another thread I'm learning more about the appeal in relation to the multiple posters in NSG so I can better respond to them) for many, especially among the anarcho-libertarian crowd. It is, on its face, an expression of individual liberty in political thought. I disagree. But I won't use my disagreement as a divisive tool. When you present your discursive arguments, I will criticize and pick apart. This is not to alter your opinion, but to help you better refine your presentation. After all, if you can hold your own against an anarchist, then the authoritarians stand no chance (authoritarianism is easily dismissed by merely engaging them in conversation. They respect private property enough to recognize a differing opinion in conversation when they hear it and in doing so they present themselves as perfect hypocrites and inconsistent philosophers).

My goal for the UDN is not just spreading democracy, but improving existing ones, if that helps.

It does indeed. It makes me more skeptical of your intent and the feasibility of this project.

Skeptical of my intent? I would love to hear what you think my real intent is. I'm happy to tell you. My intent is to literally make the world more peaceful. I want a good future for my kids. I don't need another motivation. I see the internet is a game changer. It means a single good idea can change the world at the speed of light (depending on your connection). BTW, here's my transportation idea: http://www.PRTProject.com

[Distruzio]

That's a rather strange preference in government. Perhaps you could try one of those house swapping deals, live in China or North Korea for a week and see if you still feel the same way. I think it would be an eye opener. I think I'd just be afraid. All my badmouthing of dictators.

I did, actually. I left a more democratic California to live in a more aristocratic Georgia. It was indeed an eye opener.

ok, you're making this shit up. For me the democracy thing is increadibly easy. It's people taking responsibility for themselves, for better or worse, owning the process. What's not to like? Why anyone would move even an inch towards the old king/dictator model is completely beyond me. I really think all those disney fairy tales full of princes and goodly kings did us a real disservice. Those kings of the past would make Gaddafi blush.

Who said anything about monarchy? I specifically mentioned anarcho-monarchism. Royalism is not the subject of my discussion. In fact, I described exactly what I meant and you conveniently failed to read any further.

Directly related to anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism is the application of the theory of private property to to political anarchy. In other words, I reject egalitarianism entirely and utterly, even when it comes to gov't. No one should have an equal say to me about the gov't that I submit to.
Although personally opposed to democracy, I understand the appeal (and in another thread I'm learning more about the appeal in relation to the multiple posters in NSG so I can better respond to them) for many, especially among the anarcho-libertarian crowd. It is, on its face, an expression of individual liberty in political thought. I disagree. But I won't use my disagreement as a divisive tool. When you present your discursive arguments, I will criticize and pick apart. This is not to alter your opinion, but to help you better refine your presentation. After all, if you can hold your own against an anarchist, then the authoritarians stand no chance (authoritarianism is easily dismissed by merely engaging them in conversation. They respect private property enough to recognize a differing opinion in conversation when they hear it and in doing so they present themselves as perfect hypocrites and inconsistent philosophers).

Skeptical of my intent? I would love to hear what you think my real intent is. I'm happy to tell you. My intent is to literally make the world more peaceful. I want a good future for my kids. I don't need another motivation. I see the internet is a game changer. It means a single good idea can change the world at the speed of light (depending on your connection). BTW, here's my transportation idea: http://www.PRTProject.com

Do-good moral adventurism, Gary, and it's cult-like following, has led the beacon of liberty, America, down the path of empire for more than a hundred years now. From "liberating Cuba" to "making the world safe for democracy" to winning a "war on terror," this great moral crusade has destroyed lives and impoverished nations. That makes me skeptical of your intent. True altruism is based on the arrogant notion that the altruist knows how to save other people from themselves. *shrug* This might be offensive to you, but the muslims living under autocratic regimes don't need a democratists help anymore than they need more sand. The Egyptian people have proven this, as have the Syrians. When they want reforms, they will have them.

I'm merely trying to make certain you understand that you tread ground that has been bloodied before. Neo-Wilsonianism to be exact. It was a horrendously disastrous for an entire generation of men and gave rise to the Nazis. Idealism is dangerous.

Oh, and your "public" transport is a novel idea. I wish you luck. I don't like it though.

/doesn'tapproveofpublicownershipofanyting.

[Voerdeland]

Out of these countries only Somalia doesn't have a functioning government.

Belgium has no functional central gov't and hasn't for a while now. All political discourse is deadlocked between rivalrous partisans. It's beautiful.

It has a functional government. It doesn't have a cabinet. There's a difference.

[Distruzio]

Belgium has no functional central gov't and hasn't for a while now. All political discourse is deadlocked between rivalrous partisans. It's beautiful.

It has a functional government. It doesn't have a cabinet. There's a difference.

Then I stand corrected.

[Gdstark]

That's a rather strange preference in government. Perhaps you could try one of those house swapping deals, live in China or North Korea for a week and see if you still feel the same way. I think it would be an eye opener. I think I'd just be afraid. All my badmouthing of dictators.

I did, actually. I left a more democratic California to live in a more aristocratic Georgia. It was indeed an eye opener.

ok, you're making this shit up. For me the democracy thing is increadibly easy. It's people taking responsibility for themselves, for better or worse, owning the process. What's not to like? Why anyone would move even an inch towards the old king/dictator model is completely beyond me. I really think all those disney fairy tales full of princes and goodly kings did us a real disservice. Those kings of the past would make Gaddafi blush.

Who said anything about monarchy? I specifically mentioned anarcho-monarchism. Royalism is not the subject of my discussion. In fact, I described exactly what I meant and you conveniently failed to read any further.

Directly related to anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism is the application of the theory of private property to to political anarchy. In other words, I reject egalitarianism entirely and utterly, even when it comes to gov't. No one should have an equal say to me about the gov't that I submit to.
Although personally opposed to democracy, I understand the appeal (and in another thread I'm learning more about the appeal in relation to the multiple posters in NSG so I can better respond to them) for many, especially among the anarcho-libertarian crowd. It is, on its face, an expression of individual liberty in political thought. I disagree. But I won't use my disagreement as a divisive tool. When you present your discursive arguments, I will criticize and pick apart. This is not to alter your opinion, but to help you better refine your presentation. After all, if you can hold your own against an anarchist, then the authoritarians stand no chance (authoritarianism is easily dismissed by merely engaging them in conversation. They respect private property enough to recognize a differing opinion in conversation when they hear it and in doing so they present themselves as perfect hypocrites and inconsistent philosophers).

Skeptical of my intent? I would love to hear what you think my real intent is. I'm happy to tell you. My intent is to literally make the world more peaceful. I want a good future for my kids. I don't need another motivation. I see the internet is a game changer. It means a single good idea can change the world at the speed of light (depending on your connection). BTW, here's my transportation idea: http://www.PRTProject.com

Do-good moral adventurism, Gary, and it's cult-like following, has led the beacon of liberty, America, down the path of empire for more than a hundred years now. From "liberating Cuba" to "making the world safe for democracy" to winning a "war on terror," this great moral crusade has destroyed lives and impoverished nations.

Yes, and I'm trying to avoid these ill fated "adventures". Did you happen to notice that the UDN proposal does not include a standing military force? Unlike all these other regrettable foreign policy choices, the UDN idea is extremely passive. It's not about invading or declaring war on [fill-in-the-blank]. It's entirely about setting a good example. Is far more passive than the status quo. How you can somehow equate that with an aggressive US-like foreign policy is absolutely beyond me. It's about exactly the opposite.

That makes me skeptical of your intent. True altruism is based on the arrogant notion that the altruist knows how to save other people from themselves. *shrug* This might be offensive to you, but the muslims living under autocratic regimes don't need a democratists help anymore than they need more sand.

Do you think that the internet played an important role in overthrowing these regimes?

The Egyptian people have proven this, as have the Syrians. When they want reforms, they will have them.

I'm merely trying to make certain you understand that you tread ground that has been bloodied before. Neo-Wilsonianism to be exact. It was a horrendously disastrous for an entire generation of men and gave rise to the Nazis. Idealism is dangerous.

Most of Wilson's 14 points are about resolving specific land disputes, so I find your comparison a real stretch.

[Gernonai]

It seems to me what people are looking for is a Union of Westernized, Democratic, Libertarian Nations, the UoWDLN

[Distruzio]

Yes, and I'm trying to avoid these ill fated "adventures". Did you happen to notice that the UDN proposal does not include a standing military force? Unlike all these other regrettable foreign policy choices, the UDN idea is extremely passive. It's not about invading or declaring war on [fill-in-the-blank]. It's entirely about setting a good example. Is far more passive than the status quo. How you can somehow equate that with an aggressive US-like foreign policy is absolutely beyond me. It's about exactly the opposite.

Alright, then. The proposal will need to be explicitly anti-military then. Otherwise, at a later date, were your proposal successful, it would be used as a moral adventure. Consider the current debates surrounding the American constitution. Where there is nothing prohibiting action, the "living document" adherents presume authority can be found.

Most of Wilson's 14 points are about resolving specific land disputes, so I find your comparison a real stretch.

It is the intent behind it that I speak of, Gary. Hence my response to your question regarding my skepticism of your intent? Wilson sought to resolve land disputes on his own, as you seek to resolve legitimacy disputes on your own, without the involvement of the parties affected unless they accept your artificially (as he expected) constructed dichotomy.

Wilson: Either you are monarchist and evil, or you are democratist/parliamentarian and good?

Gary: Either you are dictator and evil, or you are ideally democratist and good?

[Gdstark]

Yes, and I'm trying to avoid these ill fated "adventures". Did you happen to notice that the UDN proposal does not include a standing military force? Unlike all these other regrettable foreign policy choices, the UDN idea is extremely passive. It's not about invading or declaring war on [fill-in-the-blank]. It's entirely about setting a good example. Is far more passive than the status quo. How you can somehow equate that with an aggressive US-like foreign policy is absolutely beyond me. It's about exactly the opposite.

Alright, then. The proposal will need to be explicitly anti-military then. Otherwise, at a later date, were your proposal successful, it would be used as a moral adventure.

The theory is that more democracy means less war. That will decrease the need for militaries. That said, I agree with you.

Consider the current debates surrounding the American constitution. Where there is nothing prohibiting action, the "living document" adherents presume authority can be found.

Most of Wilson's 14 points are about resolving specific land disputes, so I find your comparison a real stretch.

It is the intent behind it that I speak of, Gary. Hence my response to your question regarding my skepticism of your intent? Wilson sought to resolve land disputes on his own,

"On his own" is not democracy.

as you seek to resolve legitimacy disputes on your own,

On my own? No, just the opposite. Unlike the UN, the United Democratic Nations would represent the entire free world. Any not represented sadly have no voice at all. Like the Chinese or the North Korean people.

without the involvement of the parties affected

That sounds so polite. The parties affected. Do you mean the dictator? That creates a delimma. How do you handle a dictator? Do you just bow, feed him lobster, and pretend that he represents millions of people? Or do politely explain that representation and rule by force are not the same thing. Then call him a cab. But first check for any arrest warrents.

unless they accept your artificially (as he expected) constructed dichotomy.

Wilson: Either you are monarchist and evil, or you are democratist/parliamentarian and good?

The truth is that it's a sliding scale. On one extreme you have "dictator" and on the other you have "democracy". All nations fall somewhere on the scale.

Gary: Either you are dictator and evil, or you are ideally democratist and good?

It's probably a sliding scale.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Orly? You might like this book. I do disagree, my friend, that democracies never or rarely wage war on one another.

For what it's worth, there's a big difference between "democracy" and "liberal democracy." Democratic Peace Theory deals with the latter, stable liberal democracies. The refutation provided shows a pretty elementary understanding of the theory. Comparing Richard Nixon to Slobodon Milosovic and then suggesting that the United States and Yugoslavia were in the same category completely destroys this guy's credibility.

[Distruzio]

Orly? You might like this book. I do disagree, my friend, that democracies never or rarely wage war on one another.

For what it's worth, there's a big difference between "democracy" and "liberal democracy." Democratic Peace Theory deals with the latter, stable liberal democracies. The refutation provided shows a pretty elementary understanding of the theory. Comparing Richard Nixon to Slobodon Milosovic and then suggesting that the United States and Yugoslavia were in the same category completely destroys this guy's credibility.

I disagree with that opinion. Reductio ad Absurdum is quite useful and comparing two forms of democracy to one another to dispel the myths of DPT is quite appropriate, as far as I'm concerned, although I don't use that approach myself. I use property rights to define my skepticism of democracy.

[Gdstark]

One parting thought...if anyone supports the UDN website proposal, let me know and I can add your name to the petition on the last page. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

gary
http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org