Democracy vs Realpolitik: Where do you stand?

[North Suran]

It's meant to make you choose between one or the other, which is no choice at all.

ITT: North Suran hates democracy.

North Suran hates self-serving polls.

What good is it, for instance, that a country is fully democratic if it is on the verge of war with its neighbour? I'm sure the population is really going to be prizing those ballot boxes when tanks start streaming into their capital. And Lord knows, no democracy has ever before transformed into a dictatorship under the conditions of warfare.

[Georgism]

What good is it, for instance, that a country is fully democratic if it is on the verge of war with its neighbour? I'm sure the population is really going to be prizing those ballot boxes when tanks start streaming into their capital. And Lord knows, no democracy has ever before transformed into a dictatorship under the conditions of warfare.

So don't vote for that option?

[North Suran]

What good is it, for instance, that a country is fully democratic if it is on the verge of war with its neighbour? I'm sure the population is really going to be prizing those ballot boxes when tanks start streaming into their capital. And Lord knows, no democracy has ever before transformed into a dictatorship under the conditions of warfare.

So don't vote for that option?

Perhaps if I had the option of voting for a fully functioning democracy that was totally neutral towards my country. Which I don't.

[Neo Arcad]

Pancakes.
Because I liek them.

[The Parkus Empire]

So don't vote for that option?

Perhaps if I had the option of voting for a fully functioning democracy that was totally neutral towards my country. Which I don't.

Not all democracies would be totally neutral toward your country. I'm pretty sure we're talking about those.

[Greed and Death]

Realpolitik any day of the week.

[Zirilrath]

Realpolitik or bust, baby. Mainly because the word politik is taken from Swedish, like ombudsman. But also because I'd rather bunk with a friendly nazi than a fairly elected leader who wanted to start some shit, war would just make the people of both nations miserable.

Then again, if I was given any sort of meaningful political power chances are that I'd be the theocratic nutjob in the equation.

[Wamitoria]

Options 2, 3, and 4.

[Degaullia]

I'm a monarchist. Between absolutism and constitutionalism, I lean towards absolutism.

[Wamitoria]

I'm a monarchist. Between absolutism and constitutionalism, I lean towards absolutism.

Did you read the OP?

[Cosmopoles]

Not all democracies would be totally neutral toward your country. I'm pretty sure we're talking about those.

I believe the point that North Suran is making is that he wouldn't support a hostile democracy or a friendly dictator. The poll doesn't provide an option for that viewpoint by demanding that the respondent support one or the other.

[Lackadaisical2]

Not all democracies would be totally neutral toward your country. I'm pretty sure we're talking about those.

I believe the point that North Suran is making is that he wouldn't support a hostile democracy or a friendly dictator. The poll doesn't provide an option for that viewpoint by demanding that the respondent support one or the other.

Yes it does. "I would support no such state"

[Hydesland]

I believe the point that North Suran is making is that he wouldn't support a hostile democracy or a friendly dictator. The poll doesn't provide an option for that viewpoint by demanding that the respondent support one or the other.

Yes it does. "I would support no such state"

I got the impression that was what anarchists are supposed to pick.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes it does. "I would support no such state"

I got the impression that was what anarchists are supposed to pick.

Anarchists don't support states, period. Not "no such state".

[Cosmopoles]

Yes it does. "I would support no such state"

Wasn't that added later?

[Hydesland]

Anarchists don't support states, period. Not "no such state".

Still getting that vibe though.

[Lackadaisical2]

Yes it does. "I would support no such state"

Wasn't that added later?

I was the first one to vote on the poll, and it hasn't been reset, nor has the OP been edited, so no.

[Meryuma]

A stateless social order based on free association, with a plurality of economic systems and a strongly anti-authoritarian cultural basis.

[Helertia]

ITT: North Suran hates democracy.

North Suran hates self-serving polls.

What good is it, for instance, that a country is fully democratic if it is on the verge of war with its neighbour? I'm sure the population is really going to be prizing those ballot boxes when tanks start streaming into their capital. And Lord knows, no democracy has ever before transformed into a dictatorship under the conditions of warfare.

I don't think it's fair to use Germany as an example in either case because the first example wasn't a fully functioning democracy and the second example was an extremely unstable government which both the right and left of the country hated, during a massive economic crisis whilst having the grossly unfair and unpopular treaty of Versaille imposed upon them

[Tahar Joblis]

Because of the answers available in the poll.

The poll is flawed. It posits that one has to make the choice between promoting democracy and defending your national interests by bringing countries into your sphere of influence. The USA has plenty of allies and friendly countries who are democracies.

And when your allies are wonderful people, there's no dilemma.

Given that most people like the idea of democracy, if you would support a hostile democracy, I feel I can assume you would probably support a friendly one. If you would not support a friendly dictatorship, I feel I can assume you would not support a hostile one. And I'm not really interested in the rare distinction of someone who detests democracy enough to prize it over concerns of realpolitik, so the sliding scale allows me to use a poll of list size n instead of n^2. Which would be cumbersome.

Yes, "none of the above" was in there from the first post, it's an option for many reasons. And I do feel that there's an underlying problem with the view I'm describing as realpolitik: It's short-sighted. By supporting dictatorships, the US, while serving immediate local interests (such as keeping United Fruit solvent), fails to serve its global (or even local) long-term interests (see; Taliban, Iraq, et cetera).

[Greed and Death]

So if your neighbour started calling for your country to be invaded, you wouldn't feel that you needed to intervene - or even concerned?

We are friendly with our neighbors. If that changes, we would change our policy toward them, but not by threatening their democratic institutions. Democracies rarely go to war with other democracies in an existential way, generally only to settle disputes.

The leftist leaning Latin American countries beg to differ. They may have been a proxy war but they were a war none the less.

[North Suran]

North Suran hates self-serving polls.

What good is it, for instance, that a country is fully democratic if it is on the verge of war with its neighbour? I'm sure the population is really going to be prizing those ballot boxes when tanks start streaming into their capital. And Lord knows, no democracy has ever before transformed into a dictatorship under the conditions of warfare.

I don't think it's fair to use Germany as an example in either case because the first example wasn't a fully functioning democracy and the second example was an extremely unstable government which both the right and left of the country hated, during a massive economic crisis whilst having the grossly unfair and unpopular treaty of Versaille imposed upon them

The German Empire (or Second Reich) was a constitutional monarchy and a representative parliamentary democracy. It differed only from the Westminster system in that the Kaiser possessed and exercised more powers than his British equivalent. That didn't stop the German Empire from becoming a de facto military junta after Ludendorff and Hindenburg used the war as a pretext to essentially bring the entire country under direct military control, side-lining the Kaiser and the Reichstag.

I didn't even refer to the Weimar Republic, and it's not really applicable.

[Helertia]

I don't think it's fair to use Germany as an example in either case because the first example wasn't a fully functioning democracy and the second example was an extremely unstable government which both the right and left of the country hated, during a massive economic crisis whilst having the grossly unfair and unpopular treaty of Versaille imposed upon them

The German Empire (or Second Reich) was a constitutional monarchy and a representative parliamentary democracy. It differed only from the Westminster system in that the Kaiser possessed and exercised more powers than his British equivalent. That didn't stop the German Empire from becoming a de facto military junta after Ludendorff and Hindenburg used the war as a pretext to essentially bring the entire country under direct military control, side-lining the Kaiser and the Reichstag.

I didn't even refer to the Weimar Republic, and it's not really applicable.

I'm sorry, I assumed the second link was to the Weimar Republic

I still contend Germany does not count. Yes, it became a de facto junta, but I contend that is a direct result of allowing the Kaiser the power he had. If it was a Westminster style democracy, Parliament would have held Ludendorff and Hidenburg in check. As it was, the Kaiser (who was not the best of leaders) allowed them to steadily increase in power at the expense of him and the Reichstag.

[Whiskey Hill]

We are friendly with our neighbors. If that changes, we would change our policy toward them, but not by threatening their democratic institutions. Democracies rarely go to war with other democracies in an existential way, generally only to settle disputes.

The leftist leaning Latin American countries beg to differ. They may have been a proxy war but they were a war none the less.

Can you clarify, was that an existential war, or a conflict over a dispute? I said that democracies generally do not engage in existential wars, only over disputes.

[Volnotova]

I think the poll is a fairly self-explanatory. For extra credit, please also indicate which regimes you would attempt to overthrow.

Obviously, this topic has connections to the news; less obviously, this topic ALWAYS has connections to the news, in case you weren't paying attention.

"Democratic" states is a contradictio in terminis.

States are by their definition authoritarian(how else could they rule over the people).

That being said, a nation with a ruling cannot be democratic as democracy is incompatible with authoritarianism.

I am an amoral anti-moralist anti-religious agnostic-athiest transhumanist physicalist anarchist laissez-faire radical, and so I do not see how an totalitarian state would be aligned with me.

That being said, the only time I would support such a state would be if they function simply as puppets in a grand conspiracy.