Yes, of course
anonymous
September 27 2010, 21:52:09 UTC
Yeah. Of course. I'm not sure you know anything about what you are speaking about, really.
Otherwise you wouldn't ridicule yourself in speaking about a (science-fictional) British Empire made of "people living at peace with each other under a same ruler":
The great Mughal capital, in the middle of a remarkable cultural flowering, was turned overnight into a battleground.
The Siege of Delhi was a fight to the death between two powers, neither of whom could retreat. Finally, on 14 September 1857, the British assaulted and took the city, sacking the Mughal capital and massacring swathes of the population. "The orders went out to shoot every soul," recorded Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old British officer. "It was literally murder... The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference..." ... )
British and MughalsfareSeptember 27 2010, 22:17:05 UTC
Democracy is not the only totalitarian ideology out there. And totalitarianism is not the only inspiration for mass murder. Religion is another one.
Here you see a peaceful king being overrun by forces of a democracy that is only nominally monarchical, in what is otherwise an intercultural war of conquest. Not worse than when the Mughals themselves overran India.
Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not the enemies of each other.
Now fast forward to the fall of the British Empire, or the Yugoslavian Empire, into the hands of Democracy. Observe how the people who were living peacefully together start killing each other.
Re: British and Mughals
anonymous
September 28 2010, 12:32:09 UTC
> Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given > ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not > the enemies of each other > Perhaps, but this kind of situation is not what I call freedom. You could as well say that people jailed in a prison usually stop killing each other. But it is quite a feeble argument, IMHO.
Real freedom exists when people are ruled by themselves, and then, it's true, they become free to wage wars. Freedom is dangerous. In any case, I prefer freedom with perhaps a war than no freedom at all.
Looks like you think otherwise. You claim to be libertarian, so it seems you should defend freedom first. But then, by a strange weakness of your mind, in your criticism of democracy, you come to advocate regimes having a benevolent ruler, thus still, no real freedom. This is contradictory to your own stated goals.
No situation with a government whatsoever is what I call freedom.
Violence and aggression actually increases in prison as compared to outside a prison.
Democracy is not a lack of ruler, but the existence of millions of rulers, which makes it even worse than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression. Monarchs are not benevolent. Elected rulers are even less benevolent.
Re: Freedom
anonymous
September 28 2010, 16:51:20 UTC
> the existence of millions of rulers, which makes it even worse > than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression > Where is the logic of this ? There is no obvious relationship _at all_ between the number of rulers and how much oppressive is the rule !
The oppressiveness of a rule is mainly related to (1) the concepts the ruler(s) use to decide what to do (because if they use wrong concepts, they will decide harmful things), and (2) how much powerful is their police (for when the decision is wrong, or even partially wrong, a more powerful police makes things worse).
This is mainly from these two factors that the oppression comes from, not from an indirectly related variable like the "number of rulers" !
With such a weakly coherent thinking process, you can justify anything, really ! And *you* are the one teaching others how to use logic ?
Look who's setting a straw man! Oppression is not a direct magic function of the number of rulers. The logic is that now everyone is the enemy and corrupted by power. Democracy corrupts the whole of society. The oppression and destruction is completely determined by the Law of Bitur-Camember. Which ultimately rests on the source of legitimacy of power. Democracy contributes to making power legitimate on everything, especially as it lures people into identifying with the ruler rather than the ruled, and is therefore a source of total and totalitarian destruction the more people believe in it. Happily in western countries there are powerful forces of consumerism working against it.
Re: British and Mughals
anonymous
October 25 2010, 16:57:52 UTC
Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not the enemies of each other.
bvanevery writes: This is ahistorical beyond belief. Divide and Conquer was standard operating procedure in the British Empire. Pit one faction against another so that the British can rule them all. After the British Empire crumbled we had, and still have, the historical legacies of India / Pakistan's civil wars, and Arabs vs. Israelis. The ruled are very much the enemies of each other, they are just kept in check by the dominant power, as it suits the dominant power's purposes. Their enmity is a resource that the dominant power exploits to its own gain.
Empires vs DemocraciesfareOctober 26 2010, 00:37:30 UTC
Think again. The British didn't create the enmity between Muslims and Hindus. Read a bit about what the Mughals did before, or what the *democratically* elected regimes that followed did after. Whatever evil the British did is dwarfed by that. Religious fanaticism and Democracy together caused the wanton massacre of millions in "peace" time, where the British made massacres of thousands at most, in war time (with notable and sad exceptions
( ... )
Otherwise you wouldn't ridicule yourself in speaking about a (science-fictional) British Empire made of "people living at peace with each other under a same ruler":
The great Mughal capital, in the middle of a remarkable cultural flowering, was turned overnight into a battleground.
The Siege of Delhi was a fight to the death between two powers, neither of whom could retreat. Finally, on 14 September 1857, the British assaulted and took the city, sacking the Mughal capital and massacring swathes of the population. "The orders went out to shoot every soul," recorded Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old British officer. "It was literally murder... The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference..." ... )
Reply
Here you see a peaceful king being overrun by forces of a democracy that is only nominally monarchical, in what is otherwise an intercultural war of conquest. Not worse than when the Mughals themselves overran India.
Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not the enemies of each other.
Now fast forward to the fall of the British Empire, or the Yugoslavian Empire, into the hands of Democracy. Observe how the people who were living peacefully together start killing each other.
Reply
> ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not
> the enemies of each other
>
Perhaps, but this kind of situation is not what I call freedom. You could as well say that people jailed in a prison usually stop killing each other. But it is quite a feeble argument, IMHO.
Real freedom exists when people are ruled by themselves, and then, it's true, they become free to wage wars. Freedom is dangerous. In any case, I prefer freedom with perhaps a war than no freedom at all.
Looks like you think otherwise. You claim to be libertarian, so it seems you should defend freedom first. But then, by a strange weakness of your mind, in your criticism of democracy, you come to advocate regimes having a benevolent ruler, thus still, no real freedom. This is contradictory to your own stated goals.
You are not very convincing, really.
Reply
No situation with a government whatsoever is what I call freedom.
Violence and aggression actually increases in prison as compared to outside a prison.
Democracy is not a lack of ruler, but the existence of millions of rulers, which makes it even worse than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression. Monarchs are not benevolent. Elected rulers are even less benevolent.
Reply
> than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression
>
Where is the logic of this ? There is no obvious relationship _at all_ between the number of rulers and how much oppressive is the rule !
The oppressiveness of a rule is mainly related to (1) the concepts the ruler(s) use to decide what to do (because if they use wrong concepts, they will decide harmful things), and (2) how much powerful is their police (for when the decision is wrong, or even partially wrong, a more powerful police makes things worse).
This is mainly from these two factors that the oppression comes from, not from an indirectly related variable like the "number of rulers" !
With such a weakly coherent thinking process, you can justify anything, really ! And *you* are the one teaching others how to use logic ?
Reply
Reply
bvanevery writes: This is ahistorical beyond belief. Divide and Conquer was standard operating procedure in the British Empire. Pit one faction against another so that the British can rule them all. After the British Empire crumbled we had, and still have, the historical legacies of India / Pakistan's civil wars, and Arabs vs. Israelis. The ruled are very much the enemies of each other, they are just kept in check by the dominant power, as it suits the dominant power's purposes. Their enmity is a resource that the dominant power exploits to its own gain.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment