| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Erik" |
| Date: |
02 Aug 2004 07:07:57 AM |
| Object: |
Funny political t-shirt |
Check out http://www.cafeshops.com/absopolitics for political funny
t-shirts, mouse pad and such. A bit philosophical also, but consider
it a bonus.
"Democracy is the
most expensive
form of government"
"Dictatorship is
unfair but
cost effective"
The western world has long promoted the democratic ideal. However, the
western world represents an extremely rich minority on earth huge
demands for individual consumption. Can we really afford a world of
democracy? Take a minute to by a t-shirt or a mouse pad on the
subject.
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
02 Aug 2004 10:17:32 AM |
|
|
"Erik" <eribe44@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:676b7eb6.0408020407.654eb77f@posting.google.com...
Check out http://www.cafeshops.com/absopolitics for political funny
t-shirts, mouse pad and such. A bit philosophical also, but consider
it a bonus.
"Democracy is the
most expensive
form of government"
"Dictatorship is
unfair but
cost effective"
The western world has long promoted the democratic ideal. However, the
western world represents an extremely rich minority on earth huge
demands for individual consumption. Can we really afford a world of
democracy? Take a minute to by a t-shirt or a mouse pad on the
subject.
Yes we can afford a world of democracy but what about liberty?
- Democracy and Liberty
"Suppose elections are free and fair and those elected are racists,
fascists, separatists," said the American diplomat Richard Holbrooke about
Yugoslavia in the 1990s. "That is the dilemma." Indeed it is, and not merely
in Yugoslavia's past but in the world's present. Consider, for example, the
challenge we face across the Islamic world. We recognize the need for
democracy in those often-repressive countries. But what if democracy
produces an Islamic theocracy or something like it? It is not an idle
concern. Across the globe, democratically elected regimes, often ones that
have been re-elected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring
constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic
rights. This disturbing phenomenon-visible from Peru to the Palestinian
territories, from Ghana to Venezuela-could be called "illiberal democracy."
For people in the West, democracy means "liberal democracy": a political
system marked not only by free and fair elections but also by the rule of
law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of
speech, assembly, religion, and property. But this bundle of freedoms-what
might be termed "constitutional liberalism"-has nothing intrinsically to do
with democracy and the two have not always gone together, even in the West.
After all, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany via free elections.
Over the last half-century in the West, democracy and liberty have merged.
But today the two strands of liberal democracy, interwoven in the Western
political fabric, are coming apart across the globe. Democracy is
flourishing; liberty is not.
In some places, such as Central Asia, elections have paved the way for
dictatorships. In others, they have exacerbated group conflict and ethnic
tensions. Both Yugoslavia and Indonesia, for example, were far more tolerant
and secular when they were ruled by strongmen (Tito and Suharto,
respectively) than they are now as democracies. And in many nondemocracies,
elections would not improve matters much. Across the Arab world elections
held tomorrow would probably bring to power regimes that are more
intolerant, reactionary, anti-Western, and anti-Semitic than the
dictatorships currently in place.
In a world that is increasingly democratic, regimes that resist the trend
produce dysfunctional societies-as in the Arab world. Their people sense the
deprivation of liberty more strongly than ever before because they know the
alternatives; they can see them on CNN, BBC, and Al-Jazeera. But yet, newly
democratic countries too often become sham democracies, which produces
disenchantment, disarray, violence, and new forms of tyranny. Look at Iran
and Venezuela. This is not a reason to stop holding elections, of course,
but surely it should make us ask, What is at the root of this troubling
development? Why do so many developing countries have so much difficulty
creating stable, genuinely democratic societies? Were we to embark on the
vast challenge of building democracy in Iraq, how would we make sure that we
succeed?
First, let's be clear what we mean by political democracy. From the time of
Herodotus it has been defined, first and foremost, as the rule of the
people. This definition of democracy as a process of selecting governments
is now widely used by scholars. In The Third Wave, the eminent political
scientist Samuel P. Huntington explains why:
Elections, open, free and fair, are the essence of democracy, the
inescapable sine qua non. Governments produced by elections may be
inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special
interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good.
These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them
undemocratic. Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the
relation of democracy to other public virtues and vices can only be
understood if democracy is clearly distinguished from the other
characteristics of political systems.
This definition also accords with the commonsense view of the term. If a
country holds competitive, multiparty elections, we call it "democratic."
When public participation in a country's politics is increased-for example,
through the enfranchisement of women-that country is seen as having become
more democratic. Of course elections must be open and fair, and this
requires some protections for the freedom of speech and assembly. But to go
beyond this minimal requirement and label a country democratic only if it
guarantees a particular catalog of social, political, economic, and
religious rights-which will vary with every observer-makes the word
"democracy" meaningless. After all, Sweden has an economic system that many
argue curtails individual property rights, France until recently had a state
monopoly on television, and Britain has a state religion. But they are all
clearly and identifiably democracies. To have "democracy" mean,
subjectively, "a good government" makes it analytically useless.
Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures
for selecting government but, rather, government's goals. It refers to the
tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's
autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source-state, church, or
society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal*
because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks and
Romans, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it
places the rule of law at the center of politics. Constitutional liberalism
developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of an
individual's right to life and property and the freedoms of religion and
speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of
government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and the
separation of church and state. In almost all of its variants,
constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or
"inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting
its own powers, to secure them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons
forced the king to limit his own authority. In the American colonies these
customs were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the
first written constitution in modern history. In 1789 the American
Constitution created a formal framework for the new nation. In 1975 Western
nations set standards of behavior even for nondemocratic regimes. Magna
Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and
the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.
*I use the term "liberal" in the nineteenth-century sense, meaning concerned
with individual economic, political, and religious liberty, which is
sometimes called "classical liberalism," not in the modern, American sense,
which associates it with the welfare state, affirmative action, and other
policies.
Since 1945 Western governments have, for the most part, embodied both
democracy and constitutional liberalism. Thus it is difficult to imagine the
two apart, in the form of either illiberal democracy or liberal autocracy.
The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393047644/
quickly googled
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=liberty+democracy+group:alt.philosophy.*+author:reanimater_2000%40yahoo.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=46SdnUwBk9-lSundRVn
-vw%40comcast.com&rnum=2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
03 Aug 2004 08:31:13 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<yYidndvwBtr5xpPcRVn-qw@comcast.com>...
democracy in those often-repressive countries. But what if democracy
produces an Islamic theocracy or something like it?
Iran had a referendum in 1979 on whether or not to become an Islamic
theocracy. Now many Iranians have seen an Islamic theocracy up close
and are beginning to think that it is not such a great idea.
If people elsewhere in the Islamic world want an Islamic theocracy, I
see no practical alternative to letting them have one. That may be
the only way to convince them that Islamic theocracy is a bad idea.
(There is also a slight chance that someone will come up with a really
great, workable form of Islamic theocracy.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
04 Aug 2004 12:24:40 AM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:644d98ac.0408031731.260d0a7e@posting.google.com...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<yYidndvwBtr5xpPcRVn-qw@comcast.com>...
democracy in those often-repressive countries. But what if democracy
produces an Islamic theocracy or something like it?
Iran had a referendum in 1979 on whether or not to become an Islamic
theocracy. Now many Iranians have seen an Islamic theocracy up close
and are beginning to think that it is not such a great idea.
If people elsewhere in the Islamic world want an Islamic theocracy, I
see no practical alternative to letting them have one. That may be
the only way to convince them that Islamic theocracy is a bad idea.
No matter how they treat their people we should trade freely with them no matter
the degree of barbaric abuse?
This bundle of freedoms-what might be termed "constitutional liberalism"-has
nothing intrinsically to do with democracy and the two have not always gone
together, even in the West. Are you saying Islamic women don't want any rights
that the state cannot mess with? You think they would give up all power to the
state and enjoy the situation?
Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures
for selecting government but, rather, government's goals. It refers to the
tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's
autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source-state, church, or
society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal*
because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks and
Romans, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it
places the rule of law at the center of politics. Constitutional liberalism
developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of an
individual's right to life and property and the freedoms of religion and
speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of
government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and the
separation of church and state. In almost all of its variants,
constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or
"inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting
its own powers, to secure them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons
forced the king to limit his own authority. In the American colonies these
customs were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the
first written constitution in modern history. In 1789 the American
Constitution created a formal framework for the new nation. In 1975 Western
nations set standards of behavior even for nondemocratic regimes. Magna
Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and
the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.
The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393047644/
Articles by Fareed Zakaria
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/archive.html
(There is also a slight chance that someone will come up with a really
great, workable form of Islamic theocracy.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
05 Aug 2004 12:06:12 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6-6dnb7DCcjt7o3cRVn-pA@comcast.com>...
If people elsewhere in the Islamic world want an Islamic theocracy, I
see no practical alternative to letting them have one. That may be
the only way to convince them that Islamic theocracy is a bad idea.
No matter how they treat their people we should trade freely with them no
matter the degree of barbaric abuse?
That is a separate question.
Certainly there will be consequences to becoming an Islamic theocracy.
It may be bad for business, among other things.
But I am somewhat puzzled by the question. Are you saying that
because some people are doing bad things, we should punish all people
in the same geographical area by refusing to trade with them.
Are you saying Islamic women don't want any rights
that the state cannot mess with? You think they would give up all power to the
state and enjoy the situation?
There are women among Islamic fundamentalists, you know.
Obviously not everyone would enjoy living under an Islamic theocracy,
even a "democratic" one. But then, a lot of people don't enjoy living
under dictatorships in which they had no say at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
05 Aug 2004 11:12:04 AM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:644d98ac.0408042106.34d35447@posting.google.com...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<6-6dnb7DCcjt7o3cRVn-pA@comcast.com>...
If people elsewhere in the Islamic world want an Islamic theocracy, I
see no practical alternative to letting them have one. That may be
the only way to convince them that Islamic theocracy is a bad idea.
No matter how they treat their people we should trade freely with them no
matter the degree of barbaric abuse?
That is a separate question.
Certainly there will be consequences to becoming an Islamic theocracy.
It may be bad for business, among other things.
But I am somewhat puzzled by the question. Are you saying that
because some people are doing bad things, we should punish all people
in the same geographical area by refusing to trade with them.
We should punish any society that won't alow people to believe what they would
like.
Are you saying Islamic women don't want any rights
that the state cannot mess with? You think they would give up all power to
the
state and enjoy the situation?
There are women among Islamic fundamentalists, you know.
Therefore you have selected a group that you claim has rights to override the
rights of others that don'r think like them?
Obviously not everyone would enjoy living under an Islamic theocracy,
even a "democratic" one. But then, a lot of people don't enjoy living
under dictatorships in which they had no say at all.
Now you add insult to injury by trying to rationalize the abuse of individual
rights by past examples of totalitarianism. You need to think about Turkey and
how they are doing things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
05 Aug 2004 10:31:29 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wcidnVZQ7tUywY_cRVn-tg@comcast.com...
We should punish any society that won't alow people to believe what they
would
like.
It is the whole "punishing society" bit that I am having trouble with.
What you seem to be saying is, if in some country the people in power do
things you really do not like, we should punish ALL people in that country.
Obviously not everyone would enjoy living under an Islamic theocracy,
even a "democratic" one. But then, a lot of people don't enjoy living
under dictatorships in which they had no say at all.
Now you add insult to injury by trying to rationalize the abuse of
individual
rights by past examples of totalitarianism. You need to think about Turkey
and
how they are doing things.
http://www.cyberiapc.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=toprated&cat=0&pos=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
05 Aug 2004 11:11:01 PM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lYCQc.161$eMz.51@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wcidnVZQ7tUywY_cRVn-tg@comcast.com...
We should punish any society that won't alow people to believe what they
would
like.
It is the whole "punishing society" bit that I am having trouble with.
What you seem to be saying is, if in some country the people in power do
things you really do not like, we should punish ALL people in that country.
Then we should do nothing when negotiating with leaders who openly abuse their
people's rights? Would we be out of line if we even mention it, like the
treatment of women under the Taliban?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Taliban+women+abuse
Obviously not everyone would enjoy living under an Islamic theocracy,
even a "democratic" one. But then, a lot of people don't enjoy living
under dictatorships in which they had no say at all.
There is the possibility of an Islamic liberal constitutionalim in which
individual rights are protected by a religious elite which overrides the
religious texts in cases of adjudication of human rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
08 Aug 2004 11:08:34 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qfidnZAht9mtmI7cRVn-rg@comcast.com>...
What you seem to be saying is, if in some country the people in power do
things you really do not like, we should punish ALL people in that country.
Then we should do nothing when negotiating with leaders who openly abuse their
people's rights? Would we be out of line if we even mention it, like the
treatment of women under the Taliban?
http://www.cyberiapc.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=toprated&cat=0&pos=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
09 Aug 2004 11:04:00 AM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:644d98ac.0408082008.4f1de34@posting.google.com...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<qfidnZAht9mtmI7cRVn-rg@comcast.com>...
What you seem to be saying is, if in some country the people in power do
things you really do not like, we should punish ALL people in that country.
Then we should do nothing when negotiating with leaders who openly abuse
their
people's rights? Would we be out of line if we even mention it, like the
treatment of women under the Taliban?
http://www.cyberiapc.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=toprated&cat=0&pos=0
The link leads to a rat with a pancake on its head you ninny!
Are you claiming that Bin Laden is a homosexual rodent with come cow flops on is
head? Your cool.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "formerly known as cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
10 Aug 2004 03:22:14 AM |
|
|
There is no such thing as an "Islamic World".
An Islamic society or Islamic Culture... whatever
it is, it's not a world. Neither is any thing smaller
than the world, a world.
Crappy metaphor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Funny political t-shirt |
10 Aug 2004 10:10:52 AM |
|
|
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%A%Rc.26572$Oi.2623@fed1read04...
There is no such thing as an "Islamic World".
An Islamic society or Islamic Culture... whatever
it is, it's not a world. Neither is any thing smaller
than the world, a world.
If Islamic is defined as, of or relating to or supporting Islamism; "Islamic
art", and world is defined as, people in general; especially a distinctive group
of people with some shared interest; "the Western world" , then Islamic world is
a valid rhetorical phrase, by definition through deduction.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aislamic
http://www.google.com/search?&q=define%3Aworld
Crappy metaphor.
A similar value judgment expressing likes and dislikes. I could make a similar
anithetical proposition of likes such as; "Six Feet Under" is the best band in
the history of life on this planet.
Get a copy of this song to see why;
2. Amerika The Brutal
I'd rather died than to live in this fucked world
Mr. President I'm not here to do your dirty work
Alone, I think I'm fighting a losing battle
Worth dying not for oil
NO WAR Amerika the brutal
Listen it's a fucking joke and they make you believe it on the TV
That's how they deceive you-
I watch and I listen and I question their reasons
You know what, I don't fuckin believe em
NO WAR Amerika the brutal
When I want to know the future I look into the past
I think of my best friend and his stories of Vietnam
And now I got a cousin fighting in Iraq, and I want her coming back
I'm not afraid to speak my own mind
I don't use the first amendment to hide behind
I'm guaranteed that freedom, I'm born with that right
And for that I'm ready to fight
I'd rather die than to live in this fucked world
Fake president, I'm not here to do your dirty work
Alone I think I'm fighting this losing battle- worth dying?
NO WAR Amerika the brutal
http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/sixfeetunder/bringerofblood.html#2
http://www.darklyrics.com/s/sixfeetunder.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
