The U.S. and Syria - TTLG Forums

demagogue on 15/9/2013 at 13:01

There's the question of efficacy and the question of legitimacy or justice. As a matter of efficacy, a dictatorship may well run a country better, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate or just for the people he rules. Tom Franck wrote a classic article about why democracy is the only legitimate government for all peoples, and every people has a human right to a democratic form of govt, and I still think it's the last word on the ethics side of the question anyway ((http://nw18.american.edu/~dfagel/Philosophers/TOPICS/Values_Universal%20Or%20Local/The%20Emerging%20Right%20to%20Democratic%20Governance_Franck.pdf) link to pdf).

It's well understood that for many if not most countries transitioning from illiberal to democratic, things have to get much worse for a while before they can get better (if they even survive the troubles they have to go through). It's called the J-curve argument, because the graph of welfare over time democratizing looks like a letter J (it dips down before curving steeply back up), although some people question whether it's true all countries inevitably curve back up.

Vivian on 15/9/2013 at 14:53

Nah, man. Benevolent dictatorship, Plato-style. That's the way to go. We need to make a person or machine that's intelligent and moral enough to do the job and let them do it. Democracy is better than malevolent dictatorship, but it's also massively prone to gaming, time-wasting, grandstanding, and basically turning it from a job involving running the country to a job getting and staying elected. The USA, for instance, pushing it's model of capital-dominated democracy as the one to go for seems a bit fucking laughable at times.

faetal on 15/9/2013 at 14:57

I've always thought a benevolent dictatorship would work best, but it's just hard to see how a dictator can remain benevolent. These days I find myself veering towards technocratic / meritocratic systems as something which might serve best. The trouble with a dictator is that one person trying to serve an entire country's needs requires a kind of person which doesn't readily exist. The problem with democracy is that the majority does not possess wisdom pertinent to running a country. A system which designs executive control of specific issues to committees of the most able might have some legs.

Yakoob on 15/9/2013 at 14:58

Quote Posted by faetal

I can't disagree there, but it's US sells democracy as the greatest of all systems (usually down the barrel of a gun).

Sigh, it's sad to admit but over the years my liberal "don't let the government tell me what to do / everyone should make their own choices" self has in fact been becoming more and more conservative. The more I watch news and study topics like (ethnic) conflict in my masters, the more I realize that frankly most people are just dumb and ignorant and no, they most certainly do not know what is good for them.

No, having a (smart/educated) government or some organization making choices for people isn't exactly a good solution... But more and more its looking like the lesser of the two evils :/

(Tldr - goddamn hurry up Helios and get invented already!)

faetal on 15/9/2013 at 15:04

I think I've always tolerated democracy as the least bad system which is achievable today. I think it would be next to impossible to overturn it, because everyone just assumes democracy is fair somehow and anyone suggesting an alternative will just be lambasted by the press and compared to Hitler.

icemann on 15/9/2013 at 15:09

Quote Posted by faetal

So you're not a big fan of democracy then? Or is democracy just where you elect a dictator?

I'm a fan of it and completely 100% always in favor of it. It's just that with all things there is a positive and a negative. With democracy that is one of the few negatives.

Though on the flip side you have dictatorships wrapped as democracies (Russia) where the leader does whatever in the hell he wants which isn't right either.

If you draw a line and say use of chemical weapons = x response, but then they are used and that response doesn't happen then all credibility and respect is lost worldwide. Secondly if no action is taken and Assad goes on to win the war (which since he's using chemical weapons and has Russia on his side is likely) which means a massive death toll (in the millions definitely). How will history look back on the world's response in the end of just sitting back and waiting to see who wins? And of how on the American end the reasons against taking action were more economy $$$ based than anything else.

Good thing we weren't in a worldwide recession when World War 2 happened.

faetal on 15/9/2013 at 17:06

I don't think the US killing lots of Syrians and calling it collateral damage, just to oust Assad is really going to help much.

SubJeff on 15/9/2013 at 19:33

Quote Posted by Vivian

Nah, man. Benevolent dictatorship, Plato-style. That's the way to go.

Quote Posted by faetal

I've always thought a benevolent dictatorship would work best

Wow. Someone who actually agrees with me!

When I say this, in RL, I get booed and told that democracy is the only way and yadda yadda. How refreshing.

Having said that... I think the idea of a benevolent dictator is, sadly, like capital punishment. In principle I'm in favour but practically I think it nigh on impossible to do properly outside of a fantasy novel.

CCCToad on 15/9/2013 at 19:43

Quote Posted by NuEffect

The problem is that in practice, most parties are simply going to act in their own self interest regardless of how they were put in power. In this regard a Democracy can often fail if, like the US, it does not merge the best interests of the working class with the self interest of the politicians.

If you can achieve a convergence of interests between the average worker and the policy makers that would solve a lot of these problems, but actually achieving that is a lot more difficult.

Chade on 15/9/2013 at 22:25

Comparing a benevolent dictator to a democracy is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, though.

I mean, yes, we want a government that effectively helps citizens. The question is, how do we get one? Democracy is one incomplete answer to that question. A benevolent dictator, on the other hand, presupposes we already have one.

I'm also skeptical whenever educated technocratic people tell me that you need an educated technocratic populace for effective democracy. I can go to a church and get told that voters just need the right values. I can go to a green group and get told that voters need to care more. I can sit down at the pub with some of the more economically successful people I've worked for and get told that voters need more acumen. Going to my uni educated STEM friends and getting told that voters need more smarts and more science seems like more of the same, to me. Elections are an extremely broad feedback tool: they are incapable of sending fine grained policy preferences requiring an extended education. What they can do is turf out any bastards who shaft their constituents too blatantly.