Mubarak Resigned Down Today

[onmyknees]

Again, either we want democracy. Or we don't. I mean, we can prop up another Egyptian dictator for another 30 years. (And we can continue to send billions and billions of taxpayer money to Egypt. Ya know, have American working stiffs line the pockets of another monster like Mubarak.) Or let the Egyptian people run their own affairs. Let them have democracy. Meaningful democracy.
We can't continue to promote "freedom" and "democracy" and then deny them freedom and democracy. Well, the fact is we don't like democracy. I mean, the U.S. backs the theocratic state of Saudi Arabia. (A monstrous place... where women can't even drive. Charming, eh?)
We continue to back anti-democratic regimes in Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar -- and ALGERIA.
Again, we don't like democracy. So we should stop talking about how we embrace freedom and democracy. Because we don't. Actions speak louder than words.
And, lastly, I think, people in the Middle East will be less hostile to America if we actually permitted them to have democracy. (I mean, it'd be like Egypt protecting an American dictator by funnelling billions and billions into his perverse pockets and propping him -- or her -- up and denying the American people democracy. Would we want that? No. And if Egypt were doing that to America, well, we'd be pretty upset about it.)

Very naive Ben...We take the world as we find it for the most part. When the opportunity to make the world a better place presents itself ,US Foreign policy under many administrations, does indeed to promote democracy. We don't always get it right...few nations do, but no other nation has done more to free the world. The US has done a remarkable job in Eastern Europe, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Central America, Taiwan, and to a lesser degree Africa.

You present mixed messages. You are a disciple of Ron Paul, but Paul is essentially an isolationist , and here you are wanting more US involvement in places like Saudi Ariba and the UAE, or at least complaining we're not doing more to promote democracy. We tried that in Lebanon, and it didn't work out like we hoped ! We've spilled far too much blood in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they must complete the journey without our help. And how exactly do you propose we promote democracy in these places you mention? Spill more American blood and spend more American treasures that are more desperately needed here at home? Or do we simply take those governments as they are, and hope that someday the inherent will for self determination takes hold? There comes a time when oppressed people must take matters into their own hands like the Egyptians just did and the Minute Men several centuries before them. Freedom is not Free Ben, and is not provided by others. It must be seized, and usually with blood and if the citizens of those nations are unwilling to pay the price....The US should no longer be willing to send it's sons to do it for them.

The US used Mobarick because he served our purposes and kept his peace treaties with Israel and provided some measure of stability in a volatile region. Would it have been our preference to have a Jeffersonian Democracy in place there? Sure...but that wasn't an option. You pick the battles you have a chance of winning. When the people grew tired of Mubarick's iron hand and corruption, they took to the streets, as it should be. Their future is rightfully in their hands...not ours.

[Silcc69]

Mubarak wealth?????
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-Ho...55512.html?x=0

[russtafa]

I think this system has never been given a fair run not like communisim

[Ben]

Very naive Ben...We take the world as we find it for the most part. When the opportunity to make the world a better place presents itself ,US Foreign policy under many administrations, does indeed to promote democracy. We don't always get it right...few nations do, but no other nation has done more to free the world. The US has done a remarkable job in Eastern Europe, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Central America, Taiwan, and to a lesser degree Africa.

You present mixed messages. You are a disciple of Ron Paul, but Paul is essentially an isolationist , and here you are wanting more US involvement in places like Saudi Ariba and the UAE, or at least complaining we're not doing more to promote democracy. We tried that in Lebanon, and it didn't work out like we hoped ! We've spilled far too much blood in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they must complete the journey without our help. And how exactly do you propose we promote democracy in these places you mention? Spill more American blood and spend more American treasures that are more desperately needed here at home? Or do we simply take those governments as they are, and hope that someday the inherent will for self determination takes hold? There comes a time when oppressed people must take matters into their own hands like the Egyptians just did and the Minute Men several centuries before them. Freedom is not Free Ben, and is not provided by others. It must be seized, and usually with blood and if the citizens of those nations are unwilling to pay the price....The US should no longer be willing to send it's sons to do it for them.

The US used Mobarick because he served our purposes and kept his peace treaties with Israel and provided some measure of stability in a volatile region. Would it have been our preference to have a Jeffersonian Democracy in place there? Sure...but that wasn't an option. You pick the battles you have a chance of winning. When the people grew tired of Mubarick's iron hand and corruption, they took to the streets, as it should be. Their future is rightfully in their hands...not ours.

Well, I'm not a disciple of Ron Paul. I do like where he stands on some issues. On his notion of free markets, well, he's a bit out there. (I mean, a so-called free market means no child labor laws. No minimum wage laws. That's a free market. No licenses. That's a free market. No patents. No copyrights. No regulations. Because once the state gets involved, well, you don't have a free market.)
I think "speak" is a more apt word than promotion. As in Bush and now Obama go on and on about freedom and democracy. Well, let them have freedom and democracy. Let these Middle Eastern countries experience democracy. But the fact remains we don't want democracy. That's why we propped up that monster Mubarak. That's why we support the monstrous regime in Saudi Arabia. Because we despise democracy. That also applies to democracy in the U.S.
Democracy in the real sense, in a very meaningful sense. Where people are free from external control, where people are free to run their own lives, where people participate in the decision-making process. These are core libertarian values, classical liberal values or conservative values. (Remember that conservatism came out of classical liberalism.) Going back to Wilhelm von Humboldt and John Stuart Mill. (What stands in the way of meaningful democracy? Well, corporations. I mean, the overwhelming hindrance to democracy are indeed corporations.
Corporations are extremely good at producing wealth. I mean, they're excellent at generating wealth. But, well, corporations aren't so good when it comes to democratic control, democratic participation. Well, that isn't their function. They've a very simple straightforward function: maximizing short-term gain. Everything outside of that is simply not considered: the fate of the species, pollution, global warming etc. etc. CEOs can't consider anything else. They're trapped in their institutional role. And these institutions pose a direct threat to democracy. As we witnessed with the banking crisis. The banking sector simply looked after their own interests regardless of the impact on others. So, we shouldn't criticize them for what they're set up to do: enlarge their own pockets. Hell, they've a good defense.
So, corporations don't take into account the harm and the cost to others. They simply can't. This is by law. I mean, CEOs cannot, again, by law, act in accordance with moral sentiment. That would go against their fiduciary responsibility.
So you cannot really have a democratic society when the most powerful institutions in that society are non-democratic, anti-democratic and where the decisions are completely top-down. Again, the problem presents itself: how do we live in a democratic society when the most powerful institutions in that society aren't democratic?
I mean, we either live in a meaningful democratic society or we don't. And we won't as long as corporations rule the roost.
But this is where the 18th. century political theorist Edmund Burke comes in. Ya know, we can't hand power to the people. It needs to be in the hands of the smart and responsible men. If we hand power over to the evil/dangerous people, well, they'll just screw it up.
And it isn't fair for the few to control the many. But it also isn't fair for the many to control the few. What's the solution? Equality. Which brings us to Adam Smith. Who said that under conditions of perfect liberty you get perfect equality. Well, that isn't in the cards.
Anyway, the very foundation of a democracy is a robust middle class. And this is crucial: either you have concentrated private capital or you have democracy. You can't have both. We all know and understand the threat to so-called representative democracy because of consolidated capital. As in: state policy will serve the interests of the powerful corporate sector. A huge and growing problem. So, take, say, pollution. Well, pollution is an externality. In economic jargon it means: a market transaction whereby a third party doesn't consent. It's a huge problem. As in, well, a car. There's a buyer and a seller. I didn't consent to this transaction. But I'm stuck with the pollution. Again, a huge problem.
You write: "And how exactly do you propose we promote democracy in these places you mention?" Simple. We stop propping up and supporting these monstrous regimes. I mean, we don't care about the people of the Middle East. Nor do we care about democracy. We have a business relationship involving oil, finance and armaments with these countries.
And, too, America should simply lead by example. (People will simply steal our idea of freedom. And America is indeed a very free country. It's freer than places like the U.K. and Canada. Canada doesn't have free speech. As Ann Coulter experienced. Canadian students were saying at the time: We're in favor of free speech. But we want to stop Ann Coulter from speaking. Well, they aren't in favor of free speech. I defend Ann Coulter's right to speak. Now there's a crucial difference between: defending the right to speak and defending the views expressed. I'd defend Glenn Beck's right to speak. I wouldn't defend his views.)
Anyway, you cannot "promote" democracy through the barrel of a gun. I mean, look at what's happening in Egypt. People are rising up. There was no U.S. invasion. There was no: sending in American troops to bring about freedom and democracy.
You hit on a crucial point: "The US should no longer be willing to send it's sons to do it for them." The point being: we simply defend ourselves. And Saddam Hussein posed no threat to America. America has the strongest military on the planet. Puny countries like Panama and Grenada and Iraq pose no threat to America.
And, too, chances are that Iraqis would've RISEN UP much like the Egyptians have done. I mean say Obama said a year ago: we need to bring about freedom and democracy in Egypt by U.S. invasion because Mubarak has weapons of mass destruction and on and on and on.... Well, we know the story. And we are seeing events unfold in Egypt without a U.S. invasion.

[hippifried]

I think this system has never been given a fair run not like communisim

Fascism?????

Of course it has. The common history is that it falls flat before it gets to the end game. Fascism is the intermediate step, going backwards from open market republicanism to feudalism & monarchy. Don't we have thousands of years of kings to look at? Franco managed to pull it off in a single generation because he had a preexisting monarchy to work with. We're about to see a 3rd generation in the line of succession take power in North Korea. That's the farthest anyone's gotten in creation of a new monarchy without an empire in a very long time. The Samosas of Nicaragua got 2, & the people of Nicaragua removed that part of the gene pool. Baby Doc Duvalier is still hanging out in exile. Now he's talking smack about running for President of Haiti & making a triumphant return (as if nobody is going to remember the Ton Ton Macoute). Reeza Pahlavi is waiting for the theocrats to fail in Iran, figuring we'll help him out. The US still recognizes him as the Shah. Hosni Mubarak would still be despot of Egypt if he hadn't announced that he was going to turn power over to his son. They've never been a democracy, but it would seem that they have no stomach for bercoming a kingdom again.

So... Who do you figure would make a good & willing participant guinea pig for this "fair run" you'd like to give this system?


You know the real problem with all the philosophical mumbo jumbo, on all points of the political sphere, is that none of it ever takes inevitable corruption into account.

[russtafa]

Europe would be a great guinea pig for this political experiment

[hippifried]

Yeah. Didn't they already try that out? It's been tried a lot, actually. Historically, I can't think of a single "strong one party state working for the good of the people" that's ever worked. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of who's in charge or which philosophical mumbo jumbo they ascribe to.

It's been my observation that people don't mind governance. Nobody likes being ruled, & I can't think of anyone qualified to do it.

[Stavros]

Historically, I can't think of a single "strong one party state working for the good of the people" that's ever worked.

--Singapore? Lee Kuan Yew was a strong party leader who won every election for decades, at one time any male entering the country with hair touching their ears had to have a haircut, strictly speaking, sexual relations between men is still illegal; yet Singapore has been economically successful and in recent years has become a much more liberal place than it used to be...

Oman? The Sultan of Oman has used the country's oil wealth to take what was at one time the most undeveloped part of Arabia and given it modern transport and communications, education, business, social facilities etc etc -he isn't perfect (and there have been rumours about his sexuality for years) and he isn't keen on multi-party elections, but the country is a success.

Abu Dhabi? From pearl fishing and camel racing to one of the fastest growing economies in the world -elections? not really. Free speech? er, sort of. But there are Christian churches, a growing sense of cultural liberalism, but as in the other Emirates a huge army of poorly paid Indian labourers -even if most are earning more in the UAE than they would in India. Depends on your criteria for success...certainly for the Arabs it has worked out well...

[russtafa]

Hitler was a fool Germany was going great until he wanted to expand Germany's borders

[Stavros]

Hitler was a fool, full stop. He ruined the German economy, it recovered after the First World War for a while but no thanks can be given to the 'Fuhrer' for leading the German economy down the path to total war -are you saying the Germans couldn't think of anything else to do with their skills? Its what happens when politics drives economic policy...