"Flavours of Democracy"

[Kirkhill]

By George and gadzooks, she's rumbled us lads.  We'll have to get Tony to sic the Black Ops types at the SAS onto her.

In the name of patience :

 

[Infanteer]

1) No and 2) Yes. Seattle is probably one of the best cities in the US. Hard comparison there. Try going to East LA, Phillie, Cleveland, Burnt out Detroit.

The East End of Vancouver and regions of other cities in the Lower Mainland of BC are plagued with Drug problems and rampant theft.   Winnipeg has some pretty bad gang problems.   You talk of squalid living conditions in US urban centers, maybe I should show you some of the Native reserves around my community - the people there have faced (and still do to some extent) the same sort of "paternalism" that Blacks in the US faced.

Give your head a shake.   Just because a certain percentage of the population in the US (or Canada) don't have 1.5 kids, two cars, and a mortgage does not automatically mean that the country is put in the "Third World" category.   The liberal democracy never promised that everyone would have a free ride to prosperity - the only one that promised that this century was Marx and that experiment was a dandy....

 

[clasper]

1) No and 2) Yes. Seattle is probably one of the best cities in the US. Hard comparison there. Try going to East LA, Phillie, Cleveland, Burnt out Detroit.

I've been to east LA and Detroit.  I've also been to Kazakhstan and Russia, and the Americans come out on top in terms of quality of life.  And the former Soviets have many Africans beat by a country mile.  You're out to lunch.

 

[Torlyn]

Most of the time we use the GDP as a method of "health" of a nation. However it only measures economic activity, and not the intangibles that go towards making a better life for people. Thus the amount spent on police, prisons, education, trade, pollution clean-up, and virtually any spending at all goes towards a positive in the GDP.

Time to tear a hole...

As for the "theory" of GPI, it's flawed.  It attempts to examine the health of a nation using western values, which makes it completely useless when relating between 1st and third world nations.  Included (besides GDP) it brings in to account "the value of time spent on housework, parenting, volunteer...consumer durables (cars, dishwashers, etc) services of highways & streets"  as things that improve well-being on a cost-per-unit ratio..  Then it SUBTRACTS defence expenditures (things like maintaining household comfor, in the face of declines in quality of life due to such factors as crime, auto accidents, or pollution) social costs (divorce, crime, etc) depreciation of environmental assets (mainly non-renewable resources).

And how is this information gathered?  By the looks of it, self-reporting.  Now, how many people in the third world actually pay ANY attention to any of the subtractors listed by the GPI?  I don't think that family that Pieman showed us a picture of is really concerned with their household comfort.    As well, the worth of crime is going to be drastically different.  Breaking a wheel on the wheelbarrow will probably cost less to fix than a B&E on a house...

Anyway, after reading most of the articles that you forwarded, it seems to me that the GPI is a faulty method of gathering the "truth" behind the well-being of nations.  I'm not saying that the GDP is the be all end all, but the GPI is certainly has a methodology that does not lend itself to comparason with non-1st world nations.  IMO, of course.

T

 

[Infanteer]

Checkmate.

 

[Zipper]

Sigh...

There is no perfect way of looking at any of the factors involved. Nor is there any way of saying that we do not have many problems of our own (reserves, crime, slums in east Vancouver, etc.).

What I am saying is that PER CAPITA, we and in many cases European countries (not all, Ie. Spain, Poland, Greece, etc) are better off AS A WHOLE then the US. And that the way the US focus's on itself through its social programs (or lack there of), and its foreign policy (protectionist) are not a way that Canada should be looking at changing itself into if (and when) we ever decided to get rid of the Monarchy.

As well, I was also referring to the fact that even with their higher taxes to support their social programs, they are able to support larger and better equipped military's.

I forget, but I believe I was responding to someone saying something about the US form of republic and how we should look at it. Going back to Kirkhill's very well written lessons. Canada has chosen to try and beat a path in between the two opposing systems. I said I would rather chose
to look at the European model instead.

Thus it all ties back into the topic at hand.

 

[a_majoor]

The best way to compare drasticly different economies is the so called Purchasing Pairety Index (PPI). This looks at a basket of goods and asks "how long would a worker have to work to pay for these goods". A simple version of the test used to be run in the Economist magazine, using a bottle of beer, or a McDonald's "Big Mac" meal.

In many third world nations, a loan of $20 USD allows a person to buy a bycycle and gives them the mobility to get to a better job, or take up a travelling salesman's life. Think how much it costs you to get a new vehicle for a real PPI comparison.....

I am short of time tonight, but try googling PPI or Purchasing Pairety Index and see what comes out.

 

[Pieman]

Now, how many people in the third world actually pay ANY attention to any of the subtractors listed by the GPI?  I don't think that family that Pieman showed us a picture of is really concerned with their household comfort.

Wealth is a relative thing isn't it? In another perspective that Wheelbarrel guy is doing pretty good. He can cruise around with it,  and apparently manages to pick up girls. Try doing that with a wheelbarrel in this society.  

Sorry...now I am distracting from this interesting debate...please continue.

 

[Zipper]

The best way to compare drastically different economies is the so called Purchasing Pairety Index (PPI). This looks at a basket of goods and asks "how long would a worker have to work to pay for these goods". A simple version of the test used to be run in the Economist magazine, using a bottle of beer, or a McDonald's "Big Mac" meal.

In many third world nations, a loan of $20 USD allows a person to buy a bicycle and gives them the mobility to get to a better job, or take up a travelling salesman's life. Think how much it costs you to get a new vehicle for a real PPI comparison.....

I am short of time tonight, but try googling PPI or Purchasing Pairety Index and see what comes out.

Agreed. And they were a fairly good(if dry) read.

However.

Its not just economics that drive the world. There is no argument that the US is the single biggest economy (as a single country) in the world, with Europe as the largest economy (multi-country) overall.

If you wanted to go by just that, you could say many of the middle eastern countries are very well off, as is China. Unfortunately only a small segment of the population is thus. And the rest are in virtual slavery. You have to take the social well being of a country as well as economics into account to come close to an idea of how well (or bad) that country is doing.

That is why Canada is at (near) the top of the list of best countries of the world. Now if we could just get that military problem taken care of...

 

[Kirkhill]

If you wanted to go by just that, you could say many of the middle eastern countries are very well off, as is China. Unfortunately only a small segment of the population is thus. And the rest are in virtual slavery. You have to take the social well being of a country as well as economics into account to come close to an idea of how well (or bad) that country is doing.

Which brings us back to democracy, individual freedom and the free market economy.  There are failures but the individual is at liberty to succeed.

 

[Infanteer]

There are failures but the individual is at liberty to succeed.

Precisely.  In the Soviet Union, you were screwed from the start.  At least in the West, despite not having the levelest of playing fields across the board, one has an equal opportunity of either making something of themselves or being a deadbeat-loser.

Anyways, what does this have to do with the Queen?  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Anyways, what does this have to do with the Queen?

Elementary Infanteer.  The Queen - living symbol of the Nation that brought you the system that created the opportunity to succeed gloriously, or fall flat on your arse and try again. ;D

Patently clear.

 

[Infanteer]

Elementary Infanteer. The Queen - living symbol of the Nation that brought you the system that created the opportunity to succeed gloriously, or fall flat on your arse and try again. ;D

The Queen is Greek?  (and no - the Duke of E. doesn't count)    

 

[Zipper]

Which brings us back to democracy, individual freedom and the free market economy.   There are failures but the individual is at liberty to succeed.

Oh god. Well we could get into the discussion that those three things do not nnecessarilygo hand in hand. Considering the considerable differences in styles of democracy that are present from our past discussions, as well as the pros and cons of a free market run amok

Ah, this could just drag on and on.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Good grief.  Here are some OECD stats:

Unemployment: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/18595359.pdf (page down to graph for easy interpretation; note France and Germany's contribution)

GDP stats:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/4/33727936.pdf (gross)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/5/34244925.xls (per capita)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/12/29859992.xls (growth trends)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/40/29867116.xls (components, 2003)

Productivity stats:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/14/29861140.xls

 

[a_majoor]

Oh god. Well we could get into the discussion that those three things do not necessarily go hand in hand. Considering the considerable differences in styles of democracy that are present from our past discussions, as well as the pros and cons of a free market run amok

The historical evidence suggests the three DO go hand in hand, and it is also logical that they do so. Property rights are the practical expression of your political rights. If you cannot make use of your property as you see fit (free market), then your personal freedom is infringed. Democracy is the political expression of individual liberty, in fact, it can be seen as being in the market for ideas of how common problems will be solved. If you are free to own and benefit from the use of property, and choose the solutions to common problems, then you are a free individual living in a democratic free market society.

When there are disconnects, the only way things still work is by exploiting the discontinuities. During the reign of Louis XIV, the limited amount of communications "bandwidth" prevented him from clamping down on everyone, so some free market activity was possible. On the other hand, selling vegetables wasn't going to upset the social and political order, so he didn't care. People who made millions in the fur trade (this is the origin of the word "millionaire") WERE a threat, and were either co-opted into the ruling elite, strong armed to the colonies (we have a very nice estate for you to manage in New France, monsieur), or done away with (Yes, secret police existed then as well). Ideas like "internal passports" are very old as well, but some exceptions were made for merchants, religious orders or soldiers (join and see the world had a real meaning then).

Even today, we see China experimenting with market reform, but not political reform. It seems to work for the incurious, but China is riven with many problems and internal dissent, and may implode the way the USSR did, or explode, maybe the way Imperial Japan did in the 1930s and 40s. Criminal gangs fill a lot of the cracks in the system, since they are free to use the property they expropriate as they see fit, and often choose common solutions to common problems of territory, police, and so on, but are mostly parasitical.

The trouble with liberals
By Ross Terrill  |  February 12, 2005

DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy -- right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy's fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty's post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty.

In the late 19th century, the birth of the Labor Party in the UK, and social democratic parties in Germany and elsewhere, were seen by trade unions as a logical extension of democracy. The moderate left was in the vanguard of democracy's advance, first in the struggle for parliaments, then in the extension of voting to every adult and the use of power to legislate for workers' advance.

Suffragettes were on the left in England. Left-wing civil rights activists in the United States pushed the black vote in the South. Voices for democracy and decolonization around the world were mostly left of center. Meanwhile, not a few conservatives were lukewarm about democracy, in Europe out of lingering aristocratic snobbery, and in the United States because of low interest in global freedom.

Today is another story. For example, the liberals' petulant talk of "going to Canada " after Senator John Kerry lost the presidential election in November did not suggest belief in democracy. The New York Times urged "postponement" of last month's triumphant election in Iraq because Al Qaeda made threats against it. Faith in the power of elections? Liberal media sent scores of reporters to Switzerland to cover the chatterings of the Davos Forum, an unelected seminar with not a democratic bone in its body.

"The Democrats are the minority party in Congress, " said Senator Edward Kennedy, "but we speak for a majority of the American people." Don't the winners of an election have a better -- if imperfect -- right to speak for a majority of the American people than the losers? Not so to a left whose eyes bulge with self-entitlement and whose pale hand is estranged from physical labor.

In foreign policy, Kerry has not approved a major projection of American military power abroad since Vietnam. The Democratic Party seems against President Bush's words: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

Sometimes there are good reasons for this prudence, but the change of voice is stark.
Why has the historic switch of partners occurred? The left of center parties embraced identity politics from the 1970s. Gays, minorities, women, and others were cultivated as building blocks for a progressive edifice. But the "rights" of blocs cut against democratic principles. The individual going to the ballot box does not want to be taken for granted in deference to identity blocs.

Other factors include the left's discovery that courts help the cause of social engineering more readily than ballots, and the appalling role of money in elections.

Liberals' attachment to a notion of "international community" also dilutes democratic principles. If the UN chief says our actions in Iraq are illegal, he must be correct, intuits the left, and the American majority must be wrong.

Not least, the left cultural gate-keepers of our time in the media and academia have come to picture themselves as rivals of democracy. Telling us how we are going to vote (polls) and then why we voted (more polls) is a usurpation of democracy. Consider the arrogance of the exit poll; CNN announces the result before the result exists! For voters, the system is not theirs to infuse from below; it is the to reengineer from above.

What a strange moment for the left to lose faith in democracy. The Soviet Union and other Leninist dictatorships are gone in a puff of smoke. Democracy is taking root in Latin America. South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mongolia, and Thailand are all newly democratic. Throughout the 20th century, war and authoritarianism were inseparable. For 30 years, democracy and free markets have surged and no war has occurred anywhere on the scale of Korea and Vietnam, let alone World War I and World War II.

Seymour Hersh recently told "Democracy Now!" radio that America was in a bad way because "eight or nine neoconservatives" have "grabbed the government." Not mentioning that Bush was elected by 51 percent of the voters, Hersh did detect a ray of hope. One "salvation may be the economy," Hersh said regrettably, "It's going to go very bad, folks. You know, if you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy, you better do it quick."

A left that sees a lousy economy as political salvation and frets about stocks and a villa in Italy is not the idealistic, worker-respecting left anymore. Certainly it is not a believer in democracy.

Ross Terrill's books include a study of social democracy, "Socialism as Fellowship: R. H. Tawney and His Times." 

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[Zipper]

The historical evidence suggests the three DO go hand in hand, and it is also logical that they do so. Property rights are the practical expression of your political rights. If you cannot make use of your property as you see fit (free market), then your personal freedom is infringed. Democracy is the political expression of individual liberty, in fact, it can be seen as being in the market for ideas of how common problems will be solved. If you are free to own and benefit from the use of property, and choose the solutions to common problems, then you are a free individual living in a democratic free market society.

Then it might be an interesting note that you have no constitutional right to own property.

As for China. You bet. That is one place that is going to have to change its ways eventually. It will be interesting to see what the people come up with.

Liberals' attachment to a notion of "international community" also dilutes democratic principles. If the UN chief says our actions in Iraq are illegal, he must be correct, intuits the left, and the American majority must be wrong.

However, the American majority is just that. The majority in America. NOT the world. Thus for them to make a decision outside their own shores shows a lack of respect for the democracy of other nations.

"The Democrats are the minority party in Congress, " said Senator Edward Kennedy, "but we speak for a majority of the American people." Don't the winners of an election have a better -- if imperfect -- right to speak for a majority of the American people than the losers? Not so to a left whose eyes bulge with self-entitlement and whose pale hand is estranged from physical labor.

Agreed. The majority has won the right to make the decisions. However the losers still have the right to complain about it.

In foreign policy, Kerry has not approved a major projection of American military power abroad since Vietnam. The Democratic Party seems against President Bush's words: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

Thus they are breaking every International law that they themselves helped write by forming the UN and helping in creating its charters. The UN is not a perfect place. Far from it. Its so bloated its about to blow. However the basic rules behind it charter are still as important today as they were 60 years ago.

Democracy is the best form of Government we have at this time. Its not perfect either, but oh well.

I wonder what would be written by the left about the right if they were on the winning side for two elections? Interesting...

Now here is a question...

Is the US actually a Democracy? Or is it an Oligarchy? Considering it has only two parties to choose from time and time again, and there politics is in reality not all that different from one another...        ...interesting.

And with that being said. Was Canada really a democracy under Chretien? Or was it a democratically elected dictatorship with all the power in the PM's office? Also interesting...

 

[a_majoor]

Then it might be an interesting note that you have no constitutional right to own property.

I am well aware of that fact. Fortunately, the Canadian government allows property ownership de facto, if not de jure, at least for now. While a National Socialist takeover isn't in the cards any time soon, I do worry about the incremental reductions in our property rights (and if anyone decides to actually do something about the Kyoto Accords, it won't be incremental anymore). Luckily for me, my wife and I have family in the US, so the green card is our "ace in the hole".

However, the American majority is just that. The majority in America. NOT the world. Thus for them to make a decision outside their own shores shows a lack of respect for the democracy of other nations.

I don't recall that Ba'athist Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan were considered democracies. Harbouring, aiding and abbeting the Jihadis are acts of war against the United States of America, so it isn't surprising that the majority of Americans votes to go to war and crush them like cockroaches. Like I said, they aren't invading fellow democracies, even ones like France or Canada which are openly hostile to US policy goals.

Thus they are breaking every International law

Law, in the human sense, presupposes the ability to enforce it with a police and an impartial judiciary. (Laws like Gravity tend to be self enforcing) We have a great deal of difficulty getting that done here inside our own nation. Would you want:
a) moral degenerates who rape and sexually exploit children running loose in your country to enforce international law, or;
b) madmen armed with nuclear weapons?

BTW, a is the current UN "Peacekeeping" force operating in the Congo, and b is what Lybia was working towards while chairing the UN International human rights committee, prior to OIF and their sudden disavowal to WMD programs.

Since self interest is the common defining factor of ALL HUMAN HISTORY, it is hard to see how the ICC or any other appointed body won't be filled with people eager to grind their own axes, either in person, or as proxies for their sponsoring states. Hardly impartial. I at least am thankful the current hegemon is friendly and commercial, rather than living in some alternative universe where an autocratic Imperial power like China is the hegemon.

 

[Zipper]

I don't recall that Ba'athist Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan were considered democracies. Harbouring, aiding and abbeting the Jihadis are acts of war against the United States of America, so it isn't surprising that the majority of Americans votes to go to war and crush them like cockroaches. Like I said, they aren't invading fellow democracies, even ones like France or Canada which are openly hostile to US policy goals.

Since when did the UN Charter or any International law for that matter take into account only the rights of democracies? Are they then above the law for the sake of supposed self determination? Or are they as guilty as those they attack in that they impose their views upon others? Democracy is a formation of the people. Those who willing want it. Democracy is not made or formed (imposed) by other democracies.

Law, in the human sense, presupposes the ability to enforce it with a police and an impartial judiciary. (Laws like Gravity tend to be self enforcing) We have a great deal of difficulty getting that done here inside our own nation.

Impartial judiciary? Since when has the judicial system (especially in the States) been impartial? There as much a instrument of politics as anything. How is the invasion of another country seen as impartial? The detaining of people in a gulag style prison with no rights seen as impartial? and who are they to impose their "laws" upon people who did not elect them?

Its bad enough here with our courts turning over issues on the basis of non-constitutional on a whim it seems. At least they got it right for once in bouncing the same sex issue back to the politicians.

Would you want:
a) moral degenerates who rape and sexually exploit children running loose in your country to enforce international law, or;
b) madmen armed with nuclear weapons?

BTW, a is the current UN "Peacekeeping" force operating in the Congo, and b is what Lybia was working towards while chairing the UN International human rights committee, prior to OIF and their sudden disavowal to WMD programs.

Since self interest is the common defining factor of ALL HUMAN HISTORY, it is hard to see how the ICC or any other appointed body won't be filled with people eager to grind their own axes, either in person, or as proxies for their sponsoring states. Hardly impartial. I at least am thankful the current hegemony is friendly and commercial, rather than living in some alternative universe where an autocratic Imperial power like China is the hegemony.

No argument there. Many of the UN "peacekeeping" forces from certain nations have been worse then the regimes in place, and very much hired thugs.

The current Hegemony is friendly and commercial with us, yes. But do they not also have their own "axe to grind" in the killing and destruction of entire nation states and their innocent citizens? I'm sure you've read Anne Coltour and her diatribes of converting all to Christianity (by the sword and otherwise)? As scary as any thought of a Chinese Hegemony I am sure.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Democracy is a formation of the people. Those who willing want it. Democracy is not made or formed (imposed) by other democracies.

....so even under the threat of death 58% of Iraqi's voted............so I say , PARDON?