6 ms·

If the people want Sharia, than they should be free to chose it. Meanwhile, the west can go back home and instead of bombing democracy into these countries, we

If the people want Sharia, than they should be free to chose it. Meanwhile, the west can go back home and instead of bombing democracy into these countries, we compete with their model (like we did with communism), we outperform their model and they will want our model. We didn't win against communism with bombs, we won against communism with widespread increase of wealth. We had more wealth, more rights, more freedom, a better life. Our own democracy and our own values have severely suffered after the downfall of communism, we are not on top of our game anymore. If young people from poor countries look at our countries and feel _hate_ instead of _envy_, then we are doing something wrong. What we did is saying "here, look at our awesome democracy, which bombs your weddings, no matter if a Black progressive or and Orange lunatic is in power, doesn't even make a difference". Almost all young people in Northern Africa are trying to run to Europe. They want what we have. Let's proof to them that democracy and liberal values are the way to get what we have.

cutemonster 5y ago
> If the people want Sharia, than they should be free to chose it. That sounds disturbing to me. As if you had said, if the majority of the voters in the US want to enslave all black people, they should be free to do so. Sharia laws enslave women.
saagarjha 5y ago
> We didn't win against communism with bombs, we won against communism with widespread increase of wealth. We had more wealth, more rights, more freedom, a better life. Didn't this backfire with China? I mean, yes, it's moving away from communism, but it doesn't look like human rights are necessarily getting better.
howinteresting 5y ago
The problem is that people aren't a monolith and fundamentalist sharia, like all religious nationalism, tramples all over minority rights. This is what makes me uncomfortable with the "if people want sharia" argument.
- mantas 5y ago
  So, no democracy unless it's the correct type of democracy? Maybe just install a correct authoritarian regime and call it a day?
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    You may not be aware of the spectrum, but there are plenty of forms of government between democracy and authoritarian. For instance, there can be an indirect democratic republic that is configured in a way to protect the rights of the minority against the desires of the majority.
    - mantas 5y ago
      In a democracy, any configuration can be changed given a qualified majority. If there's such configuration that it can't be changed by a qualified majority, then it's not a democracy. Indirect democratic republic sounds painfully similar to people's democratic republics. Or infamous Putin's "controlled democracy" in Russia. How would limited indirect democracy differ from autocracy such as in Russia or Belarus?
      - IncRnd 5y ago
        It seems that you aren't aware that The United States is such a Republic, properly called a Constitutional Republic.
        mantas 5y ago
        I'm not from US so naturally don't know every single bit about US... My country is a constitutional republic too. But here any article in constitution can be changed with a constitutional majority. Yes, it's not a simple 50%+1 majority democracy, but it's still a democracy where the population can implement whatever changes they wish. Given that large enough part of population signs off on it.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
IncRnd 5y ago
If the people of your country vote that you are a second class citizen, and you are stripped of the rights that everyone else enjoys, should they have been free to choose that?
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  Who is gonna stop them? If a majority of a country wants this, we have to literally murder the majority of a country. We also talk about these countries like they are functioning democracies. They are not. In a functioning democracy, it is against the constitution for a majority to vote over minority rights. Should we bomb a constitution into them? All over the world people fought to be free, against tyrants, kings, foreign suppressors. The people in these countries will want freedom as much as everyone else. They will figure it out. I think we are stopping this process from happening through our interference. We force upon them a democracy they have not brought on themselves, and we often enough prop up corrupt politicians. The President of Afghanistan fled the country in a helicopter stacked with cash, the Army abandoned their posts. Democracy let the Afghans down.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    That's a false choice. I was not suggesting that anyone bomb anyone else. I asked a question, which is still unanswered, about your statement which was in essence, "if a people want authoritarian rule, they should be free to chose it."
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      Your question will not be answered, because it does not make sense. In a democracy, a majority can not vote on the rights of a minority. There is a constitution, a bill of rights. But to get there _people have to chose democracy_ over authoritarianism. As long as they don't do that by themselves, we only have the options to show them by example why they should want it, or to force them to want it. Wherever we tried to force it, it recoiled.
      - 5y ago
lucian1900 5y ago
They run to Europe because we bombed Libya and continue the economic warfare and exploitation against the entire continent. The Cold War was also won with coups and invasions and death squads and infiltration. What you see now is entirely in character with western imperialism, merely turning inwards as it collapses.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  That's the point, people say we should intervene for, eh ethics or something and democracy, but we go there for selfish reasons _and make things worse_. We should focus on fixing and improving our own democracy, make sure people here are visibly doing better than in places that don't have democracy and freedom and offer help to everyone who wants to achieve it. Help as in "this is how you write a constitution", "this is how you write civil law", "this is how you run an efficient health care system" , not bombs.
throwaway75 5y ago
But if that's the chosen path, then you'd have to be ok with the imposition of majoritarian laws on the minorities of the country - at least until the majority wakes up and tunes into the west's liberal values, or until the minority ceases to exist - whichever occurs first.

cutemonster 5y ago

> If the people want Sharia, than they should be free to chose it. That sounds disturbing to me. As if you had said, if the majority of the voters in the US want to enslave all black people, they should be free to do so. Sharia laws enslave women.

saagarjha 5y ago

> We didn't win against communism with bombs, we won against communism with widespread increase of wealth. We had more wealth, more rights, more freedom, a better life. Didn't this backfire with China? I mean, yes, it's moving away from communism, but it doesn't look like human rights are necessarily getting better.

howinteresting 5y ago

The problem is that people aren't a monolith and fundamentalist sharia, like all religious nationalism, tramples all over minority rights. This is what makes me uncomfortable with the "if people want sharia" argument.

mantas 5y ago
So, no democracy unless it's the correct type of democracy? Maybe just install a correct authoritarian regime and call it a day?
- IncRnd 5y ago
  You may not be aware of the spectrum, but there are plenty of forms of government between democracy and authoritarian. For instance, there can be an indirect democratic republic that is configured in a way to protect the rights of the minority against the desires of the majority.
  - mantas 5y ago
    In a democracy, any configuration can be changed given a qualified majority. If there's such configuration that it can't be changed by a qualified majority, then it's not a democracy. Indirect democratic republic sounds painfully similar to people's democratic republics. Or infamous Putin's "controlled democracy" in Russia. How would limited indirect democracy differ from autocracy such as in Russia or Belarus?
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      It seems that you aren't aware that The United States is such a Republic, properly called a Constitutional Republic.
      - mantas 5y ago
        I'm not from US so naturally don't know every single bit about US... My country is a constitutional republic too. But here any article in constitution can be changed with a constitutional majority. Yes, it's not a simple 50%+1 majority democracy, but it's still a democracy where the population can implement whatever changes they wish. Given that large enough part of population signs off on it.
- howinteresting 5y ago

IncRnd 5y ago

If the people of your country vote that you are a second class citizen, and you are stripped of the rights that everyone else enjoys, should they have been free to choose that?

turbinerneiter 5y ago
Who is gonna stop them? If a majority of a country wants this, we have to literally murder the majority of a country. We also talk about these countries like they are functioning democracies. They are not. In a functioning democracy, it is against the constitution for a majority to vote over minority rights. Should we bomb a constitution into them? All over the world people fought to be free, against tyrants, kings, foreign suppressors. The people in these countries will want freedom as much as everyone else. They will figure it out. I think we are stopping this process from happening through our interference. We force upon them a democracy they have not brought on themselves, and we often enough prop up corrupt politicians. The President of Afghanistan fled the country in a helicopter stacked with cash, the Army abandoned their posts. Democracy let the Afghans down.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  That's a false choice. I was not suggesting that anyone bomb anyone else. I asked a question, which is still unanswered, about your statement which was in essence, "if a people want authoritarian rule, they should be free to chose it."
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    Your question will not be answered, because it does not make sense. In a democracy, a majority can not vote on the rights of a minority. There is a constitution, a bill of rights. But to get there _people have to chose democracy_ over authoritarianism. As long as they don't do that by themselves, we only have the options to show them by example why they should want it, or to force them to want it. Wherever we tried to force it, it recoiled.
    - 5y ago

lucian1900 5y ago

They run to Europe because we bombed Libya and continue the economic warfare and exploitation against the entire continent. The Cold War was also won with coups and invasions and death squads and infiltration. What you see now is entirely in character with western imperialism, merely turning inwards as it collapses.

turbinerneiter 5y ago
That's the point, people say we should intervene for, eh ethics or something and democracy, but we go there for selfish reasons _and make things worse_. We should focus on fixing and improving our own democracy, make sure people here are visibly doing better than in places that don't have democracy and freedom and offer help to everyone who wants to achieve it. Help as in "this is how you write a constitution", "this is how you write civil law", "this is how you run an efficient health care system" , not bombs.

throwaway75 5y ago

But if that's the chosen path, then you'd have to be ok with the imposition of majoritarian laws on the minorities of the country - at least until the majority wakes up and tunes into the west's liberal values, or until the minority ceases to exist - whichever occurs first.