3 ms·
"Liberal democracies" are conflated with being part of the global upper class. Which major wealthy liberal democracy hasn't participated in colonialism or invas
by pphysch 5y ago
"Liberal democracies" are conflated with being part of the global upper class. Which major wealthy liberal democracy hasn't participated in colonialism or invasion in the last 200-300 years?
I assume there are proper aristocrats making your same argument about their way of life. That they are wealthy because they have the "right" system and not because they were born into a corner of the globe made prosperous by modern economic exploitation.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago> "Liberal democracies" are conflated with being part of the global upper class. Which major wealthy liberal democracy hasn't participated in colonialism or invasion in the last 200-300 years? There are a few. Switzerland, Norway, Sweden (depending on how far back you go), Iceland, Ireland. And, if you're going back 200 years and thinking about Great Britain, well, sure, they had colonies. They also arguably were not a liberal democracy. They had parliament, but they also had the king. Who controlled international policy (which determined whether they had colonies)? I don't know enough to answer that, but I'm not sure they should automatically be put in the "liberal democracy" bucket.
- simonh 5y agoThe list of countries anywhere that haven't enthusiastically engaged in warfare at one point or another is rather short. Yes Britain conquered India, we have a bloody history, but show me any period in India's history before then that wasn't soaked in blood. I'm not excusing anything, I'm just saying human nature is what it is, or has been historically. Power has generally been in the hands of warrior elites, because if it wasn't a warrior elite would come along and seize it. Liberal democracy, when it works, is a massive improvement on that state of affairs.