4 ms·

That's fascinating. It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. And while it doesn't sound great, it

That's fascinating. It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. And while it doesn't sound great, it sounds way better than the tribal customs they're used to. Based on my limited experience with human people is that any position that relies on the individual acting in good faith and not being corrupt will immediately attract people who are unbelievably corruptable. So that's probably not great long term. Subsequently, I don't know if it's me being paranoid, a new spin being allowed, or just seeing behind the actual veil now, but I've been seeing more "maybe the taliban aren't so bad" stories lately. Interesting.

dkersten 3y ago
> It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. Well… a dictatorship works too if the leader is above corruption. The reality is that this is not usually the case.
- EduardoBautista 3y ago
  As someone from Latin America, non-corrupt democracies are not the norm either. Very few democracies can be considered free of significant corruption.
  - miked85 3y ago
    Very true. Checks and balances do help, but the don't solve the issue of corrupt politicians.
  - dkersten 3y ago
    Sure. I wasn’t really commenting on pros and cons of any particular system, just that the statement I quoted is true for any system but unrealistic.
rewmie 3y ago
> but I've been seeing more "maybe the taliban aren't so bad" stories lately. Interesting. That's weird. The last newspiece I read about the Taliban is how female suicide is spiking. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/despair-is-settling-in-female-suicides-on-rise-in-talibans-afghanistan https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/despair-is-set... What weird kind of revisionist news feed are you following?
- ta1243 3y ago
  Yes the narrative I see is "The Taliban are awful as even the most pessimistic person said but we can't do anything about it" This is of course a different spin from 20 years ago when it was "Lets deliver democracy and beer, America, Fuck Yeah!", but it's similar.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > This is of course a different spin from 20 years ago when it was "Lets deliver democracy and beer, America, Fuck Yeah!", but it's similar. That's not correlated with reality at all. From the start the spin was and always has been that Afghanistan was a safe haven for violent international terrorist organizations which were behind a string of terrorist attacks worldwide, and these organizations would be stopped by eliminating their safe havens and the regime that supported or enabled them to operate from their territory.
    - ta1243 3y ago
      some slight hyperbole of course. But the view that in the post cold war environment America should "spread democracy" was hardly a fringe https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-democracy https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-s... The 2002 National Security strategy was explicitly about spreading US style democracy and free trade to countries including Afghanistan. "As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work ... to rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists. " This view was certainly championed and repeated across opinion posts throughout the western press. Now the view is "we failed in that, and it sucks, but we can't make it work". This of course was what many on the left were saying, but articles like https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2006/12/21/democracy-grows-from-the-barrel-of-a-gun https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2006/12/21/de... "So actually, as far as I can see, the way that America uses its military power will be quite central to any spreading of democracy in the Middle East. If you can be victorious, kind and smart, then people are going to want to find out how you did it. And I can't see why Fukuyama would want to argue to the contrary. " There were always contrary views of course, many in academia were saying you can't force a cultural change. Those were reported a little, but in general it was very much pro-intervention.
hotdogscout 3y ago
>That's fascinating. It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. The issue is human rights and those who need it. People who do not believe in religion, women who want equal freedoms as men, lgbt people who don't want to be executed, etc. Theocracies like any authoritarian dictatorship can "work" in providing the basic needs of it's devoted citizens.

dkersten 3y ago

> It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. Well… a dictatorship works too if the leader is above corruption. The reality is that this is not usually the case.

EduardoBautista 3y ago
As someone from Latin America, non-corrupt democracies are not the norm either. Very few democracies can be considered free of significant corruption.
- miked85 3y ago
  Very true. Checks and balances do help, but the don't solve the issue of corrupt politicians.
- dkersten 3y ago
  Sure. I wasn’t really commenting on pros and cons of any particular system, just that the statement I quoted is true for any system but unrealistic.

rewmie 3y ago

> but I've been seeing more "maybe the taliban aren't so bad" stories lately. Interesting. That's weird. The last newspiece I read about the Taliban is how female suicide is spiking. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/despair-is-settling-in-female-suicides-on-rise-in-talibans-afghanistan https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/despair-is-set... What weird kind of revisionist news feed are you following?

ta1243 3y ago
Yes the narrative I see is "The Taliban are awful as even the most pessimistic person said but we can't do anything about it" This is of course a different spin from 20 years ago when it was "Lets deliver democracy and beer, America, Fuck Yeah!", but it's similar.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > This is of course a different spin from 20 years ago when it was "Lets deliver democracy and beer, America, Fuck Yeah!", but it's similar. That's not correlated with reality at all. From the start the spin was and always has been that Afghanistan was a safe haven for violent international terrorist organizations which were behind a string of terrorist attacks worldwide, and these organizations would be stopped by eliminating their safe havens and the regime that supported or enabled them to operate from their territory.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    some slight hyperbole of course. But the view that in the post cold war environment America should "spread democracy" was hardly a fringe https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-democracy https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-s... The 2002 National Security strategy was explicitly about spreading US style democracy and free trade to countries including Afghanistan. "As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work ... to rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists. " This view was certainly championed and repeated across opinion posts throughout the western press. Now the view is "we failed in that, and it sucks, but we can't make it work". This of course was what many on the left were saying, but articles like https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2006/12/21/democracy-grows-from-the-barrel-of-a-gun https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2006/12/21/de... "So actually, as far as I can see, the way that America uses its military power will be quite central to any spreading of democracy in the Middle East. If you can be victorious, kind and smart, then people are going to want to find out how you did it. And I can't see why Fukuyama would want to argue to the contrary. " There were always contrary views of course, many in academia were saying you can't force a cultural change. Those were reported a little, but in general it was very much pro-intervention.

hotdogscout 3y ago

>That's fascinating. It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. The issue is human rights and those who need it. People who do not believe in religion, women who want equal freedoms as men, lgbt people who don't want to be executed, etc. Theocracies like any authoritarian dictatorship can "work" in providing the basic needs of it's devoted citizens.