4 ms·

Great, so every country can just smoothly descend further into tyranny with no pushback from any other country. Thankfully we won't have any world police though

Great, so every country can just smoothly descend further into tyranny with no pushback from any other country. Thankfully we won't have any world police though!

cafard 10mo ago
During the US's period as hegemon, its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny America was a major force behind post-War decolonization. It was one of our terms of the European peace.
  - greedo 10mo ago
    The US provided lip service to the idea, but quickly became paranoid about the threat of world wide communism and changed its tune relatively quickly. In the places where this wasn't a factor, it wasn't altruism by any stretch, but economic interests. The US saw that a post-colonial world would be fantastic for business...
embedding-shape 10mo ago
[flagged]
- nozzlegear 10mo ago
  It may not be the sole reason but it's certainly the biggest. Pax Americana isn't just a phrase that wonks made up yesterday.
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    You do realize that there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Or even created before the US was a little British colony looking for purpose in the world? It seems like Americans forget how young their country is, it's barely a blimp in history so far, although recent written history makes it seem a lot older than it is.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Out of curiosity, who are you thinking of? There aren’t that many countries that made it through colonization, industrialization, WWII and then decolonization and the Cold War intact. Very, very few virtually continuously. Fewer still as democracies.
    - nradov 10mo ago
      How many other countries have been stable democracies since 1776? Or even since 1865?
    - hervature 10mo ago
      I know you are using the definition of tyrant here to be "unjust ruler" as opposed to "absolute ruler". You can certainly have benevolent tyrants but I would argue that, without a constitution, you are by definition ruled by a tyrant. The USA has the oldest ratified constitution so that is a prime candidate for being considered the oldest stable non-tyrannical government. Of course, we are using different definitions of tyrant so you will not agree with my conclusion.
      - tsimionescu 10mo ago
        While I agree to some extent with your point, I think your definition is far too strict. For example, by your definition, the UK is currently and has always been a tyranny, since they don't have a formal constitution in the sense of any US-style state. However, I do think you're generally right - even under a more relaxed definition of what does or doesn't constitute a tyranny, the USA is clearly one of the first non-tyrannical states, at least among those that still exist today. The UK had a mostly-democratic ruling system for even longer than that. On the other hand, if we define tyranny to refer to any state in which elections are restricted to a relatively small subset of the population, then the USA or UK are not that early. Voting in the USA was largely restricted to male property owners until 1840. Many other countries had adopted at least universal male voting by this time. The UK was even later to pass this standard.
- tick_tock_tick 10mo ago
  > If you think the US is the sole reason the entire world isn't all tyrants right now It's a big part of it. Traveling changed some of my skepticism on how "good" the USA was for the world into it might be one of the best things that ever happened to it.
dandellion 10mo ago
The world police was never really there to stop tyrants, the evidence is that they'd conveniently look the other way whenever they benefitted from it, and they would even put tyrants in place when it suited them. They did stop some tyrants, for sure, but only when it was convenient.
- mgfist 10mo ago
  The world saw it's greatest peace under US hegemony. It wasn't perfect and there were bloody avoidable wars on the behest of the US, but by and large things ran smoothly and US sponsored globalism brought prosperity and peace to many.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dandellion 10mo ago
    I think it's too early to make that call, considering pax romana lasted 200 years and we're not even a 100 into us hegemony.
    - mgfist 10mo ago
      Too early to make what call? Pax Americana could end tomorrow and it wouldn't make the statement false (well, it would if whatever followed was even more peaceful).
FlyingBears 10mo ago
I would pick tyranny over "democracy" import any day. Neither US or UK have a great track record here.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

Great, so every country can just smoothly descend further into tyranny with no pushback from any other country. Thankfully we won't have any world police though!

cafard 10mo ago

During the US's period as hegemon, its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny America was a major force behind post-War decolonization. It was one of our terms of the European peace.
- greedo 10mo ago
  The US provided lip service to the idea, but quickly became paranoid about the threat of world wide communism and changed its tune relatively quickly. In the places where this wasn't a factor, it wasn't altruism by any stretch, but economic interests. The US saw that a post-colonial world would be fantastic for business...

embedding-shape 10mo ago

[flagged]

nozzlegear 10mo ago
It may not be the sole reason but it's certainly the biggest. Pax Americana isn't just a phrase that wonks made up yesterday.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  You do realize that there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Or even created before the US was a little British colony looking for purpose in the world? It seems like Americans forget how young their country is, it's barely a blimp in history so far, although recent written history makes it seem a lot older than it is.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Out of curiosity, who are you thinking of? There aren’t that many countries that made it through colonization, industrialization, WWII and then decolonization and the Cold War intact. Very, very few virtually continuously. Fewer still as democracies.
  - nradov 10mo ago
    How many other countries have been stable democracies since 1776? Or even since 1865?
  - hervature 10mo ago
    I know you are using the definition of tyrant here to be "unjust ruler" as opposed to "absolute ruler". You can certainly have benevolent tyrants but I would argue that, without a constitution, you are by definition ruled by a tyrant. The USA has the oldest ratified constitution so that is a prime candidate for being considered the oldest stable non-tyrannical government. Of course, we are using different definitions of tyrant so you will not agree with my conclusion.
    - tsimionescu 10mo ago
      While I agree to some extent with your point, I think your definition is far too strict. For example, by your definition, the UK is currently and has always been a tyranny, since they don't have a formal constitution in the sense of any US-style state. However, I do think you're generally right - even under a more relaxed definition of what does or doesn't constitute a tyranny, the USA is clearly one of the first non-tyrannical states, at least among those that still exist today. The UK had a mostly-democratic ruling system for even longer than that. On the other hand, if we define tyranny to refer to any state in which elections are restricted to a relatively small subset of the population, then the USA or UK are not that early. Voting in the USA was largely restricted to male property owners until 1840. Many other countries had adopted at least universal male voting by this time. The UK was even later to pass this standard.
tick_tock_tick 10mo ago
> If you think the US is the sole reason the entire world isn't all tyrants right now It's a big part of it. Traveling changed some of my skepticism on how "good" the USA was for the world into it might be one of the best things that ever happened to it.

dandellion 10mo ago

The world police was never really there to stop tyrants, the evidence is that they'd conveniently look the other way whenever they benefitted from it, and they would even put tyrants in place when it suited them. They did stop some tyrants, for sure, but only when it was convenient.

mgfist 10mo ago
The world saw it's greatest peace under US hegemony. It wasn't perfect and there were bloody avoidable wars on the behest of the US, but by and large things ran smoothly and US sponsored globalism brought prosperity and peace to many.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- dandellion 10mo ago
  I think it's too early to make that call, considering pax romana lasted 200 years and we're not even a 100 into us hegemony.
  - mgfist 10mo ago
    Too early to make what call? Pax Americana could end tomorrow and it wouldn't make the statement false (well, it would if whatever followed was even more peaceful).

FlyingBears 10mo ago

I would pick tyranny over "democracy" import any day. Neither US or UK have a great track record here.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]