Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness

[Sander]

Actually, welsh, that's what I meant by the right man. *shrugs* I need to phrase things more clearlu

History of the World was completely silly, remember this line from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail: "Come see the violence inherit to the system!"

As for Civ 3, I absolutely love it, it has a great way of portraying the rise of a nation, and there's something about seeing your country completely covering the world in cities that's inherently cool. Don't get the expansion, though, they're going to release a new expansion with the old expansion in it...bunch of greedy people.. BUT you may want to read a review, tastes differ...

 

[welsh]

Come on Sander- if you are getting sloppy with your concepts, its good to work them through. What is "the right man"?

 

[Sander]

The right man would be the person who does what is best for a country:
1) Keeping the inhabitants happy and under control(Violence usually doesn't work here, it only produces more anger and stuff).
2) Dividing those who are against him, if he runs a socialist government, be sure to have some capitalist things as well, so that there won't be a great number of people against him, after all, with ahppy people and divided and few enemies, who will stand against him?

One last thing may be to give the country a democracy when he gets old, this will probably ensure a good treatment in his final days, and will save the country from power-hungry follow-ups.

Note that I completely ignored how good a country was in economics and what not, because that doesn't matter, what matters is that the people are happy.
As a sidenote, having good relations with other countries, OR keeping quiet, OR having a very strong military(least favorable option).

Meh, I think Liechtenstein is fun, it's actually being run by a monarchy...

 

[welsh]

You do realize that you are basically articulating the argument for most coup d'etat, authoritarian take overs and other democratic rollback?
Like Pinochet? Like the Brazilian military?

And you do realize that this is a recipe of disaster?

 

[Briosafreak]

You do realize that you are basically articulating the argument for most coup d'etat, authoritarian take overs and other democratic rollback?
Like Pinochet? Like the Brazilian military?

And you do realize that this is a recipe of disaster?

Sander welsh is right on this, you don`t imagine the times i`ve heard and read those arguments you just made in the mouths of tirants, specially from Africa...

 

[Brother None]

Safe to assume Sander's model is a purely theoretical one. i.e. "it would work, if such-and-such flaws in humanity didn't exist", same as for the old pureblood Liberalism and Communism...

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Actually, I think Sander is trying to describe something akin to the monarchs and families of old who used their political cunning to sow discord among their enemies and come out themselves smelling like roses. But in a day and age when we even know who the president gets a blowjob from, we will also know when the dictator himself screws up (whcih he eventually will).

As for violence not being a tool for controlling the populace, I again refer to Stalin and all modern day dictators like Castro, Kim jong ill (or whatever), and Sadam Hussein. The only way that these dictators will ever fall out of power is either by death or by an outside influence. Can you really name one modern day dictator or monarch that is ruling effectively primarily because of the way they manage their collective action power? Most of the Middle Eastern monarchs are going through a lot of political turmoil, and lets say they did rule effectively, it still isn't better than the democracies found in the western world. Violence is definitely an effective control tool and is really the only one a dictator can depend on.

Also, after reading Sander's "the right man" statement three times, I also think he is referring to an ideal uberleader that would be able to effectively lead with compassion, prosperity, and justice, awing the general public into submission and at the same time eliminating all competition. This is at best wishful thinking and I can easily up the ante when it comes to ideal forms of government because the sad fact is that that situation has never, and will, never happen.

As for Civilization, haven't played part three, but in part 1, since the player is something akin to a beloved "immortal god machine" (I promise this is the last time i will ever mention that cornball line), I never used diplomacy, conquered all competition, and ruled a united and happy world.

 

[Brother None]

Can you really name one modern day dictator or monarch that is ruling effectively primarily because of the way they manage their collective action power?

I do believe Sander mentioned Lichtenstein.

Though that's tiny.

It's all economic prosperity in the end. Yeah 8)

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Yeah, I read that right after I posted it. Oh well, guess I'll have to eat my own words...

 

[welsh]

Lets see, benign dictators? Hmmmm..... besides the Pope?

But in response to ancient oldies, honestly I can't think of one right away, but I am sure if I put my mind, I could. Mugabe for instance. I can say that two of the most powerful dictators of the past 50 years ruled a good long time through division of society- Suharto of Indonesia and Mobutu of Zaire. The True Whig Party of Liberia last a good long time through divide and conquer. I would guess that the Saudis do a bit of that too (though I would look to Broisafreak for that).

The interesting thing about both Mobutu and Suharto is that they lasted so damn long and, no offence to the Indos here, the armies were not impressive. In fact, if you look at both Indonesia and Congo you will find that the dictators sowed divisions within their militaries (thus limiting the possibility of a military coup).

You are right, that dictators often go out by either death or foreign intervention. Uganda's Idi Amin (may he rot in bowels of hell) got knocked out by Tanzania. But this is actually quite rare. Many tyrants of developing states have been very keen (until recently) to keep their armies pointed inward (against their own people). The record of tyrants going to war against other tyrants in the post-World War 2 period is remarkably slim. At least over the past 60 years there has also been something of an authoritarian peace as well as a democratic peace.

But some military leaders do bow out gracefully. For example Ghana's Rawlings came in twice to clean house. The first time he whacked the corrupt leaders and then bowed out, but when democracy was about to crash, he came in again and ran the country before transition to democracy. The ability of autocratic rulers to manipulate democracy has allowed many to either stay in power or come back to it. In Africa for instance, a wave of democratizations in the 1990s did not change that many of the political leaders by the end of that decade. Mali also went through a period where a military dictator basically bowed out gracefully (and actually comes close to Sander's ideal of a benevolent tyrant).

So the one way out is to partially (or virtually) democratize- either from internal or external pressure. The other way- death, is not often by natural causes. Dictators are often victims of military coups, where the military comes in and basically sets up shop again. Military coups were once the major mechanism for political change in Africa (though I am not sure if that is still true- data is a few years old). There has been a fair share of that in other parts of the world as well.

 

[Gwydion]

Do you oppose ownership of guns by individuals even in third world countires ruled by brutal dictators, welsh?

I'm just a little curious because this post reminded me of some of our previous gun control discussions.

 

[welsh]

Well let's think about that.

Are people likely to use those guns to overthrow the government? Probably not. THe reason why is that most dictators are smart enough to keep the opposition divided, so when the villager decides to take a gun to resist the tax collector- chances are either he's going to get killed, or if he kills the tax collector the army is going to come in and kill the village. This happened in Zaire on a regular basis.

Lets say the dictator lets people have guns. Who gets to have the guns will probably be the people that he knows are loyal to him. In otherwords, the dictator has a repressive force at his disposal that is not tied to the official arm of the state. Thus violence moves from state-to-society to society vs soceity- more division for him and the dictator says that his regime was not responsible for those brutal human rights abuses but bad elements of society. Again the person who would resist gets screwed.

But lets say the people are able to overcome their collective action problems and resist the state, overthrow the ruler and set about the creation of a new government, or perhaps carves out a corner of their own. What then? Well one usually finds that the state divides. The weakness of the state leads to sub-state groups taking over the role of governement, and staying in power because they have access to guns. In countries, in the post world war 2 era, where a violent revolution has replaced or tried to replace the dictator, one often finds long, extended period of intra-state violence, often worse than the period of repression that preceded it.

Cases- Liberia, Congo, Somalia, Yugoslavia.

Do you need more cases Gwydion- Well lets include Lebanon, How about those periods where the state has failed in India, how about parts of Indoneisa? How about much of Central America.

More? How about Burma? Algeria? Haiti, Jamaica, Uganda, Rwanda.

Oh, and the list isn't quite finished yet. Or haven't you seen the pattern.

This is why the people occupying Iraq now are worried that there are so many guns in the street. Not only could they use them again.

Sometimes a dictator is overthrown violently and there is hope that peace will happen.

But it wasn't violence that ended Apartheid in Africa, but two leaders who knew that such violence would be a blood bath. It was Ghandi's march to sea to collect salt that made the citizens of Britian aware of their brutality against people. It wasn't violence by Martin Luther King that got the win in Montegomery Alabama. It certainly wasn't violence that tore down the Berlin Wall or toppled the communist states of Eastern Europe like a chain of dominos.

The Black Panthers used violence and alienated people. The Weather Underground used violence and failed.

Does violence work sometimes, yes. Always, no. Usually, no.

For a guy who advocates Christian values, when will you realize that being a Christian-Gun Advocate is an oxymoron?

 

[Gwydion]

Are people likely to use those guns to overthrow the government?

Well, let's think about this. You admitted that dictators aren't likely to oust each other. You admitted that most dictators have their own guns pointed at the people. So, in the face of this, you think it's a good idea for that dictator to disarm the people so the only hope is that a benevolent world power will come to their aid? What happens when a world power is supporting the dictator?

See, welsh, it's not always that you can succeed. It's that you have the ability to try. It's that a human being has that much dignity that he is not totally 100% at the mercy of despot, or a criminal.

It was Ghandi's march to sea to collect salt that made the citizens of Britian aware of their brutality against people.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" -Gandhi

For a guy who advocates Christian values, when will you realize that being a Christian-Gun Advocate is an oxymoron?

It actually isn't, welsh. The official Catholic doctrine is that defense of yourself and others is not just a right, but a duty. You see, you don't seem to have any concept of dignity. Crimes like rape rob a human being of that essential human dignity, which is the greatest loss of all. Frankly, it is better that someone resists even until death than allow a crime like that to happen. There's actually a young girl who's a Catholic saint for that very reason.

Gun ownership is very much in line with my faith, thank you very much. My faith preserves human dignity, just as gun ownership can.

 

[welsh]

Here's the thing Gwydion- you care about someone's else's dignity. I worry about their lives.

I know its hard for you to give up that gun. It's about empowerment for you. Dude, it's ok. You're 19, you're trying to make opinions based on the NRA rhetoric that your read. And you want to be moral, because the Bible tells you so. You grab on to ideas and values, but you haven't seen the world- only as its been delivered to you. Guns and religion make sense individually, But you put the two together and it doesn't work. Something has to give. I know its personal, but it doesn't have to be.

You asked me a question, do I think gun ownership helps the people under a brutal dictatorship. My answer is simple, in most cases it ends badly.

And if you read, it wasn't outside powers that end many, dictatorships, its internal resistance. It's still people standing up to what's wrong. Sometimes the dictator has guns. But they don't always work for him. And sometimes he has to put them away.

More guns for Ghandi- great. How many people had to die when Pakistan and India split? How many wars had to be fought over Kashmir, because they couldn't peacefully work it out, because they just continue to be pissed off with each other? Nheru also supported guns and violence, but we remember Ghandi because he was a man of peace, not violence.

How many more girls got raped after Yugoslavia splits up? How many continue to do so in Congo? What you think death at gun point doesn't come hand-in-hand with rape? What, don't you think the numbers of rape have also gone up.

I know, you're about to say 1 person's dignity is worth anyone's life. Great! I am talking a lot of lives, a lot of rapes when internal war happens, and it gets really ugly.

Yes, there is a long tradition in the Church about defense of self, of duty. It's the basis of St. Augustine's theory of Just War. This was when Augustine had to come up with a way in which the Christians could fight off barbarian invaders at the beginning of the Dark Ages. In otherwords, it was political.

But it was Jesus who said love thy neighbor, to turn the cheek. You remember the Golden Rule, right?

Yes, I believe in the dignity of the person. The dignity not to be shot at, the dignity to live a good life, in a peaceful soceity, where they are not worried about neigbor shooting them or raping at gun point. ANd I believe in the right of people to live to achieve that, to find dignity in life. To find peace, to love thy neighbor and family, to put down instruments of violence to live a more happy, joyous life. I believe they have the right to survive the tragedy that falls them, and to find dignity. Or is that the wrong Bible?

You would walk the line of dignity to death. I would tell you that a person finds dignity in life. But you advocate guns, and in doing so you make compromises with death. I suggest that there has to be a better way.

 

[OnTheBounce]

Yes, there is a long tradition in the Church about defense of self, of duty. It's the basis of St. Augustine's theory of Just War. This was when Augustine had to come up with a way in which the Christians could fight off barbarian invaders at the beginning of the Dark Ages. In otherwords, it was political.

But it was Jesus who said love thy neighbor, to turn the cheek. You remember the Golden Rule, right?

Here's one for you:

Then he [Jesus] said unto them, BUT NOW, HE THT HATH A PURSE, LET HIM TAKE IT, AND LIKEWISE HIS SCRIP, AND HE THAT HATH NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL SELL HIS GARMENT AND BUY ONE.

There's plenty of scriptural justification for Gwydion's stance. Then again, there's plenty of scriptural justification to reject it.

I'll let other people puzzle over the contradictions. I'm not up for induction into any hidden Mystery.

OTB

 

[Gwydion]

Welsh, you're older and your liberal opinions have become deeply entrenched. You don't like guns because of all the liberal rhetoric from peple you trust. You don't like religion for similar reasons. You don't want to believe that these two fundamentals of conservatives can coexist because you believe that conservatism is fundamentally flawed, but they can coexist, welsh.

Yeah, being condescending is fun.

See, you come back to those same emotional arguments, welsh. Wars were fought before guns, crime existed before guns. If guns didn't exist, crime and wars still would. Women would still be raped, but at knife point, or simply through greater strength. You think women in Yugoslavia or Congo wouldn't be raped if fighting were done with spears, swords and bows?

Your arguements are based in emotion, not logic welsh. You fear guns. Ultimately, you will never accept that a gun only acts according to the will of its user, just like a sword, or knife, or bow, or spear, because of that fear. And unless you get over that fear, you will never realize that guns can be used to maintain decency and life as easily as they can be used to take it.

It is the will of the wielder. I hope that one day you may realize you fear and see through it.

 

[Sander]

*sigh* Gwydion, we're not going to go over this again are we? I meean, seriously, it's all about opinion, there is no logic in this decisions, merely what you THINK. I think that banning guns will save people's lives, yes people save their own lives using guns, but people also take lives with those very same guns, and for as far as I know, guns kill more than they save. But, again, this is about opinion, everyone tries to do what they think is right. You see, Gwydion, you think it's all the will of the wielder, while I (and maybe welsh) think that same thing, but that legal guns make it more accessible and thus easier. YES, we should work on that will of the wielder, but if you think that that ever in a conceivable amount of time will be fixed, you are deluded. This isn't an ideological thing, nor is it theoretical like what I was saying in the dictator thing, this is reality, and reality says that working on gun control is more realistic than working on the will of the wielder.
No, goddamnit, now I did it again, alright, read that, decide what to say, but don't expect an answer from me.

As for the dictator thingie, read what kharn said:

Safe to assume Sander's model is a purely theoretical one. i.e. "it would work, if such-and-such flaws in humanity didn't exist"

Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, but I did keep on saying that right man thing, I thought it would've been clear by now *shrugs* Changes the whole thing, doesn't it?

 

[Briosafreak]

Your arguements are based in emotion, not logic welsh.

I`m sorry, but it`s the other way around. Welsh presented facts, and you reply with opinions and whining about him beeing condescendent.

Because you can`t really reply to the examples he gave, and those were just a small portion of the devastation unregulated small arms sale in the world has caused.

You are the one replying with arguments based in faith to facts that are clear from experience.

 

[welsh]

Welsh, You don't like guns because of all the liberal rhetoric from peple you trust. You don't like religion for similar reasons. You don't want to believe that these two fundamentals of conservatives can coexist because you believe that conservatism is fundamentally flawed, but they can coexist, welsh.

Well, as this is becoming personal-

Well Gwydion, you're right. I don't like unregulated guns. I do like regulated in this society quite a bit. I don't own them because I don't think I need them. That said, I'd like to try some hunting, and I enjoy shooting. What I don't like is people getting shot and the danger that exists of that happening.

And no, I have not read much of the liberal rhetoric on gun control. I have read some studies lately, but that was mostly in response to some of your thoughts.

As for religion, you're also right that I don't much care for organized religion. I tend to argue with my priests when they tell me I should do something based on their values. To me religion is about learning to understand God, it acts as means to an ends of developing that relationship to God. That said, I can see where organized religion can be a means of both liberation and repression. But a relationship with God, yes, that matters.

And yes, as On-the-Bounce says, there is scripture to support the christian view of guns. But there is a lot in teachings of Jesus that advocate peace and love and understanding. I'll lean towards the second view.

Yeah, being condescending is fun.

It can be. So is being holier than thou, - a popular sentiment among the Christian right. As On the Bounce again pointed out, religion can be used to articulate arguments on either side.

But than God made us thinking people, so perhaps we can figure it out for ourselves. But first you have to question what you think you know. THat's one of the reasons you go to college.

Briosafreak points out the difference between a normative (value based) and an empirical argument (fact based). Ten years I was pretty conservative on a lot of issues, but I changed my mind on a lot of things merely for looking it up and reading.

I think its better to understand the world not by a series of values that you've been indoctrinated in, but by understanding the world as it is. Then, try to figure out your values.

It's all out there. You just have to look for it. As I have said before, your correspondence forced me to take a second look at arguments to find their veracity. That's what this should be about. It shouldn't be personal.

See, you come back to those same emotional arguments, welsh. Wars were fought before guns, crime existed before guns. If guns didn't exist, crime and wars still would. Women would still be raped, but at knife point, or simply through greater strength.

Your arguements are based in emotion, not logic welsh. You fear guns. Ultimately, you will never accept that a gun only acts according to the will of its user, just like a sword, or knife, or bow, or spear, because of that fear.".

Well, you're half right. Its not guns so much as the people who use them that I fear. The danger that there are so many people out there that could snuff out a life in a blink is pretty scary stuff.

As Sander points out, its not that guns make people kill, but it makes that killing easier. Because the difficulty and costs of killing are reduced, the opportunity to do so becomes stronger. That empowerment becomes deadly quickly, in the wrong hands. Its about dangerous empowerment- and people are not always law abiding or rational.

Yes, you can kill with many types of weapons. I have actually made your argument that the brutality of todays wars is similar to those of the middle ages. But medievalists say that's not true overall, and perhaps only when people of two cultures (primarily of two religions) fight - like the crusades. If so, well, why?

It is the will of the wielder. I hope that one day you may realize you fear and see through it.

You're right, its not the gun but the wielder of the gun that I fear.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Quick question, but is it hand guns that you guys oppose or all firearms in general. I definitely don't mind rifles and the like but handguns really only bring more harm than they do good.

As for guns and dictatorships, it really doesn't matter whether they're legal or not. If the people do start a guerilla movement (like in Cuba), it sure as hell isn't going to be with handguns, but with weaponry that is more lethal and obviously, more illegal.