Global democracy?

I was pondering this, Global democracy, when I made the observation that the US government claims that it is bringing democracy to various countries around the world by invading them and removing their leader. However it would also seem that while the US gov't claims that it's spreading democracy around, it would also like to be the world superpower, with various weapons, technology, etc. As soon as there is even a whiff of nuclear testing elsewhere in the world, the gov't acts to stop it developing further. While the US may have democracy within it's borders, apparently it also wishes to be a dictator of sorts in the world.

Can we have a world that is entirely democratic? Where everyone has equal rights and all that comes with democracy, when democratic countries such as the US also wish to be the global superpower?

PS This is not an attack on the US, it's just the most relevant example, nor is this a debate on the war in Irag.

We certainly can live in a world of democracies, but it is unlikely that such a thing will happen for some time in regions such as the middle east, and some parts of Asia.

What scares me, is not the democracy-making that we have done for years, but the fact that we also transform countries to capitalistic economic system. This is a very dangerous thing.

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais
What scares me, is not the democracy-making that we have done for years, but the fact that we also transform countries to capitalistic economic system. This is a very dangerous thing.

Gotta agree with you there. It's a pity we measure and value development in terms of money.

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais
What scares me, is not the democracy-making that we have done for years, but the fact that we also transform countries to capitalistic economic system. This is a very dangerous thing.

How is captialism dangerous?

Originally posted by colourblind
Gotta agree with you there. It's a pity we measure and value development in terms of money.

How else would you measure development?

There are various indicators of development but probably the most useful in the Human Development Index. It looks at various aspects of development, eg life expectancy, literacy rates, infant mortality rates, etc, as well has economic factors, then ranks countries according to the best overall. It's a very comprehensive way of measuring development.

How is captialism dangerous?

Yes it COULD work out, but there need to be big changes first.

We need to move away from this captalist system, and foget about money as a means to all ends.

We also need to move to a hyrogen (replace oil) economy, as this is a more widely spread resource almost every country has some, making it fairer.

Finally (firstly?) we need to re-educate, stop this senseless drive for competition (sports anyone) and to teach compassion and solidarity.

Then maybe...

I agree with you in part, Corinthas.

We do need to recognise that money isn't everything. But re-education might be a bit extreme, sounds almost like brain-washing. Competition can also be a healthy thing and isn't necessarily 'senseless', as long as everyone recognizes the achievements of others. Compassion is also very important as is equality.

it's not just the u.s. trying to stop countries from developing nuclear capabilities, although we do lead the pack in stopping it. but remember, such action is justified. numerous countries have signed pacts declaring THEY WOULD NOT develope nuclear anything, weapons or otherwise. and when a country violates that pact, that's reason enough to step in.

Astroblade,

I did say in my first post that I was only using the US as an example.

How can the US justify having nuclear capabilities when at the same time preventing other countries from having them too. What gives the US, in this case, the right to have it, but not anyone/someone else? Why can the US have nuclear weapons, but not the rest of the world? Why won't the US sign a pact to say they won't build nuclear weapons?

What I want to know is whether it is possible to have a democratic world when countries such as the US also want to be the superpower and have the power to deny other countries?

Originally posted by colourblind
I was pondering this, Global democracy, when I made the observation that the US government claims that it is bringing democracy to various countries around the world by invading them and removing their leader. However it would also seem that while the US gov't claims that it's spreading democracy around, it would also like to be the world superpower

It is the only remaining superpower.

As soon as there is even a whiff of nuclear testing elsewhere in the world, the gov't acts to stop it developing further.

Yeah, like in india, pakistan, north korea and iran. Oh wait, the US didn't prevent any of those countries from their development plans. Why shouldn't the US stop the proliferation of nukes? Its in its own interest and everyone elses, so why shouldn't it?

While the US may have democracy within it's borders, apparently it also wishes to be a dictator of sorts in the world.

Because it tries to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons? A dictator conscripts people, puts them to work, collects taxes, that sort of thing. The UN itself is supposed to be dedicated to nuclear non-proliferation, so how is it dictatorial?

Can we have a world that is entirely democratic? Where everyone has equal rights and all that comes with democracy, when democratic countries such as the US also wish to be the global superpower?
Of course. What difference does it make if the US is superpowerful? If there is a 'global democracy', then there can't be nation-states in the first place. What the US is doing, at least in theory, is creating a globe full of democracies, not one global democracy. If there was one global democracy, there'd be one global democratic governement (whatever the form), not a US governement and numerous other ones.

nor is this a debate on the war in Irag.

But since you brought it up, the war on Irag was terrible, and made more so because people we so focused on the war with Iraq that they forgot all about the poor Iraggians.

Anyway, I tend to look at what the US is doing now (very ineffectively, at this rate it'll take forever) as something very similar to what the Revolutionary French Republics did to europe 200 odd years ago. They marched throughout all of Europe, invading countries, overthrowing monarchies/despots, and replacing them with modern (for the time) liberal democratic states. 'Egality! Fraternity! Liberty!' they'd shout. Before this, for example, there was no such thing as 'Germany' and such. Napoleon in theory continued this process, even tho he himself was an emperor and did instal 'puppet' kings.

I've heard other people refer to the current agenda as something like what democratic south american revolutionaries were calling for (the non communist ones anyway). That is, a militant democracy. It certainly could be effective. Just look at germany and the axis states today, after all the terror of WWII. Heck, look at Europe. From multiple duchies and Empires at each others throats constantly engaging in nation destroying wars (franco-prussian, wwi, wwii, and those were pretty constant from a certain persepctive) to being well nigh united under one common community legislature. Imagine a similiar independant, wealthy, healthy, modern state or alliance of states in the middle east, or central africa.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Nygdan,

You missed my point, I'm not disputing the fact that the US is the current super power, what I am asking is can there be a democratic world AND a super power?

You say it is for the interest of the US and everyone else that the nuclear development plans were stopped... What about the interests of the countries developing nuclear whatevers? Why doesn't the US lead by example, and get rid of its nuclear program?

When I say 'dictator' I mean someone who says/controls (dictates) other people.

The example that comes to mind is when recently the leader of the Labor party in Australia, a democratic country, spoke out against George W Bush and the war in Iraq, we had various members of American politics (can't remember who) calling him Anti-American and various other comments. My point is that in Australia has freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want to, Mark latham had every right to express his beliefs, but we had Americans telling him what he should do. Mr Latham can't even vote in the US elections, but yet the US gov't was telling him what to do, hence dictating.

Does the UN have a nuclear weapons program? I don't recall calling the UN a dictator.

Maybe I should have asked whether you can have a world full of democracies, sharing democratic values while there is a superpower. Utopia! I've answered my own question, it's impossible.

PS When I say 'nor' it is negative, ie not, no, etc, therefore I don't see how I brought the Iraq war into the discussion, that was your doing.

It may be possible to have a Global Democracy when the US also wants to control other countries. If there is a global democracy that is like "democracy" in the US, then the New World Order would be achieved.

Originally posted by colourblind
There are various indicators of development but probably the most useful in the Human Development Index. It looks at various aspects of development, eg life expectancy, literacy rates, infant mortality rates, etc, as well has economic factors, then ranks countries according to the best overall. It's a very comprehensive way of measuring development.

Excellent points, those are all great ways to measure development.

Originally posted by drfunk

How is captialism dangerous?

Are you serious? Capitalism, coupled with an upwardly mobile society (i.e., there are no castes, no nobility, etc.), is the key to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this system you are rewarded for hard work, being creative, being productive, and your reward is proportional to what people think of your work and ideas. Now, socialism & Communism? Those I find dangerous...


[edit on 9/17/2004 by ThunderCloud]

The thing with Capitalism though is that there's someone who always gets the bad end. There will always be unemployment with Capitalism, there has to be. There has to be a struggling lower-working class, and a higher management class for capitalism to work.

Originally posted by colourblind
You say it is for the interest of the US and everyone else that the nuclear development plans were stopped... What about the interests of the countries developing nuclear whatevers? Why doesn't the US lead by example, and get rid of its nuclear program?

So are you saying that there shouldn't be restrictions on the development of nuclear weapons?

When I say 'dictator' I mean someone who says/controls (dictates) other people.

Mark latham had every right to express his beliefs, but we had Americans telling him what he should do.

So?

Mr Latham can't even vote in the US elections, but yet the US gov't was telling him what to do, hence dictating.

Thats a pretty poor definition of dictatorial rule. Why isn't Mr. Latham a dictator also under that usage?

Does the UN have a nuclear weapons program? I don't recall calling the UN a dictator.

I never stated it was either. The UN is a bureacratic body made up of representative from many different nations, why would it have a nuclear program?

Maybe I should have asked whether you can have a world full of democracies, sharing democratic values while there is a superpower.
Of course, why not? Historically, Democracies don't go to war with each other. If every country is a democracy, why would it matter if one had a very powerful military?

PS When I say 'nor' it is negative, ie not, no, etc, therefore I don't see how I brought the Iraq war into the discussion, that was your doing.

You wrote Irag, rather than Iraq, I was making a joke.

d
The thing with Capitalism though is that there's someone who always gets the bad end.

The thing with existence is that someone allways gets the bad end.

There has to be a struggling lower-working class, and a higher management class for capitalism to work.

No there doesn't. True, there's allways going to be people who collect profits from the various businesses and those who are paid and work for the businesses, but that doesn't mean that the working class must be 'struggling' or that there has to be unemployment.

Tell me please. Since when is the United States a Democracy? Can somebody point at the exact Article/Section/Clause in the US Constitution that says we are a Democracy?

For those of you that think the United States is a Democracy, I bet you haven't read Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution.

This country is a Republic - to be more exact a Constitutional Republic. How many more times are you going to actually believe Politicians that spout such treachery? Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Under a Democracy a constitution means nothing. Think before you speak, please!