[Eurotwit]

Long, but very interesting read about the political situation in Morocco.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Yes it is, thanks for posting.

[Cicero]

Interesting, but this guy is kind of a moron about kings.

Right near the start of the article, we didn’t get anti-American fanatics in Iran because we were friends with the Shah. We got fanatics because Jimmuh the Idiot betrayed our somewhat corrupt but basically decent ally the Shah and brought in fanatical Muslim clerics to replace him.

When you have an evil religion like Islam permeating the culture, then having a king is a whole lot better than an imam, because it splits the power. A little corruption and selfishness is a lot better than a lot of fanaticism with the power to impose it.

The people in these countries bear no resemblance to the colonial Americans who sought freedom from England. They have been shaped by very different cultural forces.

[Sherman Logan]

Here’s a more general question: if you can’t have both, would you rather have liberalism without democracy, or democracy without liberalism?

I think the author is asking a critically important question, but not in the right way.

The real question is whether liberalism (in the original sense of freedom for individuals) and rule of law is more important than democracy, in its literal sense of rule by the people.

I think it is undeniable that the first is far and away more important. Individual rights and rule of law are the goal. The only reason, IMO, that democracy has become associated with it is that democracy has so far been the only proven way to maintain freedom and rule of law for an extended period.

Freedom and rule of law can of course exist under an autocracy. And democracy, giving the people what they want, can lead directly to oppression and loss of any previous freedom, as we saw in Weimar Germany and are in the process of seeing in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc.

[Eurotwit]

You guys might appreciate this article.

[Svartalfiar]

As much as I want to post a full analysis, I just got home from the armory and am too tired for that, so just a quick point.

Yes, a monarch is a much better and effective ruler, in a country like that where it is more traditional and the people respect that. AND, where you have a benevolent ruler who is smart enough to make the right decisions for the people. The problem is that eventually he dies, and the next guy might not be so nice. The power has too much potential for abuse. You can’t depend on having a benevolent, effective monarch each time the crown is passed on.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Adding some maps:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mo.html

[Mr. Jeeves]

Good post - I enjoyed reading this.