In your eyes, they have thrown away their dignity, in their eyes they may have defined the good society differently from you. Your particular brand of authoritarianism is not less offensive because it is "for the sake of the people's dignity". Indeed, that was the hallmark of the leaders of the French Revolution.
...that the democratic system has come closest to recognizing the rights and dignity of the governed, a point that I could not disagree with more.
This country has a bad habit of eliminating rights of one group of people whenever it secures the rights of another. The saddest part of it all is that so-called conservative economists talk about people individually and collectively as commodities; that has precious little to do with human dignity.
Democracy is one political ideal among many, when you start seeing a moral imperative to force your political ideals on another person (or people or nation) you have become what the Soviet Union used to be. Is there a democratic version of the Internationale? I'm sure the words can't be much different.
Truth has no eyes. It is there to be discovered. We have to decide whether we have discovered it however we make such decisions, but it doesn't boil down to my truth vs. your truth. That's a haven for forensic cowards.
Your particular brand of authoritarianism is not less offensive because it is "for the sake of the people's dignity".
I suppose if we found a place where we forced authoritarians out and they voted authoritarians back in I would have to reconsider. Otherwise I won't consider it authoritarian to give people an opportunity to live in the dignity that is theirs by virtue of their humanity.
Indeed, that was the hallmark of the leaders of the French Revolution.
With one important difference. They did not build a system that accounted for people's inherent dignity. They shouted about liberty, equality, and fraternity, but did not create institutions that could protect any of the three. It was noise. Our history shows we have not just talked about it, but created it.
This country has a bad habit of eliminating rights of one group of people whenever it secures the rights of another.
Imperfect execution does not make the concept imperfect. Our goals are correct and we have a tendency to correct the imperfect executions over time.
The saddest part of it all is that so-called conservative economists talk about people individually and collectively as commodities; that has precious little to do with human dignity.
Some economists have tended toward that position in the very recent past. John Nash's Governing Dynamics recognized some of the problem there and has corrected it in a large measure. It is not conservative to fail to recognize what makes us human. That's part of the libertarian fallacy.
Democracy is one political ideal among many, when you start seeing a moral imperative to force your political ideals on another person (or people or nation) you have become what the Soviet Union used to be.
Except they were wrong. All governments impose a political ideal on another person. We are discussing whether an ideal, once proven, should be expanded to other nations as well.
Shalom.