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.
Truth is not merely subjective or objective, I agree, but no one has a complete grasp on absolute Truth except God.
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.
Our history shows we have not just talked about it, but created it.
Our democracy is killing 1.5 million children per year in the name of women's dignity, we seem to have a bad habit of spewing pornography at every other turn and the government keeps on getting more bloated by day. Where is the dignity in that?
Imperfect execution does not make the concept imperfect. Our goals are correct and we have a tendency to correct the imperfect executions over time.
Spoken like a true Trotskyite. William Buckley wrote some years back that "specific ideologies come and go but that rhetorical totalism is always in the air, searching for the ideologue-on-the-make."
John Nash's Governing Dynamics recognized some of the problem there and has corrected it in a large measure.
Um, writing a book, at best offers a different perspective on problems, issues and solutions; that doesn't correct a thing in the real world.
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.
Wrong in your opinion, and of course anyone who disagrees ought not stand in your way. What was Stalin's old line? If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs. For someone who talks so much about human dignity, you leave precious little room for self-determination, once again, back to the French Revolution and Their hypocrisy.
An ideal in politics can never be "proven" for the simple reason that proof is a scientific term and if one is going to approach politics as a science then you need to have a control group and an experimental group and make sure that all other factors are even. This doesn't happen in the real world of course because there are so many variables. This is why political science isn't.
Now for the sake of argument you could prove that with a group of specific people that democracy was better, it does not follow that then you may impose it on other peoples and cultures. To get some perspective on this imagine if I felt the same way about Christianity that you feel about democracy. Pax vobiscum.