Skip to comments.
Freedom vs. Democracy: How The U.S. Government Created a Crisis in the Middle East
Capitalism Magazine ^
| July 18, 2006
| Peter Schwartz
Posted on 08/01/2006 10:52:34 PM PDT by FreeKeys
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
"A pure democracy ... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party... Hence it is that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in thier deaths." --
James Madison, Federalist No. 10
1
posted on
08/01/2006 10:52:36 PM PDT
by
FreeKeys
To: FreeKeys
Thank you very much for citing Mr. Madison's utterly accurate comment about the notion of 'democracy'!
2
posted on
08/01/2006 11:02:55 PM PDT
by
SAJ
(Strongly suggest buying Dec EC, JY, AD straddles, this week. Somethin's GONNA give.)
To: FreeKeys
The developments are certainly problematic in each of these three: Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, and Iraq. However, the author pinpoints the wrong problem. None of these is a pure democracy in which majority legitimately rules no matter what. The problem is that the rule of law is broken. In Iraq for example, the armed militia are not permitted under the Constitution. But there they are.
To: FreeKeys
democracy = mobocracy
4
posted on
08/01/2006 11:18:37 PM PDT
by
Andy from Beaverton
(I only vote Republican to stop the Democrats)
To: FreeKeys
Conventional wisdom assumes that an election constitutes a democracy. When you've changed administrations a few times in a non-violent way, then you can start to call it a democracy.
5
posted on
08/01/2006 11:27:24 PM PDT
by
TechnicalEcstacy
(Ann Coulter - want to touch the heiny - aaoowwwooo!)
To: FreeKeys
If we are going to try to replace tyrannies, we must stop confusing democracy with freedom. We must make clear that the principle we support is not the unlimited rule of the majority, but the inalienable rights of the individual. Empowering killers who happen to be democratically elected does not advance the cause of freedom--it destroys it.
6
posted on
08/01/2006 11:28:06 PM PDT
by
kesg
To: Gabz
There are some very interesting points in this article.
All of which are not necessarily pertaining to the subject of said article.
America was established as a republic, under which the state is restricted to protecting our rights.
That is of course unless 1-10 object to your right.
7
posted on
08/01/2006 11:29:24 PM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
8
posted on
08/01/2006 11:30:17 PM PDT
by
Eurotwit
(WI)
To: FreeKeys
The premise behind the Bush administration's policy is the hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections--a premise stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy.
Exactleeeeee.
Today our troops find themselves fighting and dying to defend an Iraqi Government that democratically voted to mandate that
....ISLAM shall be a major source of Law
and
....NO LAW shall contradict ISLAM.
We are winning battles for Islam - NOT Freedom.
Let the Iraqis die for Islam, Americans should never be asked to.
9
posted on
08/01/2006 11:32:11 PM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
((FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.))
To: FreeKeys
America was established as a republic,.....This is not a system of "democracy." I suggest we begin to fix our "republic" instead of governing like it is a democracy.
The commies that stand outside the White House with their rabid signs chanting, "this is what democracy looks like" should also be informed of the difference.
10
posted on
08/01/2006 11:35:29 PM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
To: FreeKeys
seems accurate enough. You cannot impose freedom
11
posted on
08/01/2006 11:35:44 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(http://www.mises.org/story/1975 <--no such thing as a fairtax)
To: FreeKeys
I do believe Hitler was initially elected.
So what.
It just means those who voted for him were as screwed up as he was.
The only "moral legitimacy" was that when the bombs started falling on their heads they deserved it as much as Hitler.
12
posted on
08/01/2006 11:36:50 PM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: FreeKeys
13
posted on
08/01/2006 11:37:05 PM PDT
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
To: FreeKeys
To: FreeKeys
All the mess should blamed on Carter
To: FreeKeys
This editorial is oversimplified criticsm of the Bush Administration and previous administrations. When you look at the entire world, there is much more protection for individual rights in democracies than in non-democratic dictatorships and communist governments. It's easy to take shots at the disappointing results of democracy in the Middle East. But the dictatorships and mullocracies, such as Saddam's regime and the Iranian regime, have been complete disasters that invaded other countries, strongly supported terrorism, and have run dangerous WMD programs. Conditions are far from ideal for democracy in the Middle East, but some form of democracy is usually better than dictatorships.
Notice how the author writes: "We must make clear that the principle we support is not the unlimited rule of the majority, but the inalienable rights of the individual", but he has no specific suggestions for practical ways to protect the rights of the individual. Also, the US government has made clear that we support the inalienable rights of the individual, but it's not easy to implement that policy in the Middle East. There are numerous protections for individual rights in the new Iraqi constitution, but armed groups in Iraq are not following the constitution and the laws of Iraq.
16
posted on
08/01/2006 11:56:36 PM PDT
by
defenderSD
(A skilled debater feared by liberals, socialists, and leftist politicos throughout the world.)
To: TomasUSMC
Have to agree with you there. Eventually, as the Palestinians did with Hamas, the Iraqi's will elect an Islamic facist government.
It's high time for the West to understand and recognize that Muslim coutries WANT strong arm facism, socialism, public executions, genital mutilation, honor killings, mass murder in the name of Allah and the jackboot of political oppression on their necks at all times. They will use Democracy to achieve it.
Islam compels them to it. They quite simply cannot help or control themselves. And the minute they had it they would IMMEDIATELY start working to achieve the same thing here. As far as I am concerned they already have stated this.
17
posted on
08/02/2006 12:03:15 AM PDT
by
navyguy
To: navyguy
"Have to agree with you there. Eventually, as the Palestinians did with Hamas, the Iraqi's will elect an Islamic facist government. It's high time for the West to understand and recognize that Muslim coutries WANT strong arm facism, socialism, public executions, genital mutilation, honor killings, mass murder in the name of Allah and the jackboot of political oppression on their necks at all times. They will use Democracy to achieve it."Yeah, but that hasn't happened yet in Turkey to any great extent, which is also an Islamic country. I wouldn't equate Turkey or Iraq with the Palestinian territory. Each country is unique and they all have a chance to achieve a functioning democracy that protects individual rights to some extent. You have to keep in mind that in the Middle Ages there were no protections for individual rights in Great Britain, which is now a strong democracy and a champion of individual rights. In the 12th century, armed knights rode around the country killing anyone who opposed them at will. The murder rate in Britain at that time is estimated to be 10 times higher than the current US murder rate.
The problem, of course, is that the belief system of some parts of the world is still back in the 12th century, but that doesn't mean there can never be great change and progress as happened in Europe over the last 700 years. We just can't wait 700 years for progress to happen; somehow progress has to be greatly expedited.
18
posted on
08/02/2006 12:12:36 AM PDT
by
defenderSD
(A skilled debater feared by liberals, socialists, and leftist politicos throughout the world.)
To: TomasUSMC
The premise behind the Bush administration's policy is the hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections -- a premise stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy. In any democracy -- even our limited democracy -- voters can make mistakes. U.S. voters have done it many times, and they have suffered the consequences. The Palestinians elected Hamas and they are beginning to suffer the consequences. The Lebanese elected a number of Hezbollah members to their government -- and gave Hezbollah excessive military power -- and they are also beginning to suffer the consequences. Hopefully, they will get the chance and take the opportunity to correct their mistakes through future elections.
19
posted on
08/02/2006 12:40:22 AM PDT
by
AZLiberty
(Creating the <a href="http://clinton.senate.gov">straddle</a> Google bomb one post at a time.)
To: FreeKeys
Yes, it is better to keep them in the 16th century so they can breed like rabbits while the west depopulates itself. What does he think will happen when they outnumber us 50 to 1 ?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson