the dnyy wrote:
the U.S. has one-person one-vote which is a good as it gets for a democracy.
be happy you live in the usa.
in russia, putin can fire at any time for any reason, every one of the senators and representatives of the 95 (mostly captive) soviet republics.
in isreal/palestine the u.s. occupation militants gerrymanders jewish votes to phony up a majority which disqualifies the election in the eyes of international observers.
What matters is individual freedom, not the right to vote.
PS,
You also might want to define what you mean by "promote." Do you mean verbal encouragement, economic incentives, financial aid for the process of setting up and monitoring elections, economic sanctions against a non-democratic government, air strikes, an invasion, some of the above, all of the above?
dsffdsfasdeeaf wrote:
random a hole wrote:If the elections are legit and they chose to live by whacked out Sharia law that is their prerogative.
No it isn't. Nobody has the right to force Sharia law on anyone else regardless of the outcome of an election. A majority vote is not an epistemological validation of an idea.
I guess I agree with you to a point. Do occupants of the country have the opportunity to leave? I would condone US involvement in lobbying for greater human rights, I might be OK w/ economic measures, but I wouldn't consider military involvement. Not every democracy will have a society that is to our liking.
random a hole wrote:
I guess I agree with you to a point. Do occupants of the country have the opportunity to leave? I would condone US involvement in lobbying for greater human rights, I might be OK w/ economic measures, but I wouldn't consider military involvement. Not every democracy will have a society that is to our liking.
I'm not saying the US should intervene in anything. I'm just saying a majority vote doesn't validate the evils of Sharia law. Whether a set of laws came about as the result of a democratic election is not the criterion that determines whether those laws are right or wrong. Some people seem to believe that literally any policy or act of government can be justified just by pointing out that a country's leaders were democratically elected. Sheer bullsh*t.
Too easy! wrote:
FYI, the US is NOT a democracy it is a Constitutional Republic.
It is s representative democracy, this is not, and never has been in any way contradictory to being a constituional republic.
The people elect representatives in free competitive elctions therefore it is a democracy. Trying to argue that being a constitutional republic means you are not a democracy is like arguing that having fur means that an animal is not a cat.
But I agree with deleuze, this is merely confirming his point. However, most people would agree on certain characteristics necessary to make a democracy: free, competitive elections, a free press, civil liberties... These are all largely desired by people across the world. The trouble with imposing democracy is that people are also attached to their national sovereignty and identity, often prioritising over democracy. As such, they resent it being imposed on them by a foreign power that they see as disrespecting their sovereignty.