The Iraq War Poll

[dps]

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

[Razgovory]

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

I think we can draw a distinction between Leroy holding up a 7/11 and large private armies murdering people.  I left out the word legitimate because I don't know how the Iraqi state looks on these armies.  Does it recognize them?  Are they operating illegally and nobody can do anything about it?  Of this I'm not sure.  I do know they operate openly and use their violence freely.

[Viking]

Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

Arabs need to learn that asking nicely works on westerners, shooting at us doesn't.

[dps]

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

I think we can draw a distinction between Leroy holding up a 7/11 and large private armies murdering people.  I left out the word legitimate because I don't know how the Iraqi state looks on these armies.  Does it recognize them?  Are they operating illegally and nobody can do anything about it?  Of this I'm not sure.  I do know they operate openly and use their violence freely.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

[Neil]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

[Berkut]

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

I think the bigger point is that it isn't a binary state. Raz wants to say "Hey, Iraq is not perfect, therefore it is not a democracy, therefore it might as well be a totalitatian dictatorship". Obviously I am paraphrasing.

The reality is that freedom and democracy are a scale, and being closer to right end than you were before is an improvement. There is no magical point at which we say "Yeah, they are just like Beligum!" and everything before that is FAIL.

This makes his kind of negativity harder of course, since it means you have to actually think about how far you've moved on the scale, and whether that movement is justified by the cost (certainly the cost in Iraq was incredible). But fundamentally, I suspect that his actual objection is largely driven by his ideological position on the actors involved. Which is my basic point, that it is troubling that we cannot get beyond the politics of it all. This is not new, of course, it has been going on basically forever, that people actively desire failure for their own "side" because the wrong people happen to be in charge at the moment of contention. It takes pretty extreme circumstances (like WW2 or something like that) to overcome that.

[Berkut]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

[dps]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

A better way to look at it would be to try to figure how much worse off a state that has a reasonable level of freedom and democracy would be if it didn't have those positives, whether that state is Hong Kong or, say, Botswana.  Hong Kong is a really interesting example, because while materially they're basically in the same condition that they were before the British handed them over to China, so far they actually have a more democratic government as an autonomous region of China than they did as a British possession.  Yet, as best as I can tell, the average resident is pleased with the change.  Eastern Europa is similar--their material condition isn't hugely changed from what it was under Communism, yet even the people there who advocate a return to a centrally planned economy don't, for the most part, advocate an end to democracy (at least not publicly).

[Razgovory]

Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

I would say that Northern Ireland was not particularly democratic during the Troubles.

[Berkut]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

A better way to look at it would be to try to figure how much worse off a state that has a reasonable level of freedom and democracy would be if it didn't have those positives, whether that state is Hong Kong or, say, Botswana.  Hong Kong is a really interesting example, because while materially they're basically in the same condition that they were before the British handed them over to China, so far they actually have a more democratic government as an autonomous region of China than they did as a British possession.  Yet, as best as I can tell, the average resident is pleased with the change.  Eastern Europa is similar--their material condition isn't hugely changed from what it was under Communism, yet even the people there who advocate a return to a centrally planned economy don't, for the most part, advocate an end to democracy (at least not publicly).

Indeed, Hong Kong is one of those rare examples where the exception probably does in fact prove the rule.

It's not like anyone in Hong Kong is saying "Hey, things are pretty good, but they would be better if only the mainland Chinese treated us MORE like the regular Chinese citizens, with LESS freedom!"

And of course the list of countries that are clearly much better off for being democratic is rather long. Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Panama, the UK, etc., etc.

[Razgovory]

I think the bigger point is that it isn't a binary state. Raz wants to say "Hey, Iraq is not perfect, therefore it is not a democracy, therefore it might as well be a totalitatian dictatorship". Obviously I am paraphrasing.

The reality is that freedom and democracy are a scale, and being closer to right end than you were before is an improvement. There is no magical point at which we say "Yeah, they are just like Beligum!" and everything before that is FAIL.

This makes his kind of negativity harder of course, since it means you have to actually think about how far you've moved on the scale, and whether that movement is justified by the cost (certainly the cost in Iraq was incredible). But fundamentally, I suspect that his actual objection is largely driven by his ideological position on the actors involved. Which is my basic point, that it is troubling that we cannot get beyond the politics of it all. This is not new, of course, it has been going on basically forever, that people actively desire failure for their own "side" because the wrong people happen to be in charge at the moment of contention. It takes pretty extreme circumstances (like WW2 or something like that) to overcome that.

You do realize that there is a wide gap between "totalitarian dictarship and democracy", right?  Or were you creating a straw man?  All Democracies have their own imperfections.  Roving private armies is more then an imperfection.  It's a game breaker.  If you are to terrified by private armies to vote the way you want, it's not a Democracy.

[Razgovory]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

Actually, what is your argument?  I asked what your contention is that Democracy is "Objectively" better then other governments.  As far as I could tell, it seems to be because they promote values that you believe to be good.  That seems subjective.

[Berkut]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

Actually, what is your argument?  I asked what your contention is that Democracy is "Objectively" better then other governments.  As far as I could tell, it seems to be because they promote values that you believe to be good.  That seems subjective.

It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

You can argue that those are subjective measures I suppose, but at that point we have no common grounds for discussion. If your argument is that the things that actually define life are not important to life, then that is just solipsism.

Which nicely illustrates my point - you would rather argue something you don't even agree with (that those things are not good measures) if that is what is necessary to hang onto your ideological perspective.

It is not subjective to say the democracy is better than not democracy based on defined criteria.

Like I've already said, you can attack my position (and I am sure some people would, like religious extremists) on the basis that those criteria are incomplete, ie that the will of god is more important than women's right to an education, hence literacy is not a good measure of overall quality of life, as an example. But that still does not make the obeservation based on the criteria specified subjective. You can measure literacy. You can measure life expectancy.

[Grey Fox]

We didn't win. Victory would have meant free flowing oil everywhere, yet there is no free oil!

[DGuller]

I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

It sure did for a while.  Eventually they did withdraw their soldier, though.