Asymmetrical Information

The key phrase is "As long as the process remains Democratic". People who engage in mass murder seem unlikely to hold election laws sacrosanct. I think terrorist organizations should be banned from the elections until such a time as the military is invested enough in the democratic process to oppose those who would change it.

The problem is a little more subtle than that. If you have "God on your side", then there *can't* be an honourable opposition, as they are opposed to God's will. More to the point, letting God's party be defeated just because of some votes is tantamount to failing God. It's not the love of power or harm - it's the love of righteousness. God is not a democrat, the majority do not have the "right" to do evil, even if that's what they desire.

It's always made me wonder how people who truly believe that abortion is murder manage their daily lives. If the majority of people support abortion, doesn't it invalidate the whole concept of democracy in America? There is no "right" for people to allow murder of innocents. Doesn't a belief that abortion is murder morally require one to attempt to overthrow the government and impose a moral dictatorship (since the people have proved themselves unfit to rule themselves)?

Doesn't a belief that abortion is murder morally require one to attempt to overthrow the government and impose a moral dictatorship (since the people have proved themselves unfit to rule themselves)?

Nope.

I too believe that once a terrorist organization is elected to power they are unlikely to give that power up when they fail the constituency. How different is this from socialists/communists who take power. Hugo Chavez is a perfect example, he did not win his initial election by being a hard line socialist, but once in power he has adopted those principals and is quite unlikely to ever be voted out of power. This is evidenced by the most recent elections there that Jimmy Carter said were legitimate. Which of course would lead any normal thinking person to the conclusion that the elections were rigged, and always will be.

It seems to me that if a free election was held that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power, that would be the last election held for a while.

I think it would probably be good for us, though. For starters, we'd finally have an excuse to stop paying giving them aid money every year. And the Egyptians, like the Iranians before them, would get to see what a theocracy was like firsthand. There's no faster way to build grassroots support for secular democracy.

If you have "God on your side", then there *can't* be an honourable opposition, as they are opposed to God's will. More to the point, letting God's party be defeated just because of some votes is tantamount to failing God. It's not the love of power or harm - it's the love of righteousness. God is not a democrat, the majority do not have the "right" to do evil, even if that's what they desire.

So that's it for the Democrats then...?

It's always made me wonder how people who truly believe that abortion is murder manage their daily lives. If the majority of people support abortion, doesn't it invalidate the whole concept of democracy in America? There is no "right" for people to allow murder of innocents. Doesn't a belief that abortion is murder morally require one to attempt to overthrow the government and impose a moral dictatorship (since the people have proved themselves unfit to rule themselves)?

No more than slavery did, or a host of other things still do. (Tariffs and sugar quotas kill people too.) Democracy is flawed, and people collectively make wrong decisions, but it's better than any other system.

I've always felt that it's part of the conservative viewpoint (at least the tradition in the Anglosphere) to expect that people are flawed, and that they will make mistakes. A limited, constrained vision. One that believes that your opponents are misguided and misinformed, but not evil, and that perfectability is not achievable in this world. Certainly that difference is also what I think in general distinguishes liberals from leftists.

Umm, for some reason "cornell. edu" (no space) is showing up as "questionable content" when I put it as part of my email address.

Tariffs and sugar quotas kill people too.

I suppose, but in a far more indirect way than society sanctioning the execution of clearly innocent people (if that's what you believe).

One that believes that your opponents are misguided and misinformed, but not evil

Strongly agreed, but up to a point. A government that had popular support for, say, allowing the liquidation of the Jewish population (to take a historical example) would be beyond misinformed.

Living in such a time, I would feel (with modern sensibilities) that I would have a moral responsibility to destroy such an evil government, regardless of their popular support.

"No more than slavery did, or a host of other things still do. (Tariffs and sugar quotas kill people too.) Democracy is flawed, and people collectively make wrong decisions, but it's better than any other system."

I don't know about that.

The CSA democratically voted for slavery, and would have kept doing so until Hell froze over by all indications. Invasion and conversion at gunpoint made for a freer society around these parts than democracy every could have. Of course that invasion was sanctioned by other democratic voters in the frozen northlands, so maybe we can chalk this up as a sort-of win for democracy.

(But it does point out a pretty consistent pattern. Like Germany and Japan, the best thing that ever happened to us Southerners was being conquered by the United States. Too bad the entire Middle East won't see those benefits in the foreseeable future...)

One good thing about voting for totalitarians: if they win, you'll never have to bother with voting ever again!

Comments are Closed.