Can you give people freedom?

[Rainsford]

First off, I think it's important for you all to understand I'm a big fan of democracy, and I think there are a lot of places in the world that would be better off not ruled by dictators, unelected groups, etc. I also think freedom is worth fighting for, and I'd be the first person in line to see the Marine recruiter if I thought our freedom was threatened.

And that's sort of the point. We can fight for our own freedom, but can we fight for the freedom of a group of people who didn't try and fight for it themselves? Can we just ride in on our white horses and hand democracy to a country that wasn't trying to get it for themselves? Do people who didn't have the fight and die for their freedom value it enough to protect it?

I'm not saying Iraqis don't deserve freedom or that I'm unhappy they might end up with it. All I'm saying is I think the US values our freedom because many of us still remember our history, what those brave men fought and died for. Would we be the same country if France had decided to free us from the British without our help? I wish you COULD just give freedom to people, but I'm not so sure you can, at least if you want them to keep it.

Thoughts?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
First off, I think it's important for you all to understand I'm a big fan of democracy, and I think there are a lot of places in the world that would be better off not ruled by dictators, unelected groups, etc. I also think freedom is worth fighting for, and I'd be the first person in line to see the Marine recruiter if I thought our freedom was threatened.

And that's sort of the point. We can fight for our own freedom, but can we fight for the freedom of a group of people who didn't try and fight for it themselves? Can we just ride in on our white horses and hand democracy to a country that wasn't trying to get it for themselves? Do people who didn't have the fight and die for their freedom value it enough to protect it?

I'm not saying Iraqis don't deserve freedom or that I'm unhappy they might end up with it. All I'm saying is I think the US values our freedom because many of us still remember our history, what those brave men fought and died for. Would we be the same country if France had decided to free us from the British without our help? I wish you COULD just give freedom to people, but I'm not so sure you can, at least if you want them to keep it.

Thoughts?

Wow, I think this is actually the first thread that tries to deal with a real issue where some analysis and discussion is possible without deteriorating into a partisan slug fest.

I have thought through this question for a long time now and I have come to the conclusion that I don't think it is possible to have a democracy in any way other than internal struggle and desire. What a lot of people don't realize is that the "natural state" of government / mankind is some form of powerful elite controlling a vast majority of others, oppressing them. Democracy is a true anomaly.

The reason that dictatorships seem to be the rule is that they don't require any sharing of power and instead collect it all into the hands of a select few, or even one individual, who likely resents any attempt to take power from him.

The most instructive example is definitely the rise of Hitler because Hitler is the only person to have ever turned a Democracy (albeit fledgeling and weak) into an actual dictatorship. The case study begin and ends with Hitler and he did what one would expect - he collected all the powers of government (namely those of the Chancellor, the executive branch, and the Reichstag, the legislature) into one position of Reichanchellor and Fuhrer able to legislate as an executive (i.e. his will is law, the very nature of a dictatorship).

I highly recommend 3 books to understand Hitler's rise:
"The Last Days of Hitler" by Hugh Trevor-Roper
"Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer
"Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World" by Margaret MacMillan

In terms of forming democracies it should be noted that America was the very first country to have ever done it. If you look at America prior to the Revolutionary War you see two very distinct countries: a Southern country whose economy was based on agriculture and whose government was just another aristocracy of the elite (who, in turn, had to use their powers to oppress many, many people) and a Northern country that, for lack of arable land, had turned into an manufacturing center of substantial economic power.

What is important to note about the differences in political systems is that a democratic system is incredibly productive, just beyond comparison to any other form of government. Democracies are remarkably efficient and just produce orders of magnitude more.

It was after the Civil War that the North was able to impose it's view and political system on the South, and in fact the history of the 20th Century has been the widescale adoption of American style Democracy in much of the Western world. Late into the 1800s Europe's political systems were still anachronistic aristocracies. Germany and Japan weren't converted to our style of political democracy until after World War II.

Then, turning our attention to the question of how one produces democracies, we again have to look to history. The message here is also quite clear: Democracy can only come from within. America fought a War of Independence against a massive Colonial power, in the face of certain defeat, to secure the blessings of democracy. For every true and stable democracy today there is such an example of great struggle on the part of the people to be free - France had it's Revolution where the peasants overthrew the nobility, Germany had the fall of the Berlin Wall, China it's Tianneman Square. Whether another government provides support is irrelevant, if the people are not already struggling to be free no amount of support can make them so.

If we take these historical lessons and turn them to be forward looking, asking ourselves "which countries are currently struggling to be free," we can see the following:

1) Iran - fueled by a rapid increase of a young population that is no longer content with the rule of the Mullahs, and a diaspora of Iranians around the world, we are beginning to see the young generation agitate and fight to be free. The Mullahs and culture just aren't holding their own to the desire of young Iranians to be Western.

2) Tibet - In the face of massive Chinese advances to destroy the will of the Tibetan people there has been little result. The Tibetans yearn to be free and, it is clear, will never give up their identities to a Chinese overlord.

3) China - You can see the cracks that are tearing China apart. The Communist hard liners are becoming increasinly less able to control a people that want to be Western, the last 10 years have turned the economy around and it is only a matter of time until Communism fades into Chinese history.

We can also see places where there is no such historic struggle to be free. Most of Africa, Cuba, parts of South America. Here the people live in their oppression and no amount of guns can do what a lack of will blocks.

 

[Vic]

Short answer IMO, no. "You cannot free a slave, he must first free himself." On national scale, the people must want it. If the US goes in and forces democracy on them, their new democratic government will be unstable until the people embrace the next dictator that comes along.

 

[0marTheZealot]

We aren't free.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic
Short answer IMO, no. "You cannot free a slave, he must first free himself." On national scale, the people must want it. If the US goes in and forces democracy on them, their new democratic government will be unstable until the people embrace the next dictator that comes along.

Sure, why have substantive debate with actual facts when we can use soundbites. I mean, who needs to read books when there are talking points?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Sure, why have substantive debate with actual facts when we can use soundbites. I mean, who needs to read books when there are talking points?

*yawn*

What points did you bring up? The OP asked about the actual feasibility of the US bringing democracy to people who may or may not want it, and you bring up cases of people fighting for it themselves. My point was that people who fight for democracy for themselves have a high likelihood of being successful, while people who have democracy "forced" on them do not.

And Hitler is not the first case of people reverting from a democracy back to a dictatorship. You might want to brush up your Bible, try 1 Samuel 8. And America is not the first democracy in history, like you said, but the ancient Hebrew system of Judges was very comparable to a democracy, and the Greeks in Athens were the first to have a real democracy (and it collapsed in mob rule as democracy is wont to do). The first modern nation to have a democracy is Switzerland, theirs is older than ours, but only because (like in the US) theirs is a democratic republic where the democracy is limited by the rule of law.

 

[KarenMarie]

Can you give people freedom?

Only if they want it and are willing to fight for it.

🙂

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Sure, why have substantive debate with actual facts when we can use soundbites. I mean, who needs to read books when there are talking points?

*yawn*

What points did you bring up? The OP asked about the actual feasibility of the US bringing democracy to people who may or may not want it, and you bring up cases of people fighting for it themselves. My point was that people who fight for democracy for themselves have a high likelihood of being successful, while people who have democracy "forced" on them do not.

And Hitler is not the first case of people reverting from a democracy back to a dictatorship. You might want to brush up your Bible, try 1 Samuel 8. And America is not the first democracy in history, like you said, but the ancient Hebrew system of Judges was very comparable to a democracy, and the Greeks in Athens were the first to have a real democracy (and it collapsed in mob rule as democracy is wont to do). The first modern nation to have a democracy is Switzerland, theirs is older than ours, but only because (like in the US) theirs is a democratic republic where the democracy is limited by the rule of law.

No, the Bible doesn't count.

The Greek Democracy wasn't really a democracy - those in power, the aristocracy, did share power without any kind of "overlord" however make no mistake that those few who were true citizens (white, male, land owners, etc) oversaw vast amounts of oppression. As for as Switzerland, as we know it, it came into existence in the mid 1800s when the canton's had resolved their Civil War.

I think that this is time to elaborate. What we know - scientifically - about human civilization is that there is only one consistent pattern which can explain history. The true difference between humans and non-human animals is that humans are able to engage in kin-independent social cooperation.

What happened 2 million years ago is that one of the hominids began walking on two legs. This freed their hands for other tasks, one of the best of which became the ability to throw. If you look at the human body we are designed for 1 task - we can throw.

Unlike all other animals that fight tooth and claw, "face to face" as it were, by being able to throw humans gained the ability to attack enemies on a massive scale (10 on 1, 100 on 1, etc) rather than the 1 on 1 which characterizes all of the rest of life. This allowed them to punish those who didn't cooperate and, boom, within a very short time period human brains had become huge, basic nomadici societies had emerged, etc.

All of human history after that is a result of becoming more effective at forcing others to cooperate (ie getting better, further range, more accurate weapons). With the bow and arrow we get agrarian societies, with the "modern" rifle we get the condensation of city-states into modern nation-states. With long range airplanes we get modern international cooperation.

Suppression of conflict of interest, the only trick humans have ever used and the reason we overtook the globe.

What does this have to do with democracies? Quite simply the modern democracy was not possible until the average citizen could brandish coercive threat, or as we put it, carry a gun. Annie Oakley goes around the country and then, boom, suddenly women have the right to vote.

In all prior societies the weaponry dictated the level to which cooperation, ie society, could exist. Therefore no modern, stable democracy was possible before the weapons which gave rise to modern, stable democracies.

Those few elite people to whom I referred above, the inheritors of the fruit of oppression, what was so marked about them was that they were the ones to control the weaponry. One need only look the how slave owners went to elaborate lengths to keep their slaves from having access to weapons to see that the elite were really "elite warriors," as they are known in the theory. In Japan the elite warriors were known as Samurai and they dutifully made sure that those they oppressed had no access to modern weapons. In Germany they were known as the Princes, and again they controlled the weaponry.

This has another interesting side note: nuclear weapons. Able to now threaten complete destruction from half way across the globe war was now radically and fundamentally changed. No longer would we see the conventional skirmishes which had marked history, now it was total war or no war. In places without access to this level of coercive threat - ie nuclear weapons - conventional warfare is still possible. Thus the catastrophe that is Africa, endless civil wars fought with conventional weaponry.

I took a great class on this and I highly recommend that you research it more. It has become the dominant theory of societal biology, archeology, etc. The only thing humans do differently is kill from a distance.

 

[judasmachine]

If there is true power it lies with the Proles. - Orwell (1984)

This pretty much says the same thing, the People have to want it, and want it so bad they are willing to die for it. Think of it this way, if someone gives you something you want, do you value it as much as something you saved for months or even years to afford? The simple answer is no you don't. But on the other hand I don't think we are fighting these wars to liberate anyone. I beleive we are fighting these wars because despite what comes out of american's mouths, they are warlike people, regardless of oil, communism vs. capitalism, liberation, taking out a puppet leader we installed, etc.... it comes down to the fact that the americans find glory and pride in beating the crap out of the less fortunate. Whether it is the next city's baseball team, or some semi-stoneage theocracy on the other side of the planet, americans are glued to their sets watching the score.

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Sure, why have substantive debate with actual facts when we can use soundbites. I mean, who needs to read books when there are talking points?

*yawn*

What points did you bring up? The OP asked about the actual feasibility of the US bringing democracy to people who may or may not want it, and you bring up cases of people fighting for it themselves. My point was that people who fight for democracy for themselves have a high likelihood of being successful, while people who have democracy "forced" on them do not.

And Hitler is not the first case of people reverting from a democracy back to a dictatorship. You might want to brush up your Bible, try 1 Samuel 8. And America is not the first democracy in history, like you said, but the ancient Hebrew system of Judges was very comparable to a democracy, and the Greeks in Athens were the first to have a real democracy (and it collapsed in mob rule as democracy is wont to do). The first modern nation to have a democracy is Switzerland, theirs is older than ours, but only because (like in the US) theirs is a democratic republic where the democracy is limited by the rule of law.

No, the Bible doesn't count.

The Greek Democracy wasn't really a democracy - those in power, the aristocracy, did share power without any kind of "overlord" however make no mistake that those few who were true citizens (white, male, land owners, etc) oversaw vast amounts of oppression. As for as Switzerland, as we know it, it came into existence in the mid 1800s when the canton's had resolved their Civil War.

I think that this is time to elaborate. What we know - scientifically - about human civilization is that there is only one consistent pattern which can explain history. The true difference between humans and non-human animals is that humans are able to engage in kin-independent social cooperation.

What happened 2 million years ago is that one of the hominids began walking on two legs. This freed their hands for other tasks, one of the best of which became the ability to throw. If you look at the human body we are designed for 1 task - we can throw.

Unlike all other animals that fight tooth and claw, "face to face" as it were, by being able to throw humans gained the ability to attack enemies on a massive scale (10 on 1, 100 on 1, etc) rather than the 1 on 1 which characterizes all of the rest of life. This allowed them to punish those who didn't cooperate and, boom, within a very short time period human brains had become huge, basic nomadici societies had emerged, etc.

All of human history after that is a result of becoming more effective at forcing others to cooperate (ie getting better, further range, more accurate weapons). With the bow and arrow we get agrarian societies, with the "modern" rifle we get the condensation of city-states into modern nation-states. With long range airplanes we get modern international cooperation.

Suppression of conflict of interest, the only trick humans have ever used and the reason we overtook the globe.

What does this have to do with democracies? Quite simply the modern democracy was not possible until the average citizen could brandish coercive threat, or as we put it, carry a gun. Annie Oakley goes around the country and then, boom, suddenly women have the right to vote.

In all prior societies the weaponry dictated the level to which cooperation, ie society, could exist. Therefore no modern, stable democracy was possible before the weapons which gave rise to modern, stable democracies.

Those few elite people to whom I referred above, the inheritors of the fruit of oppression, what was so marked about them was that they were the ones to control the weaponry. One need only look the how slave owners went to elaborate lengths to keep their slaves from having access to weapons to see that the elite were really "elite warriors," as they are known in the theory. In Japan the elite warriors were known as Samurai and they dutifully made sure that those they oppressed had no access to modern weapons. In Germany they were known as the Princes, and again they controlled the weaponry.

This has another interesting side note: nuclear weapons. Able to now threaten complete destruction from half way across the globe war was now radically and fundamentally changed. No longer would we see the conventional skirmishes which had marked history, now it was total war or no war. In places without access to this level of coercive threat - ie nuclear weapons - conventional warfare is still possible. Thus the catastrophe that is Africa, endless civil wars fought with conventional weaponry.

I took a great class on this and I highly recommend that you research it more. It has become the dominant theory of societal biology, archeology, etc. The only thing humans do differently is kill from a distance.

I feel dumber for having read this.The only things human do differently is kill from a distance.How about we abstract. That is our gift. There is no bow and arrow or gun or B-2 stealth bomber without abstraction. Abstraction gave us language planning and numbers.Go talk to the recently discovered tribe that cant count past two, and see how they are fairing, they have bows and arrows, but alas no democracy and certainly they arent agraian.

You contradict yourself twice, first when you say the diffrence is humans engage in non-kin based cooperation then you say we can hurl sh!t.

Of course annie oakley did nothing to get womans suffrage however a large group of progressive women working together did. Susan B. Anthony ever heard of her.There are some many flawed assumptions in that paragraph that I cannot even begin ...as well as it being highly OT.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Sure, why have substantive debate with actual facts when we can use soundbites. I mean, who needs to read books when there are talking points?

*yawn*

What points did you bring up? The OP asked about the actual feasibility of the US bringing democracy to people who may or may not want it, and you bring up cases of people fighting for it themselves. My point was that people who fight for democracy for themselves have a high likelihood of being successful, while people who have democracy "forced" on them do not.

And Hitler is not the first case of people reverting from a democracy back to a dictatorship. You might want to brush up your Bible, try 1 Samuel 8. And America is not the first democracy in history, like you said, but the ancient Hebrew system of Judges was very comparable to a democracy, and the Greeks in Athens were the first to have a real democracy (and it collapsed in mob rule as democracy is wont to do). The first modern nation to have a democracy is Switzerland, theirs is older than ours, but only because (like in the US) theirs is a democratic republic where the democracy is limited by the rule of law.

No, the Bible doesn't count.

The Greek Democracy wasn't really a democracy - those in power, the aristocracy, did share power without any kind of "overlord" however make no mistake that those few who were true citizens (white, male, land owners, etc) oversaw vast amounts of oppression. As for as Switzerland, as we know it, it came into existence in the mid 1800s when the canton's had resolved their Civil War.

I think that this is time to elaborate. What we know - scientifically - about human civilization is that there is only one consistent pattern which can explain history. The true difference between humans and non-human animals is that humans are able to engage in kin-independent social cooperation.

What happened 2 million years ago is that one of the hominids began walking on two legs. This freed their hands for other tasks, one of the best of which became the ability to throw. If you look at the human body we are designed for 1 task - we can throw.

Unlike all other animals that fight tooth and claw, "face to face" as it were, by being able to throw humans gained the ability to attack enemies on a massive scale (10 on 1, 100 on 1, etc) rather than the 1 on 1 which characterizes all of the rest of life. This allowed them to punish those who didn't cooperate and, boom, within a very short time period human brains had become huge, basic nomadici societies had emerged, etc.

All of human history after that is a result of becoming more effective at forcing others to cooperate (ie getting better, further range, more accurate weapons). With the bow and arrow we get agrarian societies, with the "modern" rifle we get the condensation of city-states into modern nation-states. With long range airplanes we get modern international cooperation.

Suppression of conflict of interest, the only trick humans have ever used and the reason we overtook the globe.

What does this have to do with democracies? Quite simply the modern democracy was not possible until the average citizen could brandish coercive threat, or as we put it, carry a gun. Annie Oakley goes around the country and then, boom, suddenly women have the right to vote.

In all prior societies the weaponry dictated the level to which cooperation, ie society, could exist. Therefore no modern, stable democracy was possible before the weapons which gave rise to modern, stable democracies.

Those few elite people to whom I referred above, the inheritors of the fruit of oppression, what was so marked about them was that they were the ones to control the weaponry. One need only look the how slave owners went to elaborate lengths to keep their slaves from having access to weapons to see that the elite were really "elite warriors," as they are known in the theory. In Japan the elite warriors were known as Samurai and they dutifully made sure that those they oppressed had no access to modern weapons. In Germany they were known as the Princes, and again they controlled the weaponry.

This has another interesting side note: nuclear weapons. Able to now threaten complete destruction from half way across the globe war was now radically and fundamentally changed. No longer would we see the conventional skirmishes which had marked history, now it was total war or no war. In places without access to this level of coercive threat - ie nuclear weapons - conventional warfare is still possible. Thus the catastrophe that is Africa, endless civil wars fought with conventional weaponry.

I took a great class on this and I highly recommend that you research it more. It has become the dominant theory of societal biology, archeology, etc. The only thing humans do differently is kill from a distance.

Interesting theory, but I would have to put it in the realm of correlation is not causation, since there have been a number of other developments than can be said to play a role in the evolution of societies, like communication.

But as far as the original question, I certainly think that if you are going to give somebody freedom, the only way it could possibly work is if they want it real bad, and even then, they might not have the degree of commitment necessary to make it work over the long haul if it didn't come from within.

Interesting question.

 

[Moonbeam]

As long as a person is unconscious of his or her motivation he or she isn't free. The chances that you know such a person who is conscious are almost nil. We are prisoners of our own conditioning. We are so deeply enslaved that our physical freedom is almost immaterial, although it is what we focus on.

 

[JackStorm]

Can you give people freedom? No, I honestly don't think so. Sure, you can help them, but unless they want it and are willing to fight for it themselves, they'll never truly value their freedom and are likely to revert back to their old ways.

Then again, what is freedom? No matter what kind of government we have, we'll never be totally free. There will always be rules/laws (made by others) that dictate our lives. Granted, in democracies, those rules are less oppressive. But they are non the less there.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As long as a person is unconscious of his or her motivation he or she isn't free. The chances that you know such a person who is conscious are almost nil. We are prisoners of our own conditioning. We are so deeply enslaved that our physical freedom is almost immaterial, although it is what we focus on.

How true.

 

[Klixxer]

Would you be willing to die for your freedom? That is why you have freedom.

 

[Cobalt]

Americans did not create democracy. Do not belittle my people (Greece). 🙂

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Interesting theory, but I would have to put it in the realm of correlation is not causation, since there have been a number of other developments than can be said to play a role in the evolution of societies, like communication.

But as far as the original question, I certainly think that if you are going to give somebody freedom, the only way it could possibly work is if they want it real bad, and even then, they might not have the degree of commitment necessary to make it work over the long haul if it didn't come from within.

Interesting question.

Actually, if you really look into the various other reasons it becomes quite clear that it works this way. There is a basic question that has haunted science for a long time, it is dubbed the human uniqueness question: how are we unique and how unique are we? This also gave rise to the question: how did we become this way?

There are a variety of reasons available:

1) We can communicate
2) We have big brains
3) We walk on 2 legs
4) We have fine motor skills (we can play the piano or type)

etc...

But, at the end of the day, there are ways of proving certain things. If you look at the fossil record, genetic evidence, modern biological systems, etc and you shake the tree to see what happens it becomes abundently clear.

More than 2 million years ago one of our ancestors had a mode of flight called "arboreal retreat" where they would scamper up the trees when running away from enemies. This still exists in many, many of the primates.

In the East African savannah the trees became less and less dense as it dried into what is modern day Kenya/Ethiopia. Humans, rather than running up trees, gradually developed the ability to walk on 2 legs. The first significant development in the evolution of humans was this, nothing else. It was the first and the most significant.

Over the next era of evolution humans - now with 2 free front limbs - evolved a series of mechanisms that point to one clear function: the ability to throw. Our pelvis changed, the semicircular canals in our ears that control balance changed to allow for throwing, just clear fossil records that we evolved the ability to throw. What this did was allow us to throw rocks at our predators rather than running up the tree.

This ability to throw accidentally unleashed something else, namely human society. Let's say that you have a society where everybody wants to eat but one person doesn't help out. This person is a free rider. Well, without the ability to throw, you have to risk your life to force the other person to cooperate.

If that is the case who are you most likely to cooperate with? Only those people who closely share your genetic information - siblings, parents - not uncles or aunts. This allows for you to pass on your genes. (This is the "selfish gene theory.")

Well, now that you can throw, you can gang up on people and force them to cooperate. The math works like this:

if N people throw a rock at 1 person then the person has a chance of getting hit by N rocks, but can only throw back at 1/N people. Thus the cost of enforcing cooperation is N, and the cost of disobeying is N^2 (N * N). So if 10 people gang up on 1 person then it is 100 times the coercive threat.

This means that you can now make people cooperate but effectively removing free riders from your group.

As soon as this happens, within 200 - 500 thousand years, hominids took off. The next stage of evolution was the development of the big brain which allowed for everything else (abstract thought, language, etc). The cost of a big brain is tremendous: the babies are completely unprotected (think of a dingo eating a baby) and growing a big brain means having lots of fatty, dense food to grow it with. This means that you need to have a large society to ensure that the young are protected, and as for the food, we suddenly see humans using tools to eat bone marrow. It's all in the scientific record.

The most fascinating part is that our brains are basically the same size in all respects except for the frontal lobes - these control those things which allow society. They don't control breathing, throwing, etc but only relating with other people. 70% of our brains deal with relating to other people.

It is clear: walking gave us throwing which gave us big brains.

After this the only trick is to better be able to enforce cooperation. That means better weapons. The rest, as they say, is history.

A paper I found on it is available at http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/fac.../richerson/complex.PDF in PDF form.

What this has to do with democracy is outlined in my previous posts but I reiterate that democracy as we think about it is only available with modern weaponry.