|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 506 of 536:
| 
Dec 20 23:38 UTC 2003 |
Andorra (upto the late nineties). Luxembourg/Liechtenstein (one of the
two, can't remember which). Most of South America until the 90s.
Britain, if you believe democracy can't exist independently of
republicanism (in the wide sense, not the American political sense).
|
gelinas
|
|
response 507 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:46 UTC 2003 |
(Liechtenstein is a hereditary constitutional monarchy on a democratic and
parliamentary basis. Luxembourg is a constitutional monarchy.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 508 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:51 UTC 2003 |
/scratches chin.
I'm sure I'd heard that one of the two was about to become a mediaeval
style mnonarchy again, on the basis that if it wasn't, the monarch
would leave and go live in Austria. Mustn't have happened.
|
willcome
|
|
response 509 of 536:
|
Dec 21 01:19 UTC 2003 |
Re. 503 & 505: Both of those states are democratic by any measure.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 510 of 536:
|
Dec 21 02:41 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps I'm confusing Belarus with another ex-Soviet Republic. I was
under the impression they had a Communist-remnant government that had
cancelled scheduled elections when they seemed inconvenient.
Is the People's Republic of China a democracy according to your rules?
Not that it fits your other criterion, but I just want to know whether
it's worth playing your definition-of-democracy game.
|
willcome
|
|
response 511 of 536:
|
Dec 21 02:51 UTC 2003 |
Yes, Rand, you're probably confusing it with South Africa or another primitive
state, like China, which, of course, is not a democracy.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 512 of 536:
|
Dec 21 06:45 UTC 2003 |
Is it not a democracy because it's not predominantly "Caucasian"
or is it not a democracy because its "elected" leadership is
installed in a sham process and not really by the will of the
people?
Because if the latter is your objection, maybe we should revisit
Belarus' qualifications, or some of the other ex-Soviet republics'.
|
twenex
|
|
response 513 of 536:
|
Dec 21 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Re: Libya - even if the war in Iraq did scare Qddafi, the war is still
illegal. And the end still does not justify the means.
Beyond that, this raises a few questions. We know now that Libya has
weapons of mass destruction. We know now that they are going to
dismantle them. What we don't know is (a) Why the Coalition dfidn't
attempt to invade Libya in order to force it to ive up its WMD; (b)
Whether there was collusion between the Coalition of the Warmongering
and Libya to announce that Libya was going to dismantle its WMD after
the invasion of Iraq; (c) if neither (a) nor (b) is true, why didn't
Western intelligence know about Libya's WMD?
|
willcome
|
|
response 514 of 536:
|
Dec 21 15:20 UTC 2003 |
Re. 512: It's not a democracy because it's racist: do you know anything
about the way China treats its minorities? Racism excludes democracy.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 515 of 536:
|
Dec 21 15:34 UTC 2003 |
Apparently, the US, Britain and Libya have been negotiating for nine months.
The difference between Iraq and Libya is that Qaddafyi negotiated.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 516 of 536:
|
Dec 21 16:50 UTC 2003 |
re 514--by that standard, then, the USA is not a democracy.
|
twenex
|
|
response 517 of 536:
|
Dec 21 17:12 UTC 2003 |
Just what I was thinking would be alleged.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 518 of 536:
|
Dec 21 17:51 UTC 2003 |
I count it as a "democracy" if the government has representative
legislative bodies elected by the public in free election free of
harassment or intimidation (much less violence) and the heads of
government are chosen by the public or by representatives of the public,
with the same conditions. This does not exclude, of course, "racism", or
other undesirable conditions. The quality of a democracy in regards to
individual freedoms of access to social structures is not in itself a
necessary property of a democracy, but it should possible to advocate it
freely.
|
willcome
|
|
response 519 of 536:
|
Dec 22 00:39 UTC 2003 |
514: no. The US does not have systemic racism and, indeed, has systemic kerbs
to racism.
518: systemic racism makes it impossible to have a fair electoral system for
all races, including the ones which are undemocratic.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 520 of 536:
|
Dec 22 01:49 UTC 2003 |
If "systemic" means present throughout, then the US has systemic racism. It
isn't universal, and it is largely outlawed, but *people* still have attitudes
that they put into effect in ways that escape the laws to discriminate against
members of other groups. This is, in fact, the flaw in the
anti-affirmative-action drives: eliminating affirmative action removes
elements of favoratism toward mostly discriminated against minorities, but
they do not remove the discrimination.
|
willcome
|
|
response 521 of 536:
|
Dec 22 02:16 UTC 2003 |
By SYSTEMic, I mean as far as the SYSTEM goes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 522 of 536:
|
Dec 22 14:05 UTC 2003 |
Systemic has both meanings (which rather limits its use unless context can
indicate which is meant).
|
gull
|
|
response 523 of 536:
|
Dec 22 16:30 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:493: So basically, the Bush Administration is cutting the same
sort of deal with Libya that they've been calling Clinton a traitor for
having made with North Korea?
|
klg
|
|
response 524 of 536:
|
Dec 22 17:05 UTC 2003 |
Basically, no.
|
twenex
|
|
response 525 of 536:
|
Dec 22 17:11 UTC 2003 |
Or rather, yes.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 526 of 536:
|
Dec 22 17:23 UTC 2003 |
re #523: While I think that the Libya deal is basically grandstanding,
I disagree with your characterization as (a) I am unaware of any instance
of an official of the Bush administration characterizing Clinton as a
traitor while acting in their capacity as a member of the administration,
and (b) the deal with Libya is supposed to include an inspections regimen
if I understand it correctly. It's too early to tell whether the
inspection plan will be any more successful than the one that North Korea
was supposed to abide by. Also (c) as far as we know Libya is not getting
its payment up front for this change, the way North Korea did under the
so-called Agreed Framework.
|
klg
|
|
response 527 of 536:
|
Dec 22 18:02 UTC 2003 |
Unlike N. Korea, which is already well-armed - possibly with nuclear
weapons - Libya does not have a major population which it can hold
hostage in a standoff. This would, basically, allow the U.S. to handle
it as we handled Iraq. There is, therefore, little reason to presume
that we would succumb to N. Korean-type blackmail. Is there?
|
klg
|
|
response 528 of 536:
|
Dec 22 18:05 UTC 2003 |
(Assuming, of course, that neither How-weird or Weasly is elected.)
|
willcome
|
|
response 529 of 536:
|
Dec 23 06:00 UTC 2003 |
Re. 522: Please, please, leave the definitions to the more than capable
Mister McNally.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 530 of 536:
|
Dec 24 04:37 UTC 2003 |
I leave the definitions to the even more competent ODE.
|
