It continually amazes me that Americans can perpetuate the myth that their government is a democratic, moral force in the world given everything they have done, and are still doing...
"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill
Tell me what country isn't by your standards? Show me a list of democratic countries and I have no doubt I could dig up some really evil stuff on every single one of them.
Don't take my comment as an excuse or an argument that's it's OK. Governments are run by humans which regularly mess up despite their high hopes.
>Show me a list of democratic countries and I have no doubt I could dig up some really evil stuff on every single one of them.
If I were to pick some (e.g. Switzerland/New Zealand), what you'd dig up on the US would still be far, far, far, far worse. There's really no morally relativistic comparison between Switzerland's aiding and abetting money laundering and the US starting two wars in the last 15 years or Obama's drone murder program. None whatsoever.
This reminds me of the invective that got thrown at Ecuador's Raffael Correa after he offered asylum to Snowden.
Lots of people tried to act as if his government arresting protesters who were blocking a road (mentioned in an Amnesty report) made the country hypocritical when it lectured the US on human rights.
If I were to pick some (e.g. Switzerland/New Zealand)
Let me give it a go! Switzerland basically bankrolled the Nazi war machine. Without Switzerland, Germany would have been unable to stash away all of the treasures it stole and likely wouldn't have been able to carry out the Holocaust with the efficiency it did.[1] Pretty bad huh?
New Zealand has a dismal record on aboriginal rights. The Maori make up 4% of the population, but 50% of the prison population. Check out Amnesty International if you want to read up on other stuff. Some have labelled it genocide.
what you'd dig up on the US would still be far, far, far, far worse
That's purely subjective and I'm sure you'd find many who would disagree.
I'm not arguing that the US shouldn't be criticized. What I'm arguing about is the utter shock that people display when they find out the US hasn't been perfect. It almost seems like the US is held to a much higher standard than other Western nations.
About [1]: IMO [2] is a much better source for what went wrong in WW2 in Switzerland. Lots of work has gone into this, and it isn't biased for the Swiss side at all, even though the Swiss government has sponsored it. IMO the gold trade was defendable, given the geopolitical situation for Switzerland during the height of the the Third Reich - it was completely surrounded. What's most despicable about that time is how Jewish refugees have been turned back (even though I have to add that this was not the case for everyone, Switzerland harboured ~115k Jewish refugees at the end of WW2 [3], while 15-25k were refused).
IMO it's commendable though that the Swiss government was not defensive at all when the gold issue came up again in 1996. Legally they could have defended themselves using the treaty signed with Washington post WW2 (~250M CHF) - instead it caused a majority of Swiss parliament to spawn quite a large program [4], which resulted in extensive documentation, a 295M CHF victim fund as early 1997 and a $1.25 billion settlement later on.
I don't know how much better you could expect any government to handle this situation after the fact.
A study about the government funded by the government. Are you seriously suggesting it's free from bias?
Also, you're justifications of their previous actions based on forming a fund are missing the point. It's the fact that they participated in the first place that's the problem.
> New Zealand has a dismal record on aboriginal rights. The Maori make up 4% of the population, but 50% of the prison population. Check out Amnesty International if you want to read up on other stuff. Some have labelled it genocide.
Some of this is right, some isn't. I (a New Zealander of European ancestry) agree with your general point, however.
Maori are 14.9% of the population. Yes, they make up 51% of people in prison. Yes, this is bad, and there are significant ongoing social inequalities disproportionately affecting Maori.
"Genocide" has been used, but it doesn't seem to fit reality especially well (no organised extermination). Do you have a link to the Amnesty International info?
Historically, there have been both good and bad things regarding rights, e.g. Maori men had universal suffrage before non-Maori men, but the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840, was violated and ignored extensively (we've been trying to undo that damage for the last few decades). The Waitangi Tribunal, which hears grievances between Maori and the crown, has settled claims totalling nearly 1 billion NZD.
Part of the myth is that the US is actually democratic. A democracy is supposed to be 'rule of the people', as opposed to aristocracy, 'rule of the elite'.
What you have in the US is a system where politicians are all either elites in society, or vetted by elites. Where they manage to convince or coerce a 'big enough' group of people to vote for them (ie. half or just over half of voters that actually turn out, which is a subset of the population). Once they're in power, they don't rule on behalf of the people, they rule on behalf of the elites that funded their campaigns. They toe the party line, and within each party is a group of elite 'thinkers' - none of whom are elected, but nevertheless direct the party.
Democracies are also supposed to represent minorities and the 'common folk'. 'Rule of the people' implies a need to either involve the people directly, or rule on their behalf, yet in the US there is a decided animosity towards the people.
In your most recent elections, 36.6% of voters turned out. Once you tally the possible margins of victory, this means that it's possible that you are now ruled by politicians that less than 20% of eligible voters actually voted for. And I wonder what percentage of the population takes part in party primaries? How representative is the US' democracy?
That's a very cute quote, but "democracy" in of itself is vague. Direct democracy is certainly not better than other forms of government that have been tried. Indeed, direct democracies are nearly non-existent. Most countries are constitutional republics, or more euphemistically "representative democracies".
That said, the United States' implementation of a constitutional republic is still worse than other forms that have been tried. It has a majoritarian voting system, an electoral college and is heavily vulnerable to gerrymandering and divide/conquer.
Furthermore, the United States usually gets more stern criticism precisely because of the idiotic lie of American exceptionalism. The United States is the only country I know of that obsesses over how supposedly "free" it is with an almost religious fervor. All of this propaganda only makes the inevitable examples of U.S. government corruption even more bitter than they would have been if only Americans had a far more realistic outlook about themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
It's a common quote, but there's no argument contained within it other than an argument by Churchill's authority.
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill
What a hackneyed line. The USA is a democratic republic aka a form of democracy where the people elect their representatives; I'm pretty sure Winston Churchil understood the difference.
And with the magic of compartmentalization, both kinds of people can work together to create a horrible organization that does all kinds of evil around the world.
Actually, compartmentalization allows the two to work together and only enact what they both agree to. The results are not always terrible, they're a mix.
Nah, you'll do whatever you are ordered to or lose your job. You don't need to know why. Scratch that, here's why: freedom. Now you can feel good about that wire you just cut, that letter you just signed, or that "terrorist" you tortured for years.
As GauntletWizard gets into, it helps when individuals asked (by individuals or circumstance) to be bad feel like they'd be doing something wrong and unusual, which people are less likely to do than things they just feel are wrong.
It hurts when people who have already decided to do bad things exploit it.
Because "That's just the way things are done" is the best way to continue horrible practices. Oh, I'm just going to do this little bit of bribery/corruption/racism; it's not really as bad as practice X in the past. Understanding them is the best way to promote bad behaviors. People are naturally afraid of the unfamiliar.
There's a limit; This is the same argument made by moral crusaders who're against sex education, and that ultimately causes harm. But it's the argument ignored by the D.A.R.E. program organizers, and that has a storied history of being shown (sometimes) to increase drug use[1].
It's like they want to be offended or something, don't you think? Isn't it pretty obvious that when someone says "Americans are silly people" they don't mean that literally every single American person is silly?
Any system as large and complicated as this one will have failures. Our job is to learn from the past and try to prevent it from happening again in the future.
Yeah, failures that cost hundreds of thousands lives. We're talking about the most weaponized country in the world, and one of the least shy to use its weapons.
We are not talking about a movie maker delivering a boring scene who will try to do better in the next movie. We're talking about toppling foreign governments, invading countries, backing or installing dictatures, assassinating people, droning teenagers, dealing cocaine, torturing people, launching nuclear weapons. Doing it times and times over, never being shy about it, and never admitting any wrong.
There is zero structure of improvement in the US government behavior. Those structure exists, for example the Geneva treaty, the Rome treaty which brings trial for war criminals, but the US government refuses any accountability. There is no downside to the erratic US behavior.
I doubt change is going to come from external pressure or treaties (although those are good things). Change is going to come when a lot more people become aware of just how bad things have been going, and why. All of the atrocities you mentioned have been done to protect and expand the interests of the wealthy, and have been done in as much secrecy as possible.
I have reason to hope that things CAN change and in fact, ARE changing. Look how rapidly gay marriage has gone from an impossibility to soon being the law of the land in an incredibly short amount of time. Pot legalization is happening at the same speed. The next great wave will be atheism. These things are happening because of increased communication and awareness due to our newfound interconnectivity. That is only going to increase.
Soon it will be extremely hard to keep secrets at all, a condition that is essential to these atrocities continuing.
What country that has been considered a world power hasn't participated in the same level of "evil"? The whole "power corrupts" thing isn't an American problem it is a problem with human nature.
And they did an incredible job all things considered. It's worth noticing that even quite advanced countries like France unironically put numbers before the word "Republic" to keep track of which edition they are on. The longevity of the U.S. Constitution is simply unprecedented.
Even if you had a perfect corruption-proof government design... What can you do about it? You are not in charge, and have no way to influence the people in charge.
Even if you had a perfect corruption-proof government implementation, you still have humans composing that government, and therefore it won't be corruption-proof for long.
I don't think a design could be said to be "corruption-proof" without taking into account the elements that compose it. That may or may not be most of a proof of the non-existence of "corruption-proof" government.
The point is people erroneously "believe" in their government. That it does only the most necessarily evil and then only to bad people. Such beliefs are manifestly dangerous. They result in things such as Drug seizure laws, PATRIOT act, militarization of police, demonizaton of whistle blowers.
DON'T trust authority, DON'T give authority powers assuming they will only be used for good, DO assume authority is lying, cheating, and evil.
What people '"believe" in their government'? Do a search for "poll americans believing in government". Most polls will show < 50% of people are willing to state that they believe government officials on various issues. So, trust really isn't the problem.
I agree with your last statement completely. The trick is to get people to get knowledgeable (or even care) about history and what is happening in the country. Right about now, it seems to be we're more tending towards "Brave New World" than "1984". If people could just turn off 30 minutes a day of their "Real Housewives" and focus on learning something new, about anything, we'd start fixing the problems.
Fear and ignorance are the problem, not trust. The fear of being tossed in jail. The fear of having your children taken away. The fear of having your assets seized and your reputation tarnished forever. Ignorance of societal trends. Endless warfare, welfare and imperialism fueled by an unprecedented debt bubble. Civil asset forfeiture out of control. The TSA security theatre is encroaching on not just airports but football stadiums and train stations. Posse Comitatus overturned by the NDAA. Dissemination of outright propaganda legalized! The least transparent administration in history. The fucking _IRS_ engaged in outright discrimination against political rivals, which is unquestionably illegal.
But it's OK if you have power. "Sorry, hard drives crashed."
The rich are getting richer, the middle class is disappearing, and people are getting desperate. Western society as a whole is _one_ catastrophic meltdown away from massive civil unrest that will end in bloodshed and revolution.
Does the average American consider these trends when making investment decisions or going about their normal lives? Do they even _care_?
Most people can't afford to openly question the system, because they have too much to lose. They can't afford to be thrown in jail, or have their assets seized, or get put on a list by the NSA. Which is why Bitcoin matters.
Bitcoin enables people to dismantle the massive out of control tyranny without openly admitting or perhaps even _realizing_ their intent. The proof? Plenty of successful, educated people believe Bitcoin is an apolitical fintech innovation that streamlines payments. Success! These people of course have at best a cursory understanding of geopolitics and macroeconomics, which is all the better. Anyone can buy into Bitcoin without leaving their bedroom, and give very plausible reasons for buying in. "Because the price is going up. What's it to you?"
Bitcoin eliminates the State's ability to conduct endless warfare and welfare, because the State can't print BTC. Neither can they seize BTC, which gives _you_ the upper hand. Oh, you want my money? Sorry, can't seem to locate the wallet. Oh, I'm in violation of your moral code and you want to take my bank account? Sure, you can have the $0.00 in my bank account. Think you'll rot away in prison for disobeying tyrants? A huge proportion of inmates have smartphones, which is all you need to access your cash.
Sorry, you can seize my physical assets but you're not touching my fucking fortune. Bitcoin violently flips the power equation. Few appreciate this, but as governments around the world continue to get more and more bankrupt and desperate, having capital outside of their clutches will be a great boon.
Had me up until Bitcoin. They most certainly can seize it. They most certainly can mine it. And they most certainly could shut it down if they wanted to. With those same tactics you were mentioning earlier. Bitcoin is P2P but it is not anonymous.
Maybe the problem is not just the United States government, but the very idea of government and the modern nation state as it stands ever since it came into existence after the peace of westphalia?
Doen't Libertarian dogma demand that institutions can't win for extended periods of time unless they're the best solution?
What's changed that made government ideal for hundreds of years and suddenly isn't ideal now that your upper-middle-class sheltered white privilege has decided that your life would be slightly easier if you paid less tax?
But I can see how this excellent rebuke actually fully addresses all possible claims that the flaws seen in modern nation states are intrinsic to the structure thereof rather than merely globally applicable aberrations caused by some other confounding factor, so well done with that. You really knocked it out of the park.
You probably thought you were cover, but if you were at all honest or smart you'd know that I wasn't trying to rebuke all claims of flaws. Hell, I didn't try to rebuke any such flaws. I didn't even deny them.
I was just pointing out that in the marketplace of societal organizational schemes, the nation-state has been winning for a long time now. You have your excuses as to why, but many competitors have been tried, and they're nearly all total failures.
Also, only a truly nutty religious zealot would claim that any system is flawless. That's the sort of shit that nut jobs like you say about your religion. It's not the sort of argument that any sane person makes about anything. The rest of us live in a world where we don't have all the answers; you're the only one in this conversation who thinks he knows absolutely everything, and who thinks he has the right to demand that I can't live in the society I prefer.
Thank you for being a truly cartoonish individual. You never stop making me laugh, you hilarious little asshole.
edit: also, LOL at how fast you responded. you really, really need a life.
edit2: seriously. you're fucking HILARIOUS. such a joke.
I suppose the Demiurge should be expected to have much to say on the nature of reality as a construct. If the Gnostics have it right, I don't know if we could trust it to tell the truth though.
In US schools we are taught from a young age about our "democracy" that we have here. By the time we realize it is all a big lie, we're much older. If only we were able to teach our youngsters what really happens in politics in school.
