Europe submits voluntarily

[Jayjay]

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

Changing licensing agreements for oil drilling is only "theft" in the same sense that copyright violation is "theft". The oil was still in the ground, it exhanged no hands, and only the immaterial rights pertaining to who gets access to it would have been altered.

 

[untermensche]

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

Changing licensing agreements for oil drilling is only "theft" in the same sense that copyright violation is "theft". The oil was still in the ground, it exhanged no hands, and only the immaterial rights pertaining to who gets access to it would have been altered.

The question is about the legitimacy of deals made with dictators when they are replaced by democracies.

Those deals are no longer valid.

They are as illegitimate as the power of dictators.

 

[Jayjay]

Changing licensing agreements for oil drilling is only "theft" in the same sense that copyright violation is "theft". The oil was still in the ground, it exhanged no hands, and only the immaterial rights pertaining to who gets access to it would have been altered.

The question is about the legitimacy of deals made with dictators when they are replaced by democracies.

Those deals are no longer valid.

They are as illegitimate as the power of dictators.

That's not how real world works. Democracy is not an on/off switch, it's a gradual process with just as many shades of legitimacy as dictatorships. When countries switch from democracies to dictatorships or vice versa, many of the laws and treaties they have ratified remain in force, only the leadership changes. The sovereignty of a country to decide the use of its own resources has nothing to do with how "democratic" someone might deem it.

 

[untermensche]

The question is about the legitimacy of deals made with dictators when they are replaced by democracies.

Those deals are no longer valid.

They are as illegitimate as the power of dictators.

That's not how real world works. Democracy is not an on/off switch, it's a gradual process with just as many shades of legitimacy as dictatorships. When countries switch from democracies to dictatorships or vice versa, many of the laws and treaties they have ratified remain in force, only the leadership changes. The sovereignty of a country to decide the use of its own resources has nothing to do with how "democratic" someone might deem it.

There is no "how the real world works".

There are only those who argue for the rights of dictators and those who see every deal made with a dictator as illegitimate.

 

[Jayjay]

That's not how real world works. Democracy is not an on/off switch, it's a gradual process with just as many shades of legitimacy as dictatorships. When countries switch from democracies to dictatorships or vice versa, many of the laws and treaties they have ratified remain in force, only the leadership changes. The sovereignty of a country to decide the use of its own resources has nothing to do with how "democratic" someone might deem it.

There is no "how the real world works".

There are only those who argue for the rights of dictators and those who see every deal made with a dictator as illegitimate.

There are those who realize that world can't be split into two black-and-white categories, and those who don't.

There is a lot of gray area between "dictatorships" and "democracies".

 

[untermensche]

There is no "how the real world works".

There are only those who argue for the rights of dictators and those who see every deal made with a dictator as illegitimate.

There are those who realize that world can't be split into two black-and-white categories, and those who don't.

There is a lot of gray area between "dictatorships" and "democracies".

We're talking about a single case.

And no dictator had the right to sell mineral rights to anybody in Iran.

Those deals were illegitimate when the dictatorship was replaced by a democratic government.

That is why the US and Britain hastened to return it to dictatorship. They knew they had no legal case.

 

[Jayjay]

There are those who realize that world can't be split into two black-and-white categories, and those who don't.

There is a lot of gray area between "dictatorships" and "democracies".

We're talking about a single case.

And no dictator had the right to sell mineral rights to anybody in Iran.

Those deals were illegitimate when the dictatorship was replaced by a democratic government.

That is why the US and Britain hastened to return it to dictatorship. They knew they had no legal case.

No. If those deals were illegitimate, they were illegitimate regardless of who was in charge. If a democractically elected government would have made the same lopsided deal, are you saying that another democratic government could not seek to alter it? That's absurd.

 

[untermensche]

We're talking about a single case.

And no dictator had the right to sell mineral rights to anybody in Iran.

Those deals were illegitimate when the dictatorship was replaced by a democratic government.

That is why the US and Britain hastened to return it to dictatorship. They knew they had no legal case.

No. If those deals were illegitimate, they were illegitimate regardless of who was in charge. If a democractically elected government would have made the same lopsided deal, are you saying that another democratic government could not seek to alter it? That's absurd.

Deals with nations over their resources are only legitimate if they are made with some kind of democratically elected representative. Or if the laws of mineral right acquisition are made by democratically elected representatives.

Amazing how the rights and privileges of dictators are defended when oil is the issue.

 

[Jayjay]

No. If those deals were illegitimate, they were illegitimate regardless of who was in charge. If a democractically elected government would have made the same lopsided deal, are you saying that another democratic government could not seek to alter it? That's absurd.

Deals with nations over their resources are only legitimate if they are made with some kind of democratically elected representative. Or if the laws of mineral right acquisition are made by democratically elected representatives.

Amazing how the rights and privileges of dictators are defended when oil is the issue.

Democracy is not a magic word that makes all decisions final and irreversible. Democracies screw up all the time, as history has shown.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

In Britain, taxpayers money was used to nationalise the main utilities such as oil gas, electricity and phone services. This came from the taxpayer hence bought by the people. When these businesses were then denationalised, they were sold back to the people in the form of shares. it seems like a double charge for the same thing.

 

[untermensche]

Deals with nations over their resources are only legitimate if they are made with some kind of democratically elected representative. Or if the laws of mineral right acquisition are made by democratically elected representatives.

Amazing how the rights and privileges of dictators are defended when oil is the issue.

Democracy is not a magic word that makes all decisions final and irreversible. Democracies screw up all the time, as history has shown.

Democracy legitimizes.

There is no legitimacy in dictatorship.

 

[Deepak]

You heard it here first folks - profit sharing under Tito bad because dictatorship, and state controlled media blackouts under Milosevic good because democracy.

 

[untermensche]

You heard it here first folks - profit sharing under Tito bad because dictatorship, and state controlled media blackouts under Milosevic good because democracy.

If legitimate = good then yes.

Democracy is a "good" in itself, if it is a legitimate democracy.

 

[angelo]

America has always held the view that Western style democracy can be transplanted to any country on earth, and that the inhabitants will applaud it. Some have, in all moslem countries , it has failed. In most cases it's made things worse.

Here, the US replaced a democratically elected government with an oppressive dictatorship, and the series of events stemming from this leads to today.

What led to the dictatorships in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, ect. There wasn't any Western meddling there that led to a ruling clique of same family kings and sheiks.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

ha ha libertarians and their natural rights. Ownership is a made up concept that isn't self evident. Any ownership at all is pulled out of someone's ass. Certainly not sustained ownership or inherited ownership. Inheritance makes no sense at all. Not to mention all the complex types of ownership we get in the corporate world. All the financial instruments. These only exist because we've collectively decided that life is better with them or without them. These are not self evident or natural rights. These are collective decisions and to match collective needs. Either through democratic elections or through revolutions when people get fed up with dysfunction.

It's important to understand that capitalism doesn't always work. There's quite a few factors in society that need to be present for capitalism to be a good idea. In extremely unequal societies, like pre-revolutionary China or 19'th century Iran were two societies were wealth was concentrated in just a few individuals to a degree that capitalism was dysfunctional. Capitalism need a mechanic by which wealth gets taken from the richest players and redistributed. This needs to be a continual process. In the west we've relied on technological or financial innovations. This is the mechanic by which new players are introduced.

Karl Marx pointed out that once the rate of new discoveries slows down or stops capitalism will stop being a positive force. At that point socialism will be a better financial instrument by which to control society. In the 19'th century there was a common misconception that we were at the "end of history". Very soon they'd reach a point where all scientific discoveries had been made. This was wrong. But Marx's prediction of what will happen when we do run out of innovation is accurate. As we have seen in history when technologically backward countries with a mostly uneducated and unequal population adopts capitalism. It never works. It just adds to speed up corruption, creates monopolies and stagnates society. We had plenty of them in the 19'th century.

Theft is only theft if it breaks the rules we've made up and agreed to. Theft is a pretty arbitrary concept. Only a libertarian would say that theft is a self evident concept.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Democracy is not a magic word that makes all decisions final and irreversible. Democracies screw up all the time, as history has shown.

Democracy legitimizes.

There is no legitimacy in dictatorship.

That's special pleading. You've just created rules for legitimacy that automatically precludes anything that isn't democracy. It's circular.

The truth is that neither democracy or dictatorship has any good system for which to evaluate the merits of policies. A democracies only perk is that there's an inbuilt mechanic for which to get rid of weak leaders. Which is a pretty awesome and kick-ass mechanic. But democracy isn't a magic bullet that fixes everything.

 

[angelo]

Democracy legitimizes.

There is no legitimacy in dictatorship.

That's special pleading. You've just created rules for legitimacy that automatically precludes anything that isn't democracy. It's circular.

The truth is that neither democracy or dictatorship has any good system for which to evaluate the merits of policies. A democracies only perk is that there's an inbuilt mechanic for which to get rid of weak leaders. Which is a pretty awesome and kick-ass mechanic. But democracy isn't a magic bullet that fixes everything.

Democracy aint perfect no, but it's still the best system around by a country mile!!

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's special pleading. You've just created rules for legitimacy that automatically precludes anything that isn't democracy. It's circular.

The truth is that neither democracy or dictatorship has any good system for which to evaluate the merits of policies. A democracies only perk is that there's an inbuilt mechanic for which to get rid of weak leaders. Which is a pretty awesome and kick-ass mechanic. But democracy isn't a magic bullet that fixes everything.

Democracy aint perfect no, but it's still the best system around by a country mile!!

It depends how you measure how it is best. Very few companies are run by committee. The reason is simply, democracy is terribly as a system for leading things. Democracies only perk is that it has a mechanic for ordered revolutions when the leadership fucks up. And family owned and run company will go bust. We'd rather that countries aren't run into the ground like that. But when dictatorships are run efficiently they are a hell of a lot more efficient than the best democracy. The fact that the most successful countries are democracies show how common it is to fuck up and how important it is to have a lot of dynamism at the top.

 

[untermensche]

Democracy legitimizes.

There is no legitimacy in dictatorship.

That's special pleading. You've just created rules for legitimacy that automatically precludes anything that isn't democracy. It's circular.

The truth is that neither democracy or dictatorship has any good system for which to evaluate the merits of policies. A democracies only perk is that there's an inbuilt mechanic for which to get rid of weak leaders. Which is a pretty awesome and kick-ass mechanic. But democracy isn't a magic bullet that fixes everything.

It's a fundamental difference between concepts.

How does one conclude any decision made by a dictator is legitimate? How could that be possible?

 

[Jayjay]

That's special pleading. You've just created rules for legitimacy that automatically precludes anything that isn't democracy. It's circular.

The truth is that neither democracy or dictatorship has any good system for which to evaluate the merits of policies. A democracies only perk is that there's an inbuilt mechanic for which to get rid of weak leaders. Which is a pretty awesome and kick-ass mechanic. But democracy isn't a magic bullet that fixes everything.

It's a fundamental difference between concepts.

How does one conclude any decision made by a dictator is legitimate? How could that be possible?

Dictators and autocrats aren't usually in absolute command, they need to pander to the people occassionally to avoid revolutions and unrest. The only difference to democracies is matter of degree to which they have to do this.