I know of a truly principled leader. His name is Adolf Hitler. In pursuing his principle, i.e. the purging of undesirables, he diverted military resources into their gathering and killing. These very resources were, more or less, exactly what German army needed to capture Moscow before Russian winter befell upon them. After that, all was history.
I know of a truly unprincipled leader. His name is Abraham Lincoln. Elected by radicals wanting the end of slavery, he made one concession after another to please the border states into staying in the Union. Over and over, he repeated that his war fought for union of the states, not end of state rights or slavery. Obviously, like any unprincipled person, he changed his tone when the situation asked for such change: midway through the war, he proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves.
These days, when people speak of good politicians, or "statesmen" (sorry, ladies, history has spoken, and it's quite sexist until last century), they speak of principles and sticking to those. From right to left, people are calling upon their leaders to stick to their principles, to refuse compromises. To refuse the approach of others shows strength, they say, and to compromise is spineless. And, obviously, the government promptly grinds to a stop. Funny enough, then people blame lack of principle for this failure to govern.
Who are the most principled leaders? The tyrants, the dictators, the despots. After all, what is "principled" anyway? Isn't it to do whatever you want (that is, you believe in) regardless of opposition? When a leader decides upon only his own preferences, what do you call such leader? Tyranny.
Frankly, when people speak of "principles," people actually ask for something else. People ask for their leaders to make the right calls, especially when oppositions are wrong. Here is the catch: how do you know what is right and wrong? Take Holy Roman Empire. When Charles V pursued his role as Catholic emperor, he drove his empire and kingdom into the greatest power of Europe; when Ferdinand II pursued the same thing, he drove his empire into Thirty Years War and degradation. Take Germany (or, more precisely, Prussia). When Frederick II (Frederick the Great) positioned his kingdom in the middle of a massive dual-front war, he held out long enough for his enemies to disintegrate, gained Silesia for his kingdom and forever glory for his military skills; when Wilhelm II positioned his empire in the middle of a massive war, Germany was defeated, her youth was slaughtered, her industrial lands and colonies were pawned to France and England.
Humans are not God. Situations are not frozen. Events are not static. To err is to human. Last time I check, all politicians, good, bad, or middle ground, have not attained omnipotence yet. Thus, they will, from time to time, hold the wrong beliefs. To hang onto those beliefs, to refuse reconsideration of policies, to close ears to opposition will, sooner or later, bring about disasters.
Therefore, principled is the (one would argue, defining) quality of tyrants, of dictators, of despots. A good politician must avoid it. Now, given that a good politician must also act well, such politician will probably do well to conceal his avoidance of principles. Oh well, such is life.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Sunday, November 22, 2015
The Stupidity of Hating The Government
One of the defining feature of American politics, I believe, is how much people dislike or outright hate "The Government." Why the quotation marks and capitalization? Well, because people don't even seem to know what they hate exactly. They just hate "The Government." It oppresses them, steals from them, coerces them, spies on them, carries out immoral and inexcusable deeds. Then, depends on where a person stands in the political scales, The Government seems to do very different things. A right-winger would complain about how The Government takes away will to work, feeds lazy people, oppresses freedom of the church. A left-winger would complain that The Government fails to help poor people, gives to the corporations, and enslaves itself to the church. Notice that contradicting people generally accuse The Government of doing exactly what the other part would do.
It's my opinion that both sides, left and right, are frankly outright stupid.
First, let's say that The Government is overthrown. Yoo hoo! FREEDOM! Let's take a few days to celebrate. Now what? Do laws need adjustment and execution? Do streets need policing? Do fire need fighting? Do rights need protection? By the way, property is a right, so if you want it, you have to protect it. You know what's state of nature? The tiger eats the rabbits; that's law of nature. The queen bees order their workers around; that's law of nature. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, equality, etc. are all artificial constructs. So, don't tell me shit about natural rights. If you want rights, you protect it.
Again, what will make and execute laws? Police the streets? Fight the fire? Protect human rights? Bad guys don't magically turn into bunnies after a revolution. Hunger does not magically turn into feasts after a revolution. Enemies don't magically befriend after a revolution. What will do all the public works and coordinations?
Oh yes, a new government will. New government may do things differently from old one, no doubt. However, it must exist. Until all humans become saints (or, maybe until robots can replace all or most of human labor), something still need to maintain laws and orders, coordinate public works, and facilitate public discussions. What do you call that thing? Ah, the be-damned government.
Secondly, what do you think the government can do? And I am serious about this. If a land has 10ft of rain a year, a government can't make it rains 20ft. If crop fails, the government can't make it spring back to life. The government actually can't create any wealth. The government, by definition, governs. That means that it sets up the society to function. It can't make rain out of drought, land out of flood, gold out of lead, food out of dirt. It just can't.
Thus, overthrowing or replacing a government does not solve the scarcity of goods and wealth. If anything, such attempts will destroy trust, infrastructure, and wealth to such a degree that the attempted country would fall far behind its neighbor. Exhibit A: France and England. France is a bigger, more populous, and was richer than England. However, French Revolution made English Revolution look like child play. Guess who came out ahead? Hint: vast majority of developed "new world" countries (the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) speak English.
In other words, the government is a necessity, but is far from omnipotent. It's a social construct, just like, says, nations and churches and universities. Thus, to hate "The Government" is like hating the foxes for killing the chickens. It's just stupid.
That said, hating specific aspects or actions of the current government makes sense. All governments are far from perfect. Thus, by identifying problem areas, citizens can improve their governments and make their world a fairer place. Remember, a lot can be done without a bloody revolution. In fact, many a times, revolutions change little. Just ask the Chinese. Since the time of their unification, some 2300 years ago, their land has witnessed countless revolutions and rebellions. Guess what, up until quite recently (1905), there have been preciously little change in political situations. Reversely, the US, over slightly more than 200 years of her existence, has change enormously. Sure, there has been a bloody civil war, but what countries have not experienced that? (Hmm, maybe Canada; time to accuse Canada of not being a real country). However, the US today and the US in 1960s and the US in 1930s and the US in 1870s are vastly different places, and not just in term of economic growth. Today, a black man presides over the country. Such situation is not imaginable, let alone possible, when the Civil War ended (in fact, the Union is quite racist; as a reminder, they did not fight for the slave per se). Today, homosexual couples can marry. Today, children don't have to work to death to feed their family. Today, most people work only 40 hours a week. All of the above were achieved without major bloodshed.
Therefore, next time you say "I hate the government," be specific. You hate the support to poor children? Sure, then let poor children die. Or, you hate jobs from defense industry? Sure, let people go unemployed. You hate the fact that poor women can get abortion? Sure, let crime run wild. Note that I only list the worst consequences above. All of these consequences can be remedied, if you work on them. They don't magically disappear if you impeach your president. They definitely don't disappear just because you slaughter your fellow citizens in a revolution. So, fix the government if you has issues; don't let a few bad apples ruin your harvest.
It's my opinion that both sides, left and right, are frankly outright stupid.
First, let's say that The Government is overthrown. Yoo hoo! FREEDOM! Let's take a few days to celebrate. Now what? Do laws need adjustment and execution? Do streets need policing? Do fire need fighting? Do rights need protection? By the way, property is a right, so if you want it, you have to protect it. You know what's state of nature? The tiger eats the rabbits; that's law of nature. The queen bees order their workers around; that's law of nature. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, equality, etc. are all artificial constructs. So, don't tell me shit about natural rights. If you want rights, you protect it.
Again, what will make and execute laws? Police the streets? Fight the fire? Protect human rights? Bad guys don't magically turn into bunnies after a revolution. Hunger does not magically turn into feasts after a revolution. Enemies don't magically befriend after a revolution. What will do all the public works and coordinations?
Oh yes, a new government will. New government may do things differently from old one, no doubt. However, it must exist. Until all humans become saints (or, maybe until robots can replace all or most of human labor), something still need to maintain laws and orders, coordinate public works, and facilitate public discussions. What do you call that thing? Ah, the be-damned government.
Secondly, what do you think the government can do? And I am serious about this. If a land has 10ft of rain a year, a government can't make it rains 20ft. If crop fails, the government can't make it spring back to life. The government actually can't create any wealth. The government, by definition, governs. That means that it sets up the society to function. It can't make rain out of drought, land out of flood, gold out of lead, food out of dirt. It just can't.
Thus, overthrowing or replacing a government does not solve the scarcity of goods and wealth. If anything, such attempts will destroy trust, infrastructure, and wealth to such a degree that the attempted country would fall far behind its neighbor. Exhibit A: France and England. France is a bigger, more populous, and was richer than England. However, French Revolution made English Revolution look like child play. Guess who came out ahead? Hint: vast majority of developed "new world" countries (the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) speak English.
In other words, the government is a necessity, but is far from omnipotent. It's a social construct, just like, says, nations and churches and universities. Thus, to hate "The Government" is like hating the foxes for killing the chickens. It's just stupid.
That said, hating specific aspects or actions of the current government makes sense. All governments are far from perfect. Thus, by identifying problem areas, citizens can improve their governments and make their world a fairer place. Remember, a lot can be done without a bloody revolution. In fact, many a times, revolutions change little. Just ask the Chinese. Since the time of their unification, some 2300 years ago, their land has witnessed countless revolutions and rebellions. Guess what, up until quite recently (1905), there have been preciously little change in political situations. Reversely, the US, over slightly more than 200 years of her existence, has change enormously. Sure, there has been a bloody civil war, but what countries have not experienced that? (Hmm, maybe Canada; time to accuse Canada of not being a real country). However, the US today and the US in 1960s and the US in 1930s and the US in 1870s are vastly different places, and not just in term of economic growth. Today, a black man presides over the country. Such situation is not imaginable, let alone possible, when the Civil War ended (in fact, the Union is quite racist; as a reminder, they did not fight for the slave per se). Today, homosexual couples can marry. Today, children don't have to work to death to feed their family. Today, most people work only 40 hours a week. All of the above were achieved without major bloodshed.
Therefore, next time you say "I hate the government," be specific. You hate the support to poor children? Sure, then let poor children die. Or, you hate jobs from defense industry? Sure, let people go unemployed. You hate the fact that poor women can get abortion? Sure, let crime run wild. Note that I only list the worst consequences above. All of these consequences can be remedied, if you work on them. They don't magically disappear if you impeach your president. They definitely don't disappear just because you slaughter your fellow citizens in a revolution. So, fix the government if you has issues; don't let a few bad apples ruin your harvest.
Terrorism and Poverty
First thing first, my deepest condolences to France and her people. My heart is with them in this trial time.
In the wake of such terrorism, let's talk about what breeds such thoughts and actors. Hopefully, let's also talk about how to discourage such thoughts and prevent such actions.
It has been asserted, over and over, that terrorists themselves are not from dire situations. Many of them are from well-off, if not outright wealthy, families; many of them are exquisitely educated. This assertion has appeared over and over, as a mysterious puzzle over why such well-to-do people join such organizations and commit such action.
In fact, this reminds me of a related, but much more obviously racist puzzle: both indigenous Australians and Whites occupy Oceania. However, the former lived for thousands of years as hunter-gatherers, with barely any artifact to show; meanwhile, the latter, in the span of a few centuries, created a modern, literate, and very productive society. This would, naturally, lead to an assertion of how Whites are superior to those "missing links" between chimpanzees and humans. It's almost laughable, except that it caused deaths of millions; genocides are never laughing matters.
The whole assertion about the supposed divorce of poverty and terrorism, in my opinion, attempts to guide people toward such racist (well, this is discrimination based on religion, so religist?) conclusions. After all, well-to-do Christians don't seem to go around blowing up innocent people, right? Ergo, this must mean that Islam is bad.
Obviously, like all thoughtful deception, this lovely misdirection fails to cover quite a few glaring very strange behaviors.
First and foremost is this: if the problem is with Islam, why do those Muslims bother to travel all the way to the impoverished areas to organize? Seriously. There are sizable Muslim populations everywhere. Why not just setup an attack right from the belly of the enemies? Why bother traveling, with so many difficulties and risks, to Syria and Iraq and such?
Secondly, why do (organized) extremism only seem to flourish in impoverished areas? I mean, sure, the terrorists strike Western world here and there. However, the vast majority of them are from Africa and Middle East. Even within the US, the most obvious extremist groups can be found in poorer areas, i.e. the rural and the South. They may strike their neighbors, but they never seem to take root there.
Both of the points above can circle to this: the individual terrorists (especially the leading ones) may be well-to-do, but the environments that foster them are always poor. This is the clearest link between terrorism and poverty.
The question becomes: if poverty does not furnish terrorists (at least not exclusively), why do terrorism still require poverty to thrive?
Now, let's talk about people in general. Generally speaking, people are quite decent. They may do wrong, but, generally speaking, they know wrongness, and they either restrain or cover it up. It's call common decency, you know. And, a part of dignity is to uphold such decency.
Terrorists don't seem to have such decency. Or, at least, their decency is extremely low. As such, should persons be among normal (as in, not desperate) people, generally speaking, two things happen. Either decent people convert them over, or they destroy the decent people. The former case results in the millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people low in empathy but nevertheless non-violent and upholding social standards. The latter case, obviously, goes kaput.
But what if terrorist mindset meets with poverty and constant social unrest? Such situations fail the people, render them desperate. Desperate people bend much easier and are more open-minded to alternative social arrangement. Now, terrorists have 2 new choices: they terrorize the weak and court the strong. Weakened by hunger, split by internal struggles, stricken down by calamities to themselves and their close ones, people in such situation may be bullied into submission. Meanwhile, some of them may even support the cause of terror. After all, what have social standards and common sense done for them? And, remember, terrorists always blame it on others. If others have wronged you, what decency do you owe to them?
And thus, poverty provides the environment for terrorist seeds to grow. The seed may come from wealth, but it needs poverty to sprout.
How can we solve this problem, then?
Confucius once instructed 3 steps to grow a people: first, gather them; second, make them rich; third, teach them common sense. This order should be upheld strictly.
Here is my opinion on Afghanistan and Iraq situations: US invaded the 2 countries, hold political power over them, and I have yet to see their products anywhere. In fact, for progress, we occasionally hear of their "social progress," most notably women rights. And such is a recipe for disaster.
Now, I don't mean to belittle women rights. They are important. However, let's look at the situation from a poor man perspective, and I mean literally poor man. He sees his lot of life changes little; he still lives in poverty. Worse yet, previously, at least he once debased himself in front of his own people; now he debases himself in front of people of different countries and races. Where is his dignity now? Worse yet, his known world order was turned upside down. Women now parade over his head. And he got none of them (remember, we are talking about societies where women were considered as property to men). All he sees, thus, is lots of changes, uncertainty, shame, and quite little prospect of betterment. Lastly, the little betterment he enjoys may not mean that much. After all, when you are hungry, homeless, illiterate, what good does election do?
When a significant chunk of the population are impoverished and insulted (by the invasion of their country, obviously), one can't exactly blaming them for exploring alternative arrangements. Unfortunately, among those arrangements are racism, sexism, militarism, and whatever-discrimation-based-on-religion-calls. What do you get when you combine all of these above?
Remember Confucius' sequence: gather people, give them wealth, then teach them decency. Decency fights terrorism. Wealth (i.e. financial and food security) nourishes both decency and will-power. Without wealth, without food, without shelters, don't talk about social progress.
In the wake of such terrorism, let's talk about what breeds such thoughts and actors. Hopefully, let's also talk about how to discourage such thoughts and prevent such actions.
It has been asserted, over and over, that terrorists themselves are not from dire situations. Many of them are from well-off, if not outright wealthy, families; many of them are exquisitely educated. This assertion has appeared over and over, as a mysterious puzzle over why such well-to-do people join such organizations and commit such action.
In fact, this reminds me of a related, but much more obviously racist puzzle: both indigenous Australians and Whites occupy Oceania. However, the former lived for thousands of years as hunter-gatherers, with barely any artifact to show; meanwhile, the latter, in the span of a few centuries, created a modern, literate, and very productive society. This would, naturally, lead to an assertion of how Whites are superior to those "missing links" between chimpanzees and humans. It's almost laughable, except that it caused deaths of millions; genocides are never laughing matters.
The whole assertion about the supposed divorce of poverty and terrorism, in my opinion, attempts to guide people toward such racist (well, this is discrimination based on religion, so religist?) conclusions. After all, well-to-do Christians don't seem to go around blowing up innocent people, right? Ergo, this must mean that Islam is bad.
Obviously, like all thoughtful deception, this lovely misdirection fails to cover quite a few glaring very strange behaviors.
First and foremost is this: if the problem is with Islam, why do those Muslims bother to travel all the way to the impoverished areas to organize? Seriously. There are sizable Muslim populations everywhere. Why not just setup an attack right from the belly of the enemies? Why bother traveling, with so many difficulties and risks, to Syria and Iraq and such?
Secondly, why do (organized) extremism only seem to flourish in impoverished areas? I mean, sure, the terrorists strike Western world here and there. However, the vast majority of them are from Africa and Middle East. Even within the US, the most obvious extremist groups can be found in poorer areas, i.e. the rural and the South. They may strike their neighbors, but they never seem to take root there.
Both of the points above can circle to this: the individual terrorists (especially the leading ones) may be well-to-do, but the environments that foster them are always poor. This is the clearest link between terrorism and poverty.
The question becomes: if poverty does not furnish terrorists (at least not exclusively), why do terrorism still require poverty to thrive?
Now, let's talk about people in general. Generally speaking, people are quite decent. They may do wrong, but, generally speaking, they know wrongness, and they either restrain or cover it up. It's call common decency, you know. And, a part of dignity is to uphold such decency.
Terrorists don't seem to have such decency. Or, at least, their decency is extremely low. As such, should persons be among normal (as in, not desperate) people, generally speaking, two things happen. Either decent people convert them over, or they destroy the decent people. The former case results in the millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people low in empathy but nevertheless non-violent and upholding social standards. The latter case, obviously, goes kaput.
But what if terrorist mindset meets with poverty and constant social unrest? Such situations fail the people, render them desperate. Desperate people bend much easier and are more open-minded to alternative social arrangement. Now, terrorists have 2 new choices: they terrorize the weak and court the strong. Weakened by hunger, split by internal struggles, stricken down by calamities to themselves and their close ones, people in such situation may be bullied into submission. Meanwhile, some of them may even support the cause of terror. After all, what have social standards and common sense done for them? And, remember, terrorists always blame it on others. If others have wronged you, what decency do you owe to them?
And thus, poverty provides the environment for terrorist seeds to grow. The seed may come from wealth, but it needs poverty to sprout.
How can we solve this problem, then?
Confucius once instructed 3 steps to grow a people: first, gather them; second, make them rich; third, teach them common sense. This order should be upheld strictly.
Here is my opinion on Afghanistan and Iraq situations: US invaded the 2 countries, hold political power over them, and I have yet to see their products anywhere. In fact, for progress, we occasionally hear of their "social progress," most notably women rights. And such is a recipe for disaster.
Now, I don't mean to belittle women rights. They are important. However, let's look at the situation from a poor man perspective, and I mean literally poor man. He sees his lot of life changes little; he still lives in poverty. Worse yet, previously, at least he once debased himself in front of his own people; now he debases himself in front of people of different countries and races. Where is his dignity now? Worse yet, his known world order was turned upside down. Women now parade over his head. And he got none of them (remember, we are talking about societies where women were considered as property to men). All he sees, thus, is lots of changes, uncertainty, shame, and quite little prospect of betterment. Lastly, the little betterment he enjoys may not mean that much. After all, when you are hungry, homeless, illiterate, what good does election do?
When a significant chunk of the population are impoverished and insulted (by the invasion of their country, obviously), one can't exactly blaming them for exploring alternative arrangements. Unfortunately, among those arrangements are racism, sexism, militarism, and whatever-discrimation-based-on-religion-calls. What do you get when you combine all of these above?
Remember Confucius' sequence: gather people, give them wealth, then teach them decency. Decency fights terrorism. Wealth (i.e. financial and food security) nourishes both decency and will-power. Without wealth, without food, without shelters, don't talk about social progress.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
The Point of Democratic Government
As I slowly make my way through A People's History of the United States, the book keeps intoning an idea that, frankly, annoys the heck out of me. The idea this this: (democratic) election siphons revolutionary energy away from the oppressed people into the system.
Well, let's look at things the other way around. No government stands without at least some tolerance of its people. To give credo to the social contract idea, at some level, the population must consent that the current regime is acceptable. Generally, "acceptable" is a balance between oppression by the current regime and the blood and resources spilled for a new regime. When a significant enough faction of the population consider their government to be unacceptable, they can and do revolt to establish a new government.
Such is the democratic basis of undemocratic regimes. The people vote by their blood, with roughly 2 choices: to revolt or to endure.
Democratic government gives a new choice. A discontent people (which is to say, all people) have a new channel of expressing their discontentment: through actual voting. Well, generally speaking, a requirement for "democracy" is also freedom of speech, assembly, and of the press. So, a democratic regime allows multiple forms of opinion expression. In fact, with enough determination, a population can, and did, change its population quite dramatically over time without much blood shed.
Remember this: no regimes go away peacefully. At least, none that I know of, including Meiji Revolution. Each regime starts with a reign of terror (against old regime) and ends with a reign of terror (against the upcoming one). Some regimes (French First Republic, says) actually include periods explicitly named "Reign of Terror." Thus, a regime may kill off some of its oppressed citizens (intentionally or through negligence), those are pocket change compared to the mass killing that surely accompanies any change.
More disturbingly, revolutions don't necessarily result in improvement. In fact, most of them merely replace one group of rulers with another, or in fact degrade the status quo. With the risk of overly relying on French Revolution, let's consider its outcome. The revolution started against taxation and tyranny. It resulted in, gasp, an empire! And I am not sure if the First Republic was that good either: half of it is called "Reign of Terror." Numerous revolutions end this way. Think about Egypt during Arab Spring: its Twitter and Facebook wielding population ousted a dictator, then proceeded to elect Muslim Brotherhood, an alleged terrorist organization. Or think about assassination of Caesar (just to be clear, that assassination is merely a coup, which is much less bloody than a full-blown revolution).
Lastly, even if a revolution succeeds, its result have severe upper limits. More sadly, those limits are probably quite close to those of the old regime. Let's take French Fifth Republic (France is a fascinating historic case). For all intends and purposes, it is the ideal revolutionary: not that much blood, and the government was formed relatively quickly. And yet, when you think about it, France still experiences poverty, joblessness, and so on. After all, when you think about it, the regime may change, but most other things remain the same. If the country consists mostly of desert, it still can't feed itself after a revolutionary. If the people have been evading taxes, they probably would continue to evade taxes after a revolution. The government, after all, is not God. It can only rearrange, not make miracles.
Thus, the whole point of democracy is to avoid bloody revolutions. Democracy ideally fosters peaceful communication and problem solving so that the people don't need to vote with their blood.
To complain that democracy siphons revolutionary fervor is like to complain that wolves are cruel to deer. Sorry, dear, but that's the whole point. Revolutionary fervor probably drags millions to the graves with an uncertain future. Can a 50% chance of a hopefully better government be worth the blood and suffering of a revolutionary? Obviously, I am very generous here. History suggests that the chance is probably much lower. Can 10% chance of a slightly better government justify such sacrifice?
Well, let's look at things the other way around. No government stands without at least some tolerance of its people. To give credo to the social contract idea, at some level, the population must consent that the current regime is acceptable. Generally, "acceptable" is a balance between oppression by the current regime and the blood and resources spilled for a new regime. When a significant enough faction of the population consider their government to be unacceptable, they can and do revolt to establish a new government.
Such is the democratic basis of undemocratic regimes. The people vote by their blood, with roughly 2 choices: to revolt or to endure.
Democratic government gives a new choice. A discontent people (which is to say, all people) have a new channel of expressing their discontentment: through actual voting. Well, generally speaking, a requirement for "democracy" is also freedom of speech, assembly, and of the press. So, a democratic regime allows multiple forms of opinion expression. In fact, with enough determination, a population can, and did, change its population quite dramatically over time without much blood shed.
Remember this: no regimes go away peacefully. At least, none that I know of, including Meiji Revolution. Each regime starts with a reign of terror (against old regime) and ends with a reign of terror (against the upcoming one). Some regimes (French First Republic, says) actually include periods explicitly named "Reign of Terror." Thus, a regime may kill off some of its oppressed citizens (intentionally or through negligence), those are pocket change compared to the mass killing that surely accompanies any change.
More disturbingly, revolutions don't necessarily result in improvement. In fact, most of them merely replace one group of rulers with another, or in fact degrade the status quo. With the risk of overly relying on French Revolution, let's consider its outcome. The revolution started against taxation and tyranny. It resulted in, gasp, an empire! And I am not sure if the First Republic was that good either: half of it is called "Reign of Terror." Numerous revolutions end this way. Think about Egypt during Arab Spring: its Twitter and Facebook wielding population ousted a dictator, then proceeded to elect Muslim Brotherhood, an alleged terrorist organization. Or think about assassination of Caesar (just to be clear, that assassination is merely a coup, which is much less bloody than a full-blown revolution).
Lastly, even if a revolution succeeds, its result have severe upper limits. More sadly, those limits are probably quite close to those of the old regime. Let's take French Fifth Republic (France is a fascinating historic case). For all intends and purposes, it is the ideal revolutionary: not that much blood, and the government was formed relatively quickly. And yet, when you think about it, France still experiences poverty, joblessness, and so on. After all, when you think about it, the regime may change, but most other things remain the same. If the country consists mostly of desert, it still can't feed itself after a revolutionary. If the people have been evading taxes, they probably would continue to evade taxes after a revolution. The government, after all, is not God. It can only rearrange, not make miracles.
Thus, the whole point of democracy is to avoid bloody revolutions. Democracy ideally fosters peaceful communication and problem solving so that the people don't need to vote with their blood.
To complain that democracy siphons revolutionary fervor is like to complain that wolves are cruel to deer. Sorry, dear, but that's the whole point. Revolutionary fervor probably drags millions to the graves with an uncertain future. Can a 50% chance of a hopefully better government be worth the blood and suffering of a revolutionary? Obviously, I am very generous here. History suggests that the chance is probably much lower. Can 10% chance of a slightly better government justify such sacrifice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)