Liberal or Conservative Test

[A Black Falcon]

How? How could a government stationed in say, Brussels, have a better idea of what you in Pluckdump, Wyoming need than one in Washington DC? How could a government that applies the same principles to Twa Pygmies living in the forests of Burundi and to you could work better than a smaller, more regional one? Explain to me how a world government would work.

A true world government would work exactly the same as a national one but on a bigger scale. That is a silly question... why not ask the same exact thing about natives in American Samoa?

If this is about the survival of America, don't have any illusions. The United States will disappear some day, there are no two ways about that. If you think you'll manage to extend it to immortality by befriending everybody, you're dreaming. America will fall some day, just like every other political entity on Earth.

Sure. But a true world government (on some level) well might survive somehting like that. A world controlled by american domination wouldn't.

It's still using force even if a semi-corrupt, mixed group of unelected former businessmen and lawyers gives you the green light.

And there is nothing wrong with force, should it be used for correct goals

Its then legal force, which gives it higher moral ground. And the UN would never act unless it is clear that force (the absolute last resort) is necessary... which is good. Force isn't a very effective tool and its use should be avoided whenever possible.

What pride can you get from acts which aren't yours? I suppose if it helps you sleep better...

So you don't feel proud about anything that has ever happened in America's history?

Are you arguing that feudalism is superior to Napoleonic code? Didn't think so. When the main difference between two styles of government is one enslaves an entire nation to one person and the other doesn't, there's no point arguing.

There is no denying the Napoleonic era ushered into a new age of nationalism, with people all over Europe claiming their rights as free men.

Napoléon Bonaparte WAS a great man. He was a superior tactician, an eminent strategist, and carried the ideals of the French Revolution to all corners of Europe, defeating all in his wake. Ironically, he was in the end beaten by Great Britain, the only country whose populace could claim a similar or greater level of freedom. This, I will remind you, because of men who challenged royal authority and gave their blood for those rights.

Of course he did things for his own glory. What man wants no legacy? But his acts, in the end, brought good things.

No, I'm saying that if he'd lasted Napoleon would have turned out to be identical to them. He already was, really... just with a nicer law code and trappings of "freedom" to make the people who supported the recently ended Revolution happy.

The fact that former colonizing powers did a shit job organizing Africa doesn't make democracy a bad idea. They didn't create democracy, they just drew lines in the sand and left.

And for India, oh what are you going on about! India is run by the British parliamentary system, and is one of the most successful democracies (considering its huge population) in the world. If you're going to show me where instituting democracy failed, by (insert deity) don't mention India. The entire Indian subcontinent was divided and three centuries behind Europe under Moghol domination, and after just a hundred and fifty it's now fairly well united and has a thriving film and high-tech industry (the area around Bangalore is called mini-silicon valley or something of the genre). Of all the dismal failures in the region, with Pakistan and Myanmar governed by military governments, Afghanistan by religious fundamentalists up to a few months ago, and China by the flaming commies, India is a resounding success.

In fact, mentioning the entire British Empire as an example of failed imperialism is a terrible idea. HM's Empire was slowly dismembered by its own leaders with no great bloodbaths (except, I'll concede, for Ireland), with Britain proper being basically untouched. They had their time in the sun, now they're less of a power... but it's not like they were totally and utterly destroyed by masses of revolutionary anarcho-marxists or anything.

It is true that in Africa Britain and France were pretty halfhearted in their attempts at democracy. In some places they DID try, but they left far too soon. In India though... that was different... it was obviously prepared for democracy as they actively saught it out and succeeded in getting their goal. There WERE some bloodbaths, though. I remember a History Channel show on a massacre where British troops slaugtered some protesting civilians in India that helped bring tensions to a head. Don't delude yourself to think that the British were somehow nice and not brutal... they had a nice side, but to many natives of most conquered nations they saw just the brutal one. Sure, it wasn't as bad as Congo or Indonesia, but there were incidents. Imperialism is rule by force... the Indians wanting democracy wasn't exactly something the British welcomed or expected...