Dark days for the rebellion.
And it was even legit.....I wonder if Yanukovich's American political consultant was an Obama '08 lackey?
Just goes to show you my previous arguments for economics uber alles. The terrible economic morass that Ukraine is in was enough to keep the western minded Ukrainians from voting in large enough droves to offset this travesty. This will be compounded when Moscow relaxes it's stringent energy costs that has frequently been a point of contention between the two countries; a solution that Yanukovich has promised he will solve. For many, the choice whether to get affordable electricity in winter vs Western style competition was a major factor.
What does this mean? For starters, I could say it is a perfect example of the inability of "the march to democracy" to be an inevitable process ; but Putin himself proved that in 2000 (as well as Hitler in the 30's). The next democratic target for Russia will be Georgia. Obviously, Georgia will be a tougher nut to crack due to the massive displeasure over Russia, but it could still assist those politicians that want to take a less confrontational stance with Putin (Interesting article that discusses the displeasure of Yanukovich over Georgian observers and an opposition Georgian MP who sounds a little appeasing of Yanukovich's concerns and seems to imply some sort of willingness to warm up to Russian's Ukranian lackeys ). I think if we're going to exploit any of the gains since the end of the Cold War Obama needs to remain committed to propping up the Georgian government and to do everything to satisfy security concerns by those within Russia's "Near Abroad" (a concern especially felt by the Baltic States during the ABM fiasco). Romania's announcement to hold intercepters is a good start, but we still have a long way to go to undo the lost of confidence .
Melkor: "Just goes to show you my previous arguments for economics uber alles."
ReplyDeleteIf the government of a nation controls its economy, then the government controls how a people make a living: provides shelter and food for one's family; and if a government controls the economy, then it controls the people by in effect having a leash around their necks. That is what is so disheartening about our government's policies that will inevitability led to more government control of the economy.
"While her defeat might indicate a rejection of the revolution, the fact that the country carried out a contentious presidential election that was widely considered fair suggested that the Orange legacy had endured." By the Orange legacy, I assume it means democratic reforms. If so, then this does not necessarily indicate a drift towards freedom.
Melkor: "What does this mean? For starters, I could say it is a perfect example of the inability of 'the march to democracy' to be an inevitable process ; but Putin himself proved that in 2000 (as well as Hitler in the 30's)."
The world-wide march towards democracy does not necessarily mean a march towards freedom. Tocqueville noted that there is an interesting dichotomy or a tug in two different directions of the people in a democratic nations, "Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.[...} The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes.[...] After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body."
I would add to the last part that human nature doesn't change. History repeats itself.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch4_06.htm
I guess you can always count on "young athletic men" to persuade people. I thought Georgia was a free nation?
Hopefully, Obama will actually support freedom by sticking with Georgia. He might continue to appease Russia so that they will pressure Iran?
So what then is the best route to "freedom" if democracy is working against it? Anarchy? Randism?
ReplyDeleteWe need a leader with balls that will come in and take charge and abolish half of the bureaucracy that is in our government.
Our Government needs to be ran like a business and cut all unneccessary expenses. That is why I like Romney.
A republic/democracy is not working against freedom: human nature is.
ReplyDelete"After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body."
It doesn't matter what type of government a nation has because it is composed up of people. The people have a desire to be led and to be free. They want to be taken care of and then they want to be free at the same time. You can't have both at the same time. A self-governing people need to know what freedom is and what makes it possible. It seems like a free nation is created then people get complacent and it eventually goes back to tyranny and the cycle repeats itself over a long period of time. Human nature can't be perfected or changed like communism tried to do, so the cycle will just repeat itself. Humans are unique among the other animals in that they can work or do things that led to their own destruction.
Pop culture and the EDU system works towards promoting ideals that are destructive to freedom.
If the government cuts expenses, then it will need to cut back on services. I don't know if the people would allow that to happen to any great extent that would be required to change the direction of America. 38 million people are on food stamps now just to give a glimpse of how people are dependent on the government. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8933161
The only way people will accept any meaningful cuts in government spending, is when things get bad like they are in California. I don't know to what extent Cali has cut its spending or gov programs?
"If the government of a nation controls its economy, then the government controls how a people make a living: provides shelter and food for one's family; and if a government controls the economy, then it controls the people by in effect having a leash around their necks."
ReplyDeleteThe Orange Ukrainian government didn't control the economy and by the extension of your argument, didn't control the people. So the first part is wrong...Then the second part about people wanting to be "lead" is flawed as the Ukrainian gov't used to provide such control in 2004, but the people removed their shackles. Thus I think we need a more contemporary/grounded understanding of why and when people choose to free or oppress themselves. I say people could give two shits about what a French men said two centuries ago, it matters how they're fed today. The majority of Russians were quite content with the shackles of Communism when the Soviet Union saw real economic growth from WWII till the late 60's....If an oppressive government shoves food and toys in our face but asks our consent to oppression we happily comply. But if freedom can present a viable alternative to the morass of authoritarianism, we'll choose freedom. Sure there's a balance between leadership and freedom but T. had it wrong, what decides the balance isn't some internal struggle between freedom and tyranny, it's what gets the selfish actor the most? We give the Fed more and more power because Keynes seems to be right, the Chinese kowtow to the Communist regime, the French loved the tyranny of Napoleon because he brought home the fat of Europe, the Romans loved an emperor that provided, the Ukranians will kneel to a government that gives them heat... It's time we ground our expectations of human actions based on their inherent self interest and not some lofty notions of philosophy.
Clinging to T.'s analysis of human desire for freedom and tyranny obscures the more important consideration that man desires whatever gets him what he wants. Freedom & Capitalism are only significant in that they produce the greatest wealth for the greatest number, but if the people can be confused (like the Ukrainians and the inability of the former Orange leadership to meld with the EU common market) that they don't, or that a superior form of tyranny can emerge that outperforms a democratic market economy, we will follow such a government. Believing anything else about human nature presupposes an assumption of human goodness that would triumph over our self interested nature and therefore pre-suppose the essential pillar of capitalism.
I was not speaking to the Ukraine nation specifically, Melkor I should have stated that, as all I know about it is from the articles above; and when I stated the point about a government controlling an economy and thus its people, it was a general statement. So, yes, my general statement is true; but, yes, not true in the case of Ukraine. The way that my economic point is connected to this post and the reason I brought it up was your statement: "For many, the choice whether to get affordable electricity in winter vs Western style competition was a major factor." I should have put it in context. I agree with your assessment that self-interest drives people and motivates people and is the foundation of a capitalist system, and that to try to understand the actions of people in any other light would be dumb/fallacy.
ReplyDeleteOn people wanting to be led and to be free and your question as to why people chose to free or oppress themselves; if government control and interference would seem to get them the most economic prosperity then they would chose to be led. Led in this sense means to have government controls over the economy. That is what a command economy does: it leads people in a general sense. I am not talking about leading people as in the sense of walking them around. What sense do you mean? The people wanting to be led is generalizing: "a. To reduce to a general form, class, or law.". Generalizations are important to understand.
Melkor:"What does this mean? For starters, I could say it is a perfect example of the inability of "the march to democracy" to be an inevitable process ; but Putin himself proved that in 2000 (as well as Hitler in the 30's)."
My Whole POint of the quote was to address Your point about the march of democracy, and to state that it does not necessarily led to freedom as their is a desire of people to be led and provided for and at the same time to be free. I should have connected this quote better. Or in other words a propensity of people to chose to be led or to be free, which ever one seems to further their self interest. If being provided for or led is in one's self interest then they will choice a government that will do that.
When you dissect the principle parts, people don't choose to be led or to be free, but that is what the primary is reduced back to in our generalization.
Melkor:"...what decides the balance isn't some internal struggle between freedom and tyranny, it's what gets the selfish actor the most?"
I don't think T implied this, I did not infer this from T, nor did I try to; so what is your whole point of this statement? Is it just a witty statement that sounds cute or does it make a point? People don't say "I want freedom and I want tyranny". They do chose what seems to be expedient and what provides them with what they want; sometimes they don't realize that what seems in their self interest at the present can ultimately hurt their self interest later down the road.
Melkor:"We give the Fed more and more power because Keynes seems to be right, the Chinese kowtow to the Communist regime, the French loved the tyranny of Napoleon because he brought home the fat of Europe, the Romans loved an emperor that provided, the Ukranians will kneel to a government that gives them heat... It's time we ground our expectations of human actions based on their inherent self interest and not some lofty notions of philosophy."
ReplyDeleteThis is a straw man as T nor I did not imply this. Where did you infer this from? Maybe I am not reading or communicating correctly? But what you stated is that the Chinese and French chose to be led because it appeared to be in the best self interest of those people at the time, it is those generalizations again. Even though, in the case of the French, it turned out to hurt the French people in the end. Lofty notions of philosophy can help smart people, not necessarily the average person, understand the choices that are before them.
Melkor: "I say people could give two shits about what a French men said two centuries ago, it matters how they're fed today."
Again I would think that most people would agree with this. Did I imply this? It is a straw man used to sound make you sound witty, good job I would give you points during a debate. There are many works of antiquity that are revelant today, Melkor. Am I saying that when people are making choices today about their government that they are asking what some guy in antiquity, or in T's case classical(?), said or what they think? No. But many of the same principles that were stated and brought to light long ago are still applicable to today.
"the Ukranians will kneel to a government that gives them heat."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this give Russia some/small amount of control over Ukraine or could it led to this? If so, would the Ukraine people be unknowingly choosing more government controls, and thus to be led, all because they are pursuing their self interest? Following your self interest, or apparent self interest, can eventually led to more government controls; thus being led by that government?
I think a problem with American policital outlook is that it assumes (generally) that everyone can have the peachy-keen democracy we have if they just get rid of those baddies ruling them and if they want it badly enough. The colored-revolutions that swept through Europe in the last 20 years is supposedly proof that this assumption is true. I'll try to respond to this good post and these good comments with a post of my own, but the main thing I want to point out is that most countries in the world are ethnic homelands of a paricular tribe of people. And they look at everyone else (with much historical justification) as bizarre, threatening foreigners. The comfort level, security-wise, required for American style democracy to flourish is missing in many places, Ukraine and Russia being prime examples. Therefore, American democracy is in a much more precarious position there. If Mexico or Canada were threatening, powerful countries, America wouldn't have the relaxed democracy we've been blessed with.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOui. Either my cabin fever is driving me nuts or this comment chain is making me dizzy.
ReplyDelete"So, yes, my general statement is true; but, yes, not true in the case of Ukraine."
Yup.
I think you mis-read my comment about the inevitable march to democracy. I specifically say that Putin and others have already disproven that assertion. The reason I say this, and maybe my nuance was too much as I didn't link any of the other media articles that are freaking out about the election, was to state that the reversal of freedom is nothing new. So in the end we're accepting the same conclusion. BUT, my contention is with how you arrive at this conclusion. I contend that this reversal of freedom is not based on T's dichotomy but simply on the basic premise of man's selfish interests. This is why I discussed all of the instances in which people have accepted a loss of some freedoms or all freedoms. If I've misread him that please spell it out for me.
Yes, voting for Yanukovich (and by extension Russia) means the people are willing to accept more state control. Just as the vote for the Orange revolution was a vote away from state control. This doesn't imply an inevitable march to centralized government; it simply indicates that people will follow whatever system will provide them with the most goods. I attack "lofty notions of philosophy" because they actually obstruct us from correctly viewing specific circumstances in their appropriate context, even for smart people, and are usually the cause of generalities that distort our observations.
Tyranny and freedom are general terms, when reduced to the primary, and can be sub divided into more pacific terms: command economy and capitalism; and this can be sub divided into more specific terms. I did not communicate very clearly.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am reading into T, but I view most of his views and the chapter in question as relevant to today as he has been quoted and discussed in several books I read, to include Hayek. I found the chapter in question to be an accurate description of the tyranny that democratic nations tend to led to.
"This doesn't imply an inevitable march to centralized government; it simply indicates that people will follow whatever system will provide them with the most goods." What does the pursuit of misinformed-self interest in democratic nations led to as indicated by history? I would say that all one has to do is look at the history of America over the past 100 years or so to answer this question. The government uses self interest to expands its powers. Another point I have tried to make in the past.
"...was to state that the reversal of freedom is nothing new." I was not trying to state that the cause is due to a simplistic, narrow view of people choosing tyranny and freedom. These terms are generalizations. Just as the conflict or movement between capitalism and a command economy is not simply a conflict between good and evil, these terms are an oversimplification.
"I contend that this reversal of freedom is not based on T's dichotomy but simply on the basic premise of man's selfish interests." These two are one and the same.
"This doesn't imply an inevitable march to centralized government; it simply indicates that people will follow whatever system will provide them with the most goods."
My main point was that Democracies tend to march towards a command system, and therefore a march towards democracy does eventually = a march towards tyranny. You are making one of my points above. A person rarely realizes what his choices led to or sees the big picture. They are looking at things through a narrow view of expedient-self interest. If a indolent person doesn't want to work or is unable to work due to a physical defect, then it would appear--I say appear because ultimately it will not work to their or everyone elses benefit--to be in their self interest to vote for a candidate or in general chose a government that will take money from a class of people in the form of taxes and give it to them in the form of aid. This person is following their self interest and at the same time choosing a government that will led them, in a general sense. This person's act is motivated by self interest and at the same time it is leading to a command government. So following what appears--I say appears due to lack of knowledge and understanding--to be in one's self interest can lead, in the end or back to the primary concept, people to choosing tyranny by misguided self interest.
There is a dichotomy within people in that they want freedom but chose by following apparent self interest governments that led to the exact opposite.
I think the security consciousness is on the money. One argument for the integration of Western Europe and the conducive environment for democracy and the market was the massive security guarantee that the United States paid for during the early years of the Cold War. When we subsidized that cost we eliminated the chance for petty differences to arise that would keep countries distrustful of each other. I.E., France for the longest time was deeply suspicious of both the Soviets and Western Germany. They actively strove to keep German demilitarized due to their age fears. It was only when the US made the commitment to stay in Europe did we negate those fears and thus allowed both France and Germany to grow closer.
ReplyDeleteWe're also paying the security cost for Poland and the Baltic right now but a more bellicose Russia is forcing us to prove that we're willing to follow through. Security is as much a "good" that people want as groceries or cars (one of the goods that are more efficiently provided by government). When we don't subsidize this good for the little powers surrounding Russia, someone else is forced to do so. If the people are unwilling to pay whatever costs that are necessary to maintain that security vis e vis Russia, than they will sacrifice their freedoms for a tilt towards Moscow. Ukraine was never subsidized, the possibility of a Ukrainian entry into NATO was never credible and the market incentives for a western tilt never materialized.
Bud-Ds analysis of entrenched fears of the outside world is still within a context of self-interest, it simply represents the level of "demand" for a security good.
I would agree with your point about self interest, but a person following their self interest can inadvertently choose something they did not intend as a result of this choice that was made in the expedient-self interest, a different form of government than they intended or in general different consequences. Government provided health care and handouts or welfare programs can be in the current best self interest of a person or a people, but in the end it leads to a command system or back to the generalization tyranny. In the end they choose to be led. I don't know what Ukraine's choice that was made in the expedient-self interest will led to. Therefore there is a dichotomy in people that they want some type of freedom, there are two basic types of freedoms, but they make choices that led to something else. They don't make choices with the understanding of the long term consequences of those choices. Knowing certain principles can prevent an ignorant choice by people. A government can set up a system that rewards the pursuit of power through the pursuit of self interest of those in the government, it benefits those in power.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is an inevitable march towards centralized government, especially in democratic nations. I base that off of history and human nature. I do believe that people will follow which ever system [Appears] to provide the most goods or appears to be in their immediate-self interest, not necessarily the absolute self interest.
On Bud-D's point, "I think a problem with American policital outlook is that it assumes (generally) that everyone can have the peachy-keen democracy we have if they just get rid of those baddies ruling them and if they want it badly enough."
I would agree with this. Some people are not fit for freedom, nor do they want the responsibility that comes with it. Some people just want to be led and provided for while at the same time having some form of freedom. This is the dichotomy in people I am referring to. The problems lies within the people themselves even though they are following their self interest. The main question is what is people's self interest? That question must be answered in order to know what following one's self interest can led to. Even though self interest is what drives people's choices, simply viewing actions through a pursuit of self interest doesn't provide the whole picture nor does it address what the choices that are made will eventually led to. Self interest can = to be led or to provide for oneself.
I agree...
ReplyDeleteWhat did you guys think about the Super Bowl?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe couldn't host a party so no one gave two shits; we watched "Cloverfield" instead.
ReplyDeleteJeff, I disagree with your statement "Some people just want to be led and provided for while at the same time having some form of freedom. This is the dichotomy in people I am referring to. The problems lies within the people themselves even though they are following their self interest. The main question is what is people's self interest?"
ReplyDeleteOr at least I disagree with what I think you're saying. It's not that people in Russia are inherently unfit for American Democracy, it's that Russia is now and always has been surrounded by enemies that would just as soon masssacre them as look at them. Their cultural requirement is for security is much higher than ours and with good historical reasons. They can't risk playing fast and loose like we can.
There are only two countries in the world (both of whom I admire) that manage a legitimate democracy in the face of high existential threat, and I've mentioned them before: the two I's: India & Israel.
ToeJamm, start a Super Bowl thread.
Bud-d. Some people do want to be led. The unfit for freedom statement had to do with the fact that a people that have been led, or they have lived under a totalitarian government are not prepared for freedom. Ex. the American blacks after the Civil War. They were not fit or prepared for freedom.They were crippled by slavery. They should have been educated and prepared for freedom by transitional assistance from private or government organizations.
ReplyDeleteI do see your point about being surround by enemies, and I would have to look things from that perspective. Did an outside threat give rise to communism in Russia? I can see what an outside threat would help preserve the status quo by strengthening the state by strengthening people's support of the state.
I do believe that there is an inherent desire in a good proportion of people to be led or provided for. Powerful state governments are the rule to world history, not freedom. I would have to do a post sometime.
Does anyone think that the world has just become too overpopulated and the most over populated countries happen to be shitty ones? That everyone needs help from America and we cant keep carrying the weight of an increasingly populated and poor world. Atlas will shrug.
ReplyDelete