Cool, now that we have got that sorted.. I assume you then have no fundamental problem with liberal democracies defending themselves against invasion from autocratic neighbours, or have I missed a step along the way?
People (whether in a democratic state or not) have the right to resist. (Freedom Fighters!)
There's no reason to provide you with an alternative. I'm just fine with liberal democracies.
Cool, now that we have got that sorted.. I assume you then have no fundamental problem with liberal democracies defending themselves against invasion from autocratic neighbours, or have I missed a step along the way?
All I claimed was that the democratic process might be the best we have for bashing out what values we want to collectively pursue. And absent of any constructive alternative from you I'll stick with that for now.
There's no reason to provide you with an alternative. I'm just fine with liberal democracies.
The "rules-based order" has democracies in it (and some that by now can barely be considered democracies) but that doesn't mean its (collective as by representatives) decision-making or rationales are necessarily democratic (i.e. supported or voted on by the people). Democracies vary quite a bit. Since you felt the need to highlight one issue, here's one esp. reactionary member. I can think of others.
Pretending the "rules-based order" is a monolith of superior values is bunkum.
again, your reading and logic are flawed. You are conflating the democratic process behind support of a rules-based system (be it by stronger or weaker democracies) to imply that this should, by my reasoning, necessarily generate a monolith of superior values.
That is not what I claimed. First democracies are constantly in flux. So monolith is completely the wrong metaphor. Secondly, democracies can demonstrably become totally unhinged, therefore "necessarily better" is also fundamentally flawed. All I claimed was that the democratic process might be the best we have for bashing out what values we want to collectively pursue. And absent of any constructive alternative from you I'll stick with that for now. It certainly doesn't mean that I or any other individual has to agree with the collective.
Likewise, your claim that the "rules" are not necessarily voted on by the people does not imply that the general process is per se undemocratic. Democracies have the wonderful capacity of hearing out even the weirdest claims made by their constituents. So if they are not voted on by the people originally, there is at least redress by democratic process. Not perfect, but hey.
But all of this still leaves the glaring question: What are your values? What on earth are you gunning for?
Evidence please? And if you think that, then what is your alternative?
The "rules-based order" has democracies in it (and some that by now can barely be considered democracies) but that doesn't mean its (collective as by representatives) decision-making or rationales are necessarily democratic (i.e. supported or voted on by the people). Democracies vary quite a bit. Since you felt the need to highlight one issue, here's one esp. reactionary member. I can think of others.
Pretending the "rules-based order" is a monolith of superior values is bunkum.
I readily admit the concepts of right and wrong are determined by the "rules" which are bashed out in discourse and collectively agreed on by democratic process. This alone implies I don't necessarily agree with one or the other specific decision or policy. That is what democracy means.
And tbh I still don't have a clue as to what political foundation you are championing anyway. I was kind of hoping it was some kind of Marxist ideal, but the best I can come up with is some kind of anti-US tribalism.
The rules-based order isn't democratic.
That's likely because you're steeped in pro-US tribalism. Or "cultural hegemony." Let's just slap a label on it and be done with it.
Leaving aside the obvious false dilemma. But with the (rules-based) exception/support of Saudi Arabia/Yemen (among others).
Your logic is flawed. I readily admit the concepts of right and wrong are determined by the "rules" which are bashed out in discourse and collectively agreed on by democratic process. This alone implies I don't necessarily agree with one or the other specific decision or policy. That is what democracy means.
But as a system of government between multiple free agents, democracy and a rules-based system are a damned good idea IMHO. Doesn't mean they are perfect. But it might be the best we have.
If you want to jump outside that system and champion the neo-fascism of the Russian empire or some other kind of autocratic one-party government as being the bee's knees.. be my guest. That doesn't mean that either my position or your position is inconsistent. Just diametrically opposed. And tbh I still don't have a clue as to what political foundation you are championing anyway. I was kind of hoping it was some kind of Marxist ideal, but the best I can come up with is some kind of anti-US tribalism.
so the charge is cultural hegemony? yeah. I'll go with that. If the alternative is fascist anti LBGT genocidal incursions into neighbouring countries, I'll stick with cultural hegemony.
Leaving aside the obvious false dilemma. But with the (rules-based) exception/support of Saudi Arabia/Yemen (among others).
so the charge is cultural hegemony? yeah. I'll go with that. If the alternative is fascist anti LBGT genocidal incursions into neighbouring countries, I'll stick with cultural hegemony.
I readily admit that the west's "rules-based order" has frequently been tweaked to fit various dirty motives, the 2nd Gulf War being the most egregious example. That doesn't mean I agree with such wrongs. Why should I?
