If we define freedom as the condition of acting without compulsion, wouldn't the only way to spread it be convincing people?
and if we define democracy as a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections wouldn't them have to vote for our army to go and invade their coutry or wouldn't them have to grab the power of their country for themself?
2006-07-14 13:02:00 · 6 answers · asked by Jose R 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
timm1776- I hope you realize that you are contradicting yourself or maybe not contradicting but saying that the end justify the means. As long the end result is freedom and democracy we can spread it in anyway.
2006-07-14 14:08:49 · update #1
You can never "Export" democracy! It has to come from the people otherwise it defeats the very purpose of it!
2006-07-14 13:12:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I assume you are talking about military intervention to spread freedom and democracy. I do not believe these are contradictions.
If you are talking about "spreading" freedom, you must assume that the place freedom is being spread to does not already have freedom. If that is the case, something is using compulsion to deny freedom to the people in that area. In this situation, military intervention is not the source compulsion, the pre-existing oppressive regime is. Military intervention removes the compulsion, it does not create it. After the military intervention, the people are not necessarily acting under compulsion.
Example: When the Western Allies invaded and advanced through France in 1944, they were spreading freedom. Persuasion was not the only way to spread freedom in that situation; in fact, it was almost sure to fail.
You face the same error when talking about spreading democracy. Again, if we are "spreading" democracy, we must be talking about brining it to someplace where it does not already exist. If democracy doesn't exist, there is no way for the people to vote it in through periodic free elections. They COULD grab power themselves, but this would be very difficult, and would not be necessary.
As an additional example, the United States occupied Japan after WWII and basically forced a democratic constitution on the country. Now, by almost all measures, Japan is considered a free democratic state. To the best of my knowlege, there is no significant criticism of Japanese democracy based on how it originated.
2006-07-14 13:31:21 · answer #2 · answered by timm1776 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before you can spread freedom, you must first have it at home.
We can't lead the world as an example of "Democracy" if there is so much evidence that our own elections may have been fixed, and if there is no way to check that,or insure that they weren't, or anyway to stop it from happening again.
But assuming we fix things here, people start to trust the government, and officials start acting in the intrest of the common good,....Only then could we realy help others, and we should start with the ones that ask for help.
2006-07-14 13:15:36 · answer #3 · answered by Timothy H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't. Spread government means some country has to surrender their way of life, and no country wants to be under control of another country.
2006-07-14 13:05:21 · answer #4 · answered by Taya Wane 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it just means you have freedom to vote for a leader and hope he knows what he is doing
2006-07-14 13:06:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't. It is like religion, someone is going to call you on the contradictions and there are ALWAYS going to be contradictions.
2006-07-14 13:07:54 · answer #6 · answered by Who cares 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋