🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.152714.29652@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.133703.18030@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>>>Given that the majority of UN member states are dictatorships or one
>>>party states where dissent generally isn't allowed I find this talk of
>>>'democracy' at the UN somewhat laughable.
>
>>Alas, then I guess the US should be allowed to run the show because it
>>has put most of those dictatorship into power in the first place anyway, eh?
>>Interesting concept of democracy you have there....
>
>Note the classic liberal defense: when painted into a corner, change the
>subject and blame the US.
>
>I think you would have a hard time proving that the US put 51% of the
>world dictators into power but let's stick to the point. What's the
>point behind democracy in a body where most members have nothing but
>contempt for it?

Liberal eh? Boy, what a wild accusation. 
Is that like a red under the bed down there?  

But it is you who is evading the issue. I oppose dictatorship and
the manipulation of the UN by the US. You claim to oppose dictatorships
but support the manipulation of the UN by the US, claiming it is okay
because of the dictatorships. But the manipulation is precisely a form of
dictatorship. So who is being inconsistent here?

How can the US possibly legitimate its manipulation, invasions and
interference in the affairs of other states by claiming these states
are "dictatorships", if the US places dictators into power faster than
it removes them, and if the methods its uses are undemocratic?

But if a body is full of elected autocrats and yet the methods 
they use while in power are undemocratic,
then you can still claim the autocrats are behaving undemocratically
(as in Iran, for instance, where individual rights are demolished by
majority rule.)  This does not mean one can invade Iran because of the
lack of human rights.
Another good example would be Algeria, where a majority voted for a
government that some feared would impose authoritarian "Islamic" rule.
It was wrong to deny the result of the vote, just as it would be wrong
to not oppose the abolition of individual rights if that government had
been allowed to come to power.


Frank.