@ traveller
 
Well, I must confess,  I think the wife must have always suspected that your frequent trips to Pakistan simply to add yet another item to your already large cashmere sweater collection was a bit far fetched. You old rascal you. 

I must really point out one tiny detail
my wife doesn't consider decapitation or being blown to smitereens possibilities real cause for concern or divorce. She thinks that, if such was my destiny, I would have disappeared since a long time. No, her concern are some "unfounded" and "misunderstood" stories about my "links" with some members of the opposite sex in Pakistan. That, she feels is much more important. Go figure women.

democracy can only function well if sufficient citizens can be virtuous citizens. The Founding Fathers of the American Republic were very well aware of that, and this idea was frequently expressed in their writings.

Marcfrans: "democracy cannot be divorced from morality"

I think the main problem today in the West is an ideology called leftism. It has become obvious that leftism and democracy don't mesh, just as islam and democracy don't mesh. There isn't really a leftist zeitgeist: most people are not leftists, but the leftists have taken control of our institutions.

Me: "it is usually easier for one powerful man to defend the general interest than it is for a number of organizations who must get together and negociate."

I was making the case for dictatorship. But in fact, I'm in favor of allowing a lot of different political parties into parliaments, especially separatist and anti-immigration parties (like the VB in Belgium), through the use of proportional represention.

"@ Capodistrias

1) You win, I lose. No "tyrant", Magnificent or otherwise, would say that."

@Marcfrans

Nice move. Putin beware.

@ Capodistrias

1) You win, I lose.  No "tyrant", Magnificent or otherwise, would say that.

2) Note that Armor makes some sensible points, besides some silly ones.  The sensible part is - but phrased more accurately - that democracy cannot be divorced from morality, i.e democracy can only function well if sufficient citizens can be virtuous citizens.  The Founding Fathers of the American Republic were very well aware of that, and this idea was frequently expressed in their writings.   So, Armor is saying that people (especially his "representatives" in France) are basically immoral, totally obsessed with short-term self-interest, and that is why in his view the choice comes down to "dictatorship or civil war".  Do you see something missing in that 'analysis'?  He chooses civil war but doesn't ask the question: what comes after the civil war?  It would seem dictatorship.  And that's OK with him, because he thinks (wishes) that the dictator will care about preserving the 'whiteness' of France, and especially Bretagne.  However, he does think that democracy might work in Iceland, because  over there the people are almost all 'white', and by implication thus 'moral' (and capable of maintaining democracy).  It is sad, but true: in his obsession Armor confuses morality/culture with physical appearance, and attributes to me a desire to turn his beloved Bretagne into a "multiracial hellhole".   And the evidence for all this?  There is none. 

3) Of course, morality is of great relevance not only to any society's ability to maintain 'democracy', but also to the 'wellbeing' of Traveller in his travels. But that is a totally different subject.  

I take my hat off to you.

I imagine a Pun-jab postcard to be a card sent by traveller to his wife advising her that he had recently arrived "somewhere" on the Indian Subcontinent, but at the same time offering her a tantalizing clue as to his precise whereabouts. That postcard might end with the words "...Sikh and you shall find".
 
Please, don't encourage me.
 
;-))

Would that be a Punjab Postcard? Postcard version of a dear john letter? She would probably send him Paking.

And, if you do go without first telling the wife, I can just imagine the postcard you'll be sending her from your hotel in downtown Karachi. It  will read;
 
"Darling, please forgive me for... I have Sindh".

I do have the standing invitations and I do want to go back there, but it seems to be a valid ground for divorce in my house.
If I go I'll let you all know.

1. Democracy is not opposite of tyranny, without being mixed with liberalism this is terror of majority. What would you say about state where parliament or people in referendum decide that unborn babies might be murdered? This is liberal democracy or already terror of majority?

@Marcfrans

I grant you that 'you' are making those two assumptions. If your 'We' includes 'me' then 'you' would be wrong.

Your assertion that you have a better opinion of Monarchist than I, surprises me. Don't hug him too closely he would probably die from the shock.

As for logic 102, traditionally one should pass 101 before presuming to teach 102.

You asked me how I could write 'such a thing.'

I told you I could write it because it was true.

You conceded what I wrote was true, but only in an obvious, self-evident, narrowly semantic sense.

Simon says go back to 101.

Wasn't there just an article on TBJ touching on the importance of semantics, labeling?

Where I erred apparently is not recognizing your characterization of the nature of my 'implicit' argument and the truth of the point you wanted to 'emphasize' in response to what you said I was 'implicitly' saying.

Thus my real mistake appears to be not in saying precisely what I meant to say, but NOT saying precisely what you wanted me to say.

Which raises the question if democracies can not be tyrannies, then why can democrats act tyrannically?

Perhaps you should consider teaching a combined course: Tortured Semantics 101 & Tortured Logic 101?

best,
A Really Sensitive Guy ;)

There are 3 things in your debate: monarchy, democracy, tyranny.
Monarchy can go with both democracy and tyranny.
But, can the 2 last ones go together?

In fact, democracy is only an ideal. Is is not the same as institutions made for democracy. As an ideal, democracy is the opposite of tyranny. But institutions made for democracy usually do not work and can lead to tyranny. When Monarchist criticizes democracy, I think what he means is that it is usually easier for one powerful man to defend the general interest than it is for a number of organizations who must get together and negociate. Think of King Solomon and the baby. Democracy is a recipe for corruption, the defense of many private interests, a lack of accountability, and a lot of country-paralyzing quarrelling. In extreme cases, dictatorship becomes the only way to avoid civil war.
I know that my representatives in the European, french, Regional, and Departmental parliaments are paid too much money and don't care about anything. They will rarely say a word against immigration, or against the extermination of the Breton language. Another problem we have is the mass media. Their owners manipulate opinion and will not allow anyone to say that immigrants must be sent home. The results of elections are really decided by the mass media. Once Marcfrans gets his way, and all of Europe becomes a multiracial hell place, any attempt at having "democratic institutions" will become even more hazardous. The choice will really be between dictatorship or civil war. I hope our descendents will choose civil war and finally manage to expel the third-worlders.
On the other hand, I think a country like Iceland can make democracy work.

@ Capodistrias

Me thinks thou 'ared' too sensitive and thou protests too much....

Two assumptions, and 'logic 102':

- We can safely assume that even Monarchist knows that MONARCHY and TYRANNY are two different words and that they are not synonymous, just like he knows that DEMOCRACY and TYRANNY are different words and not strictly-speaking synonymous. 

- We can also assume, but less safely so, that Monarchist knows that DEMOCRACY and EVIL are two different words and not synonymous.  Yet, you mistakenly seem to think that he is "arguing that Democracy and Evil are synonymous".  I have a slightly better opinion of Monarchist.

- The reason for your 'mistake' is that Monarchist is not talking simply about obviously different words, nor about synonyms, but about actual political systems and the way they tend (in his opinion) to function in an actual historical context.  He is offering an opinion, even a (negative) moral judgment on the institution of "democracy", if you will.  Even Monarchist knows that democracies are not tyrannies. That would be a contradiction-in-terms.  But, he judges democracy to be evil.  However, you and I know that historically the institution of Monarchy has functioned often and easily as a tyranny in the concrete circumstances of human societies.

So, yes, you are right that Monarchy and Tyranny are not synonymous.  That is of course merely stating the obvious (like saying that London is not Paris).  But, by stating that "Tyranny and Monarchy ARE not and WERE NEVER synonymous", you were implictly referring to the way these institutions have functioneed in actual human history, and then it should be obvious that numerous "monarchies" were ACTUAL "tyrannies".  Which is of course the point I wanted to emphasize. 

But, if you still want to repeat your narrow semantic point that the word A is not identical (nor synonymous, as the case may be) with the word B, please go ahead.  But that is not what Monarchist 'needs'.  What he needs is (a) a proper understanding of what 'democracy' is, and (b) a realistic (as opposed to a romantic) understanding of actual historical conditions under 'monarchy'.
 
       

One could say that stupid behaviour often leads to evil.

"Democracy itself isn't evil just stupid, what I claim is that democracy leads to evil."

So Monarchy leads to stupid?

Thank you, very interesting link. This is excellent example why the Muslims are in offensive and Europeans not even in defensive, rather disorganized. This guy don't bother with democratism, discipline is visible, commitment to his religion. He simply care, while Europeans consist bunch of lazy degenerates without any ambition or higher values. Continue this and Europe might in fact turn into EUrabia. I have clear consistence...

Marcfrans said:
"@ Capodistrias

"Tyranny and Monarchy are not and were NEVER synonymous".

How can you write such stuff? And, right after I urged to look back at history "discriminatingly"!"

@Marcfrans

I can write it because it is true. You can find many cases of specific monarchies which were tyrannical; you can find many cases where specific monarchies were not, hence the terms,generic concepts of Monarchy and Tyranny are not and were NEVER synonomous. (Logic 101)

Scourging and pilloring every nuance or possible ambiguity which one wishes to insert into the writings of others is the pastime of lawyers and bureaucrats.

I think my statement to Monarchist and the context it was given was clear enough to disambiguate any possible misunderstanding. I am not a fan, or a practitioner of long and lengthy posting, nor do I like to restate things in all the possible ways someone could misunderstand something, simply to expound on all the possible things I didn't want to state.

Clear?

It's highly unlikely that I'll be visiting the Karachi Expo anytime soon, but perhaps you might be able to persuade traveller to assist in that endeavour.

@ Atlanticist

Next time you and Astaghfirulla visit the Karachi Expo, could you try to count the number of Kappertian pacifists that can be found there?  And, please, ask Alhamdullilah if the word "Caliph" is some muslim equivalent of a Western "Monarch". 

P.S. As to the future King Charles of GB...well that is precisely the problem with monarchy: once you got a nutcase monarch, it is virtually impossible to get rid of him 'peacefully'.  And what can you do if he does not respect the division of 'powers'?  Now, as to Presidents, watch next Tuesday on television (if you can bear it), and be glad that it will only be temporary (4 years to be exact).
 

@ Capodistrias

"Tyranny and Monarchy are not and were NEVER synonymous". 

 How can you write such stuff?  And, right after I urged to look back at history "discriminatingly"!

Monarchist said:

"The Bible say nothing about which cars are currently the best. Still most of us have some reasons to chose certain models. Those who have little idea about cars also pick some models. They resemble those who say that democracy is the best political system."

Hmm interesting shift, to indulge you, I guess I would simply say most people also choose cars that have more than one gear. Reverse can be a real pain in the neck.

It's too bad you are so set on arguing that Democracy and Evil are synonomous. I think you undermine the perfectly valid point I think you are intent on making that Tyranny and Monarchy are not and were never synonomous.

@Monarchist
 
Click on the link (below) and scroll down to #10. Do you recognise yourself here? I do.
 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/8541-what-do-you-know-about-last-caliph.html
 

A future Turkish dominated Eurabia is more likely to see its first Caliph than it is to see its next Christian monarch. Trust me on this.

NB. The future King Charles of GB has already signalled his intention to become "defender of faiths", NOT "defender of THE faith".

@ Capodistrias

Perhaps it is time for you to point out what history really "proves". 

There are of course numerous criteria imaginable, that could be used to judge "friendliness" to christianity in the West.  But, by most reasonable measures the US is today the most religious and also most "christian" Western nation. (Following Huntington, I explictly do not consider latin America as part of Western civilisation, although it has/had a strong 'association' with the West over the past 2 centuries or so).  And this applies to the past century, as much as to the present one.  The contrast between the American Republic and the European Monarchies (for example in the Low Countries and Scandinavia), in terms of friendliness towards religion and christianity, could not be greater. Obama will (and he chose to) take his oath next Tuesday on Abraham Lincoln's bible.....  

Of course, some nutcase might point out that Poland was quite 'religious' over the past century.  And a major reason was that Poland was occupied by the godless marxists from Russia (during much of that time) and that the 'church' provided some kind of 'shelter' and nationalistic focus.  However, anybody who thinks that Poland will remain a religiously-inclined country for much longer, now that it is part of the secular EUSSR, obviously can not look ahead well.

People who cannot look back discriminatingly, usually cannot look forward either.    
 

This is not up to me to say who is legitimate to lead Russia. I'm just tired of watching democrats from outside of Russia complain about lack of democracy over there. Should not THEY respect what majority of Russians think?

@Monarchist

So would you argue that since most Russians support Putin he is legitimate?

I still don't understand how you square your obsessive revulsion at democracy as a political system, as you quite correctly point out in another post, Holy Scripture is not in the business of picking winners or losers among poltical systems.

Mostly they were not sure what they really want. For sure they preferred Putinism over democracy. As far as other views on certain issues, they represented whole variety of views. What they have in common is rejection of democracy and support for Putin. I advocate you, go to Russia and check out yourself if you don't believe me.

@ Monarchist
 
Did all those countless disgruntled Russians you discussed these matters with actually equate their rejection of democracy with a desire to return to tsarist absolutism? 

If you would towel saliva from your mouth and concentrate for a moment, I guess it would serve you right.

Do you ever read the bizarre drivel that you write?

Seriously, you have the critical thinking skills of a sovok moron.  How many keyboards have you replaced because of uncontrollable drooling?

Imposing a "democratic regime" on Russia would destroy that state?  Damn right, you fool, Putin's state fascism would end.

BJ is a serious and informative pro-democracy site, it's too bad so many goofballs have made a home here.  It keeps me away.

Russians are aware that there is no alternative to ex-KBG rule. Western agents supported by many delusionists would love to impose democratic regime to destroy this state. So, even if they know that Putin and his palls are far from being perfect, they support him.  Nearly all Russians that I met share this opinion. 

The strange thing is I could totally see him doing Chevron ads... actually, the thought of him doing any sort of ads is quite amusing.

@ Onecent
 
"Hoping" that oil prices will stay depressed is not good enough.  Such a fortuitous outcome would require concrete actions from the US government.  I doubt very much that oil prices would stay depressed  "without any supply shocks" as soon as the current recession in major economies is over and aggregate demand starts picking up in the normal recovery fase.  

When you raise taxes on something you get less of it, and when you lower taxes on something you get more of it.  It would therefore be advisable that the US government starts shifting taxation away from income towards oil consumption.  What is needed is less income taxation, and more expensive oil (via increased consumption taxes on oil), if one wants to weaken "petro thugs" abroad.     

Poor Putin, another petro-thug who may or may not survive the price collapse of gas and oil. The real question is will the Europeans be smart enough to use this interim to get the Russian gas monopoly off of their backs? Another question is will the Russians be smart enough to end Putin's vertical thuggery as all economic gains over the past decade reverse?

Here's hoping oil prices stay depressed for a few years which could happen without any supply shocks which, by the way, is the reason Russia is stoking warfare in the ME in collusion with Iran whose tenacles are into Hamas and Hezbollah. Too bad so many unwitting anti-Israel dolts can't connect those dots.