[mikeh]

barmar, on 2014-December-21, 01:45, said:

Is America going to be nominated for sainthood? No. But we have ideals of democracy and human rights, and these are codified in our Constitution. We don't always live up to them, but they're goals we strive to. There are certainly better places to live -- we have a significant problem with violent crime and race relations.

But among the super-powers (US, Russia, and China), who would you want to use as the standard-bearer?

None

Give me Denmark first. Not that any nation is perfect but at least some of the Europeans have found a way to have democracies and real human rights. IMO the US obsession with its constitution is actually an obstacle to treating people fairly. Everyone in the US is so focused on defining and defending their 'rights' that they cannot adopt laws suitable for the 21st century. It is the constitution that prevents a rational gun policy, as maybe the prime example. It also plays into the American myth of the self-made man, with the result that it is almost impossible to have the state provide basic items such as water, power, health care.

The US is wonderful place to live if you have moderate wealth or more. It falls far down every measure of quality of life for those who don't, when compared to many other 1st world countries.

So, while I know that few Americans want to hear this, your 'Ideals', as represented by your constitution do not represent standards to which all others aspire.

[PhilKing]

barmar, on 2014-December-21, 01:45, said:

But among the super-powers (US, Russia, and China), who would you want to use as the standard-bearer?

Yeah, the US are preferable to the other super-powers, but don't do yourself down, the US is also preferable to some totalitarian regimes outside of the premier league.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2014-December-21, 10:58, said:

So, while I know that few Americans want to hear this, your 'Ideals', as represented by your constitution do not represent standards to which all others aspire.

To each his own. I'm sure there's things in the Canadian constitution about which one could say the same.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-21, 13:46, said:

To each his own. I'm sure there's things in the Canadian constitution about which one could say the same.

One of many differences is that we don't go around invading other countries while lecturing the world on the value of our 'freedoms' and the unique quality of our values

Actually, the differences are more fundamental. We don't regard collective responsibilities as innately unfair. We tend to recognize that we are a society, and that all members of that society owe obligations to the whole as well as having individual rights. Canada isn't perfect. First Nations people often live in terrible conditions, and that is probably our biggest collective failure.

[mike777]

Thus the debate having economic and political power put in the few same hands

It always comes down to this.

[Trinidad]

One problem in American culture is the "golden rule": If we want democracy and economic liberty, then that is what everybody wants and we should strive to get it to them. That reasoning is like "I really like my iPhone. I will hand out iPhones to the poor and explain them how to use one." What they really want is food and they don't have the means to maintain the iPhone.

So, look where the idea that the whole world wants democracy and freedom (because we think they are great, and they are) got us: When the Gaza strip got its democracy, the people voted for Hamas. Why? Because in the horrible times Gaza had had, Hamas had taken care of the people. (And not because the people wanted to elect a bunch of terrorists.) Now, we (the West) are unhappy and have considered options to give the people what they really want (=what we want).

Years after Gaza, a series of countries followed (Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Syria and Iraq) in the Arab Spring with various levels of involvement from the West. With the exception of the relative success in Tunesia, where the West did very little, all these countries are now a bigger mess than they were before.

The reason: We think that they have the same goals and desires in life as we have. Well, they don't. Freedom and democracy are not on the top of the Christmas lists of the people in those countries. What they want is safety, stability, and improvements in their standard of living.

The golden rule is just a shortcut: If you don't know what somebody else would think is nice or pleasant, then think what you would like yourself. That is very good to teach to kids and to use as a first approximation when you don't have anything else to guide you. But it is not good enough for a foreign policy. If you want to be seen as the good guy in the world (like Hamas is seen by the inhabitants of Gaza), provide them with the things that they want and need: Safety, stability and prosperity. Freedom and democracy are luxury items compared to basic needs.

Rik

[helene_t]

Maybe off-sopic, but there is something I don't understand about Guatanamo. There are about 100 people there who have been "cleared" but cannot be send home because their home country is unsafe. Uruguay has taken a few of them. Does nobody in the USA feel an obligation to let them live a normal life in the USA, at least temporarily until they can be sent home?

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-22, 07:04, said:

One problem in American culture is the "golden rule": If we want democracy and economic liberty, then that is what everybody wants and we should strive to get it to them. That reasoning is like "I really like my iPhone. I will hand out iPhones to the poor and explain them how to use one." What they really want is food and they don't have the means to maintain the iPhone.

So, look where the idea that the whole world wants democracy and freedom (because we think they are great, and they are) got us: When the Gaza strip got its democracy, the people voted for Hamas. Why? Because in the horrible times Gaza had had, Hamas had taken care of the people. (And not because the people wanted to elect a bunch of terrorists.) Now, we (the West) are unhappy and have considered options to give the people what they really want (=what we want).

Years after Gaza, a series of countries followed (Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Syria and Iraq) in the Arab Spring with various levels of involvement from the West. With the exception of the relative success in Tunesia, where the West did very little, all these countries are now a bigger mess than they were before.

The reason: We think that they have the same goals and desires in life as we have. Well, they don't. Freedom and democracy are not on the top of the Christmas lists of the people in those countries. What they want is safety, stability, and improvements in their standard of living.

The golden rule is just a shortcut: If you don't know what somebody else would think is nice or pleasant, then think what you would like yourself. That is very good to teach to kids and to use as a first approximation when you don't have anything else to guide you. But it is not good enough for a foreign policy. If you want to be seen as the good guy in the world (like Hamas is seen by the inhabitants of Gaza), provide them with the things that they want and need: Safety, stability and prosperity. Freedom and democracy are luxury items compared to basic needs.

Rik

This might surprise you but I agree. I have long thought that if we went up to a typical person in Afghanistan and said "We are here to help you become just like us"" the response would be "Thank you but no thank you, please go home". I have often seen well-intentioned people come up with a plan to help others and they forget to ask the intended helpee "Would you like to go that way?".

I grew up in Minnesota where I deeply absorbed the view that the only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating.

[barmar]

One of the arguments for "spreading democracy" is that if these third-world societies had democracy, freedom, and universal education, their basic needs (e.g. food) would come along naturally. Education and access to information is necessary for a society to improve itself. What's holding them back in many cases is totalitarian regimes that deprive the masses of health care, obsolete traditions that deny education to girls (not to mention condoning molestation and mutilation), etc.

Democracy is not just "what we believe is best", there is strong evidence that it's a big part of how America made so much progress in the 200 years since it was founded.

Yes, when given the opportunity for free elections, some of these countries vote back in the old regimes. The conversion to a free society comes with enormous growing pains. On the other hand, "Mussolini made the trains run on time" (not actually true, but widely believed: Snopes.com).

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2014-December-22, 09:27, said:

This might surprise you but I agree.

I am not at all surprised. From your posts, you come across as a wise person with balanced views. Given that my views are always wise and balanced (cough... cough), it is only natural that we agree.

Rik

P.S. I realize that some of my posts might be interpreted as me thinking that Americans are a bunch of bad guys. That is certainly not the case. I think the USA is trying hard to do the right thing. They just fail to realize that what is right for them, might not be right for others. And I think that is easier to observe from outside the USA than from within.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-December-22, 10:37, said:

Democracy is not just "what we believe is best", there is strong evidence that it's a big part of how America made so much progress in the 200 years since it was founded.

That is debatable. If you look at the numbers on people's happiness (which is what we intend to pursue, right?) you cannot claim that the USA is successful, compared to the other developed countries. So, one would conclude that from the developed countries, the American model would be one of the worst. (And when you compare the developed world with the rest of the world, it might be a good idea to remember where a large part of the wealth in the developed world came from: centuries of stealing from the rest of the world.)

I think there is much more reason to believe that social-democracy is best.

If you consider the relation between happiness and wealth, you will see that, initially, happiness increases with wealth. But when people have enough wealth to lead a stable, secure life, modest but without financial worries, the happiness "saturates": more wealth does not lead to a significant increase in happiness. (In fact, one of the best ways wealthy people can improve their happiness is by sharing their wealth!)

This means that a society will be happier overall when there is no poverty. That is not achieved by the traditional American way of Freedom and Democracy. But it is the basic principle behind social-democracies as can be found in Western Europe. There is a reason why MikeH mentioned Denmark (though he could have said Norway, Finland, Belgium, or just about any country there). It is a strong social-democracy. But when you mention the term "social-democracy" in the US, people think it's a euphemism for communism.

Now, I don't think that e.g. Iraq under Saddam or Lybia under Khadaffi were close to social-democracies. But, certainly compared to the current situation, there was relative safety and security and the wealth was somewhat spread. In addition, there was a decent education system, which I agree is very important. The West tried to bring Freedom and Democracy and now these countries are in complete chaos.

So when we decide to interfere, we need to help countries that are doing bad, not countries that are "not as good as we would want them to be". And the most important factors that we should bring are safety, security and basic social standards in terms of food, health and education. Only once they are put in place we could think about Freedom and Democracy, if that is what the local population wants.

But exporting Freedom and Democracy with the idea that they will bring safety, security, basic social standards and wealth is a really bad idea. It is based on the flawed assumption that they were responsible for the prosperity of the developed world. But colonialism was responsible for that. I do not have any reason for a moral apology for colonialism: I oppose it and I didn't do it, my ancestors did, not me. But helping the less developed parts of the world, starting by listening to what they want and need, and sharing the wealth that I have because of the misbehavior of my ancestors is certainly warranted. And Freedom and Democracy are not on top of their wish lists, no matter how much people in the West think it should be.

Rik

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2014-December-21, 15:08, said:

Actually, the differences are more fundamental. We don't regard collective responsibilities as innately unfair. We tend to recognize that we are a society, and that all members of that society owe obligations to the whole as well as having individual rights. Canada isn't perfect. First Nations people often live in terrible conditions, and that is probably our biggest collective failure.

Here's something that most Western Europeans and a lot of Americans and Canadians out East don't really understand:

I live not very far(*) from many people who live 5km from their nearest neighbor, 25km from the nearest store, 60km from the nearest police station or doctor, and 100km from the nearest hospital. Keep in mind all these distances are over gravel roads where 60kmh is pretty much the top speed. When you and many people you know live so far from other people, your view of what your collective responsibilities are and your view of what responsibilities should or even can be made collective changes. Nationalized health care doesn't do much for you or anyone you know when the nearest doctor is 60km away. You can't rely on the police to protect you from crime when it takes them more than an hour to get to you.

You can rely on your neighbors, but this comes down to personal relationships, not transactions with a bureaucracy behaving according to rules and laws.

(*) You might dispute this considering I live within 1 km of multiple supermarkets, a police station, and a hospital. Notions of 'near' and 'far' are a little different in places like this.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-22, 13:09, said:

I think there is much more reason to believe that social-democracy is best.

Social democracy is, at heart, socialism. I'm not sure what social-democracy is. But no form of socialism is best, IMO.

If I were making US Foreign Policy, the first rule would be "mind our own business".

[Trinidad]

@Akwoo

Sounds like Kansas to me...

But these people depend on other people to buy their products and to supply them with goods and infrastructure they need. In other words: a society.

Without society, farmers in Kansas would have much more corn than they could ever need and little else.

Rik

[PassedOut]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-22, 13:09, said:

I think there is much more reason to believe that social-democracy is best.

If you consider the relation between happiness and wealth, you will see that, initially, happiness increases with wealth. But when people have enough wealth to lead a stable, secure life, modest but without financial worries, the happiness "saturates": more wealth does not lead to a significant increase in happiness. (In fact, one of the best ways wealthy people can improve their happiness is by sharing their wealth!)

This means that a society will be happier overall when there is no poverty. That is not achieved by the traditional American way of Freedom and Democracy. But it is the basic principle behind social-democracies as can be found in Western Europe. There is a reason why MikeH mentioned Denmark (though he could have said Norway, Finland, Belgium, or just about any country there). It is a strong social-democracy. But when you mention the term "social-democracy" in the US, people think it's a euphemism for communism.

Rik gave some reasons why he considers social-democracy to be best.

blackshoe, on 2014-December-22, 13:47, said:

Social democracy is, at heart, socialism. I'm not sure what social-democracy is. But no form of socialism is best, IMO.

Your opinion is not a surprise, but it would be more understandable if you gave your reasons. Do you think Rik is wrong about the relative happiness of the people, or do you consider some other criterion to be more important for making such a judgment. If you do, how about explaining what that criterion is?

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-22, 13:09, said:

But when you mention the term "social-democracy" in the US, people think it's a euphemism for communism.

blackshoe, on 2014-December-22, 13:47, said:

Social democracy is, at heart, socialism. I'm not sure what social-democracy is. But no form of socialism is best, IMO.

Q.E.D.

If you're not sure what a social-democracy is, then it seems premature to label it socialism. (See: Nordic model.)

Quote

The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state.

Simply put: It is a capitalist, free market system with a tight safety net to prevent poverty, sickness and insecurity (the major contributors to unhappiness).

Many Non-Nordic countries in Western-Europe essentially follow the Nordic model, in a slightly moderated form. IMO this is the reason why the Nordic countries are doing even better in terms of Health, Security, Happiness, and Education (across the entire population, from "poor"-est to wealthiest) than those other European countries. OTOH I realize that a country such as The Netherlands (where I currently live) is mentally not ready for the all out Nordic Model, but 90% of it is more than good enough.

Rik

[barmar]

In my mind, the ideals of the social-democracies that you list are very similar to those of the US. We may not call ourselves by that label, and we have a political party whose platform includes reduced social programs, but welfare programs are still an enormous part of government policies. The main thing we're missing is socialized medicine.

But in terms of the ideals that we try to export to other countries, I think those differences between us and other western democracies are just minor details. Critical things are democracy, freedom of speech and press, rule of law, universal access to education, civil rights, free markets, and perhaps separation of church and state.

Will this make people happier? Probably not in the short term. Like I said, the transition is hard. When the Soviet Union broke up and the former members switched to capitalism it was a good thing, but the initial economy was in really bad shape.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2014-December-22, 10:37, said:

One of the arguments for "spreading democracy" is that if these third-world societies had democracy, freedom, and universal education, their basic needs (e.g. food) would come along naturally. Education and access to information is necessary for a society to improve itself. What's holding them back in many cases is totalitarian regimes that deprive the masses of health care, obsolete traditions that deny education to girls (not to mention condoning molestation and mutilation), etc.

Democracy is not just "what we believe is best", there is strong evidence that it's a big part of how America made so much progress in the 200 years since it was founded.

Yes, when given the opportunity for free elections, some of these countries vote back in the old regimes. The conversion to a free society comes with enormous growing pains. On the other hand, "Mussolini made the trains run on time" (not actually true, but widely believed: Snopes.com).

"Universal education" implies a state-run education system, i.e., public education, i.e., socialized education.

[blackshoe]

What I said was that I am familiar, to some extent at least, with social democracy (two words). Rik put a hyphen between the words, so I don't know if the two terms are synonymous.

Why does "universal education" imply a state run education system?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-22, 18:19, said:

What I said was that I am familiar, to some extent at least, with social democracy (two words). Rik put a hyphen between the words, so I don't know if the two terms are synonymous.

Why does "universal education" imply a state run education system?

How else do the poor get educated? When an action is determined to be in a country's best interest (universal education, say), then the most effective way to attain that goal is behind the power of the federal government to enforce its laws.

Do you have a different method that is equally effective?