Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (293682)	9/6/2002 12:06:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Muddleheadedness: Re: "First, it is wrong to allow a radical regime to come to power, even if by democratic means, if it is certain to abrogate the constitution and become oppressive." >>> So we are to be the arbiter of what 'just government' is in foreign countries, and overthrow even democratically elected ones if we don't like them (or if we claim to 'forsee' future problems with them)? >>> What's wrong with this picture? Do the words 'hubris' and 'ultimately self-defeating' come to mind? Re: "In the United States, we do not worry about this, and therefore allow electoral participation by all parties. <Editor's note: not always!> In some other countries, there is not enough stability to be sanguine. Thus, Turkey and Algeria were correct to disallow elections that would have put radical Islamicists in power; Germany was correct to ban neo- Nazi parties; the Israeli Supreme Court was right to ban Meir Kahane's party (which advocated the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel); and the CIA was right to help the Christian Democrats wage electoral campaigns against the Communists in post-War Italy. Democracy is not a suicide pact, and depends on all parties being committed to civil liberties, the market place of ideas, the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Thus, I would say that we were correct to support authoritarian governments if the "popular front" opposition was dominated by Communists, and that, even if there were misjudgments, the instability created by the Second World War and the rush, by some European states, to divest themselves of Empire, made murkiness and guess-work inevitable......." >>> Actually, I don't think bans or 'carve-outs' to Free Speech rights are good, or necessary. >>> In the "market place of ideas" you trumpet, stupid ideas will fall by the wayside in open debate, and great harm can be done by attempting to define through punitive legislation what is a 'stupid idea'. >>> Speech is either free, or it is not... and all these carve-outs you support are merely steps down the slippery slope away from free speech, and toward authoritarianism.