Spread Democracy/ Sanction Terrorism
Dale Netherton
January 27, 2006
The recent Hamas victory at the polls shows us why spreading Democracy is not the answer to getting a more peaceful world. Just because people vote doesn’t mean that what they will vote for will necessarily be positive. Voting is merely choosing an alternative and if the alternatives are false or evil then the sanction of the vote is merely more encouragement for the leader chanting aggression and war. This should be so obvious without the example of the Hamas victory as those who voted for Sadam , Stalin, etc told the story over the centuries to those who studied and understood. But like the politician that spouts off about the need for price controls ignoring the forty centuries of failure of this ignorance of market manipulation, the pro-democracy fanatic thinks voting by itself will produce good people with good intentions and peaceful ways. This naive notion comes from a position that says people want a free nation with the rights of the individual protected. But people who are taught an believe that they are a part of a tribe or a group or a nation or a belief system have no idea corresponding to individualism. They are only pawns to the leaders of their group. The Nazis were a group, the Communists were a group, Hamas is a group, but Americans are individuals first and foremost and our government has been created to recognize and protect that idea.
Unless the spread of democracy is rejected as insufficient to achieve a rational foreign policy we will end up creating more and more Hamas victories. The Fatahs of the world will seek to create a facade that they are not terrorists and will take our money as we deludeourselves to their true nature. The riots by the Fatah after the Hamas victory shows clearly their dedication to the tenets of democracy. Democracy to them is only good as long as they win elections , stay in power and can delude the United States into sending them money and hamstringing Israel. Even the Democrats realize , so far, that even though they lose elections they cannot get their way by violence. How long that will continue is anybodies guess. But you will notice the hostility and hatred is building.
Voting is good if you can have a rational choice. Voting is bad if the only alternatives are simply steps in the direction of dictatorship, loss of individual liberty and destruction of civilized behavior. But to have rational alternatives you must have rational objectives. If the objective is to fulfill an ancient prophecy or rule the world by force or to create a society where no one can earn without having their earnings confiscated, there can be no rational alternatives except reversal of the irrational objectives. This requires creating a set of rational objectives which is more than just rejection of the irrational ones. You can’t fill a void with something you disapprove of. To be for individual rights is a rational objective because it impacts everyone and serves their self interest. To be for the “rights “ of the fanatics is to subjugate the rights of the individual to the power of the fanatics. This is in no one’s interest. The suicide of HItler should make that clear.
The cry of democracy is what comes from making a package deal out of a way of life that includes democracy but has more fundamental ingredients that make rational objectives and therefore rational alternatives possible. We do no need to spread democracy . We need to spread rational objectives. We need to identify and reject irrational objectives and contrast them with the rational alternatives that proceed from rational objectives. For instance, a person must be shown that if their rights of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness with the protection of property rights gives them a chance to prosper and earn a living they can support those who advocate protecting their rights and reject those who support redistribution schemes, theocratic dynasties and welfare states. We in the United States have few rational alternatives any more because of the erosion of this understanding. We too have bought into the notion of democracy leading us into the right direction simply by going to the polls. The gradual decline of the United States into a welfare state from a primarily free country is evidence how we are voting away our rights for undeliverable promises by our politicians.
Democracy can only be a good fit if the rights of the individual are clearly delineated and protected. These rights cannot be protected by a dictator or a ruling committee. The governing must be freely chosen by the governed and the governing must realize theirs is a limited function that must not infringe on the rights of the governed. The rational objective must lead to rational alternatives at the ballot box. If this is not the approach democracy will be the pawn of the demagogue and the vote will be a futile gesture. An irrational vote will not elect a champion of liberty and a system that is only counting irrational votes has nothing to offer the individual, a nation or the future.
Unless the spread of democracy is rejected as insufficient to achieve a rational foreign policy we will end up creating more and more Hamas victories. The Fatahs of the world will seek to create a facade that they are not terrorists and will take our money as we deludeourselves to their true nature. The riots by the Fatah after the Hamas victory shows clearly their dedication to the tenets of democracy. Democracy to them is only good as long as they win elections , stay in power and can delude the United States into sending them money and hamstringing Israel. Even the Democrats realize , so far, that even though they lose elections they cannot get their way by violence. How long that will continue is anybodies guess. But you will notice the hostility and hatred is building.
Voting is good if you can have a rational choice. Voting is bad if the only alternatives are simply steps in the direction of dictatorship, loss of individual liberty and destruction of civilized behavior. But to have rational alternatives you must have rational objectives. If the objective is to fulfill an ancient prophecy or rule the world by force or to create a society where no one can earn without having their earnings confiscated, there can be no rational alternatives except reversal of the irrational objectives. This requires creating a set of rational objectives which is more than just rejection of the irrational ones. You can’t fill a void with something you disapprove of. To be for individual rights is a rational objective because it impacts everyone and serves their self interest. To be for the “rights “ of the fanatics is to subjugate the rights of the individual to the power of the fanatics. This is in no one’s interest. The suicide of HItler should make that clear.
The cry of democracy is what comes from making a package deal out of a way of life that includes democracy but has more fundamental ingredients that make rational objectives and therefore rational alternatives possible. We do no need to spread democracy . We need to spread rational objectives. We need to identify and reject irrational objectives and contrast them with the rational alternatives that proceed from rational objectives. For instance, a person must be shown that if their rights of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness with the protection of property rights gives them a chance to prosper and earn a living they can support those who advocate protecting their rights and reject those who support redistribution schemes, theocratic dynasties and welfare states. We in the United States have few rational alternatives any more because of the erosion of this understanding. We too have bought into the notion of democracy leading us into the right direction simply by going to the polls. The gradual decline of the United States into a welfare state from a primarily free country is evidence how we are voting away our rights for undeliverable promises by our politicians.
Democracy can only be a good fit if the rights of the individual are clearly delineated and protected. These rights cannot be protected by a dictator or a ruling committee. The governing must be freely chosen by the governed and the governing must realize theirs is a limited function that must not infringe on the rights of the governed. The rational objective must lead to rational alternatives at the ballot box. If this is not the approach democracy will be the pawn of the demagogue and the vote will be a futile gesture. An irrational vote will not elect a champion of liberty and a system that is only counting irrational votes has nothing to offer the individual, a nation or the future.
Print
Email
