I’m fairly certainly that soldiers in the US military are not only allowed but REQUIRED to disobey orders that they believe are unlawful.
Firstly, while the term democracy is used to refer to Athens, it clearly was not as democratic as our current situation, where the franchise is far more widely distributed. I’m happy to concede that. My point was simply that you were wrong when you said that Americans in 1789 thought of themselves as living in a democracy.
Second, i think it’s hilarious that you make this point without noting that Mississippi’s denial of the franchise to blacks was an explicit violation of something that had been law for decades. The 14th Amendment defined anyone born in the United States as a citizen, and noted that citizens were to receive equal protection under the laws. The 15th Amendment explicitly stated that the vote could not be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The denial of the vote to blacks in states like Mississippi violated those amendments. Sure, those states sometimes placed a veneer of legalism over this illegality by using literacy or civics tests, but when they gave those tests exclusively, or almost exclusively to black citizens, they violated the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment.
And yet your main concern in such cases appears to be that Martin Luther King was violating the law by engaging in peaceful protest. That’s a mighty convenient set of priorities you have there.
But one of Smapti’s central philosophical positions is a commitment to legalism. That is, for Smapti, if the government or nation has passed a law, then people have an obligation to obey that law.
The laws of ancient Greece explicitly denied women certain rights. We might not admire or like that system very much, but it was a product of its times, and it was a law of the country at the time.
In Mississippi, as i pointed out above, the denial of the franchise to African Americans was an explicit violation of the law, in fact of the Constitution itself. That is, the United States had (for the first time, really) defined national citizenship in the 14th Amendment; it had said that all citizens would benefit from equal protection of the laws; and it had explicitly created racial democracy with the passing of the 15th Amendment. So Mississippi’s denial of the franchise was not only undemocratic by the standards of the time, but it was also done in defiance of the democratic legal principles that Smapti claims to support.
And yet his biggest condemnation in that whole debate is generally reserved for the non-violent protests of the civil rights movement.
I don’t recall endorsing Mississippi’s lawlessness. To the contrary; Eisenhower and others were 100% right in using federal troops to enforce the law in Jim Crow states, and in fact they would have been justified in declaring those state governments to be in rebellion and occupying them until order could be restored.
Mississippi was wrong to unlawfully deny blacks the right to vote. That doesn’t mean that King’s followers weren’t also breaking the law in some of their protests.
One act of lawlessness does not excuse or permit another. You don’t get to break my window because I broke yours first.
It is in the sense that the democratic-republic model in 1960s Mississippi apportioned their representatives based on how many people they represented, which is significantly different from the way Athenian democracy was structured.
Athens claimed it was but I don’t think anyone would seriously claim it was by today’s standards.
Perhaps you and Terr are comfortable with the idea of a definition of a democracy so expansive that it allows the majority of the citizenry to be disenfranchised.
Now, please answer my questions.
Do you think the German Democratic Republic(AKA East Germany) and Apartheid South Africa were democracies?
If not, why not and if so, why despite the overwhelming majority of the citizenry being disenfranchised?
Thanks in advance.
Yes to both.
No military can function successfully when soldiers aren’t able to challenge their superiors and disobey unlawful orders. Blind obedience leads to lost wars.
Max is correct. Smapti’s views on what makes good soldiers have resulted in many, many lost battles and failed military expeditions. Smapti would make an utterly terrible soldier.
Allow me.
Bwahahahaha
It should be noted that Smapti feels any government that claims it acts in the interests of “the people” and is “elected” is a democracy which include such diverse countries as Cuba, Apartheid South Africa, Ba’athist Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ba’athist Iraq, and the Soviet Union.
It should be noted that all those mentioned claimed they were democracies.
In order; yes, yes, no, no, yes, and no.
Then please explain why you consider countries like Saddam’s Iraq, Cuba, and the Soviet Union to be democracies?
Under your definition, any government which labels itself a democracy is one so long as they have “elections” even if only the people who support the regime are allowed to vote.
If I’m wrong, correct me.
That “today’s standards” is moving the goalposts quite a bit, isn’t it? It’s kinda hard for people in 1960s or in ancient Greece to judge themselves by today’s standards.
Your understanding of democracy as well as your understanding of logic makes no sense.
Why is Ba’athist Iraq a democracy but Ba’athist Syria isn’t and why are Cuba and East Germany democracies but the Soviet Union wasn’t?
Please explain your reasoning.
Thanks in advance.
I said I didn’t consider the USSR to be a democracy. The USSR fell victim to the totalitarian paranoia of Stalin early on and ended up a failed state run by committee that was more interested in perpetuating the existence of its own power structure than it was representing or looking out for its people.
Cuba, in contrast, has always been committed to improving the lives of the Cuban people, and Baathist Iraq operated across tribal and religious lines to bring about unity and modernization (in contrast to Baathist Syria, which has always operated solely for the benefit of the Alawites).
As to East Germany, it was the most democratic Communist state to ever exist and one of the most prosperous to boot, and managed to balance raw democracy and the guiding hand of the state in a way that few other states have ever managed.
Except by the standards of the 1960s Mississippi wasn’t as others have mentioned.
It was JFK who said “We can’t claim democracy is the best form of government for all the people of the world except the people of Mississippi”(quoting from memory).
I’m sorry but every educated person reading this is laughing at you. All those countries claimed they were operating for the benefit of their people and all had regular elections.
You don’t have the courage of your convictions.
And some of them were telling the truth, and some weren’t.
No, none were. I’ll concede I found your claims regarding Iraq and Syria especially hilarious. I never thought I’d meet anyone who thinks that Christians in Syria were treated worse than the Shia in Iraq or that Michel Aflaq was an Alawite.
That said, thanks for confirming that you believe totalitarian dictatorships can be democracies so long as the governments claim they serve the people and have regular elections, even if such elections are kangaroo elections.
Beyond that, it’s always good to meet an American conservative who cheered the crushing of the Solidarity movement, the Prague Spring, and Hungarian uprisings.
By his reasoning, South Africa was a democracy in the apartheid years…
Yes, smapti is talking out of his ass again.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm