Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 3:40pm:


Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 4:43pm:


This reminds me of Abu explaining that Islam is entirely compatible with democracy, but just has a slightly different take on it - only Muslims can vote, only Muslims can run for office, and Shariah law is the only platform you can run on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

The politics of Iran take place in a framework of a theocracy in a format of syncretic politics that is guided by Islamic ideology.

In addition, there are representatives elected from appointed organizations (usually under the Supreme Leader's control) to "protect the state's Islamic character".[1]

The Guardian Council is an appointed and constitutionally mandated 12-member council with considerable power. It approves or vetoes legislative bills from the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Iranian Parliament), and approves or forbids candidates seeking office to the Assembly of Experts, the Presidency and the parliament,[26] Six of the twelve members are Islamic faqihs (expert in Islamic Law) selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and the other six are jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial system (who is also appointed by the Supreme Leader),[27], and approved by the Iranian Parliament.[28]

According to the constitution, the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The Guardian Council has 12 members, six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists, elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial System, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, the Guardian Council approves the Assembly of Experts candidates, who in turn supervise and elect the Supreme Leader.
The reformists say this system creates a closed circle of power.[86] Iranian reformists, such as Mohammad-Ali Abtahi have considered this to be the core legal obstacle for the reform movement in Iran.

How exactly is that 'no more modified' version of democracy than in the US? Does the US president appoint a council to appoint candidates for president?

Iranian democra...   

Gordon wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:05pm:


You know, that's an interesting comment, Gordon.  Unusually so for you.   You realise that 20 years ago, people like you and Soren, and FD and Herbie and everybody else was saying exactly the reverse?   "Better the Sunnis than those nutjob Sh'ia!"   

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:


Of course they did, Hammer.  You're forgetting, the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1978.   

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:


Do you?

Gordon wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:05pm:


You can say what you like about the Shah, but Persians had a lot more freedom under his regime than the do under the witch-doctors of Islam. Oh, and notice who is defending them again? Our resident closet Muzlims.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 11:33am:


Do you want to have a stab at Iraq being the next South Korea?

A tricky claim to defend, I know.

You could always ask Brian more questions, I guess.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 11:33am:


Democracy depends upon the citizenry voting.  This occurs in both the US and Iran.   Both use a modified outcome to determine who won the election.   Therefore, both use modified democracy, FD.   

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:


Can you explain the highlighted bit?

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:


That is obvious from what I have already typed, FD.  If you need it spelt out, I'd recommend you look up on Google the US's "Electoral College" votes versus the "popular vote".   It will help you to understand the point I am making.   

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:


FD, could you please explain the democratic elements of Roman government under the Caesars? Include in your account their systems of popular representation. Finally, compare and contrast them with the tribal councils of the early  caliphates.

When you're done doing that, we'll revisit your graph, okay? I'm even happy to give your inbreeding map another peek.

If you answer, we could carry this conversation on for another few years. And we all know how much you want that, ya?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:


See I'd have never picked the Sunnis over the Persians.

Just a casual glance at hard-line sunnis shows a grim spartian culture of total submission to Islam nearly devoid of art and music and colour.

Persians have a very fine culture of art and music which predates Islam and it's continued to seep thru and ads colour to their lives, and despite the hardline Shia whackjob tendencies, I think it's that which will open the window to an overall more enlightened culture, free of Islam.

The only reason one would have backed the Sunnis over the Shia was for geopolitical reasons.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:


Brian this is no less idiotic than comparing our democracy with Iran because we have representatives rather than direct democracy. It is still a far cry from the circular appointment process used in Iran.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:


So, the circular appointment process of the "primaries" doesn't count to you, FD?  The use of an "electoral college" versus the "popular vote"?   I never claimed they were identical BTW, just "similar".   

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11^th, 2017 at 5:02pm:


How is it circular Brian?

Gordon wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:


Good call, Gordon. I agree with you. The Persians are very enlightened. This is due to the fact that they are not, historically, tribal in nature unlike the Arabs. The Persians have had a long history of a centralized imperial administration, which has affected how Islam is practised in Iran. The idea of a unified Iranian state has existed since the Medes.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:


Any comment on the South Korean situation?

Why won't you say?

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:


What 'South Korean' situation?

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 11:51am:


Well, I hate to break it to FD but it's slightly more complicated than that. The development of prosperous societies takes hundreds of years; it was folly to believe that we could bring democracy to a nation that wasn't ready for it, and nothing to do with the religion, btw. Look at South American nations, they've also had difficulty in becoming 'prosperous'.

It took the West hundreds of years, and millions of dead people to get to where we are today. The Middle East will have to go through a similar process. Unfortunately, globalization means that this affects us if only minimally.

Ultimately, it comes down one thing, and one thing only: institutions. There's a great book called Why nations fail?. FD should read it. If you read this and read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' you'll have a much better idea as to why societies develop unevenly.

Good thing about institutions, though: they can change.

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 12:46pm:


FD's argument is that Islam is the dominant factor in preventing prosperity world-wide. He believes the developing world was on a straight pathway to freedom and democracy before the Muselman stepped in on Sept 11.

Mind you, FD sees such destruction as the Muselman's job. Since Muhammed started preaching, Islam has been the enemy of the West, conniving and plotting and destroying everything in its path.

You're right. FD forgets those moments of history where the West destroyed itself - you know, most of its history. He overlooks details like whether empires were democracies or tyrannies. He gets confused over details like whether the West was hopping around the world, nobly liberating the colonies it conquered, or in actual fact, enslaving entire populations in order to tame its conquered lands and produce enough surplus crops to dominate global trade.

You could be forgiven, I suppose, for thinking that FD has the cart before the horse. He has a neat theory about the history of civilisation, he just ignores all the details that contradict it. He'll never own up to it either. If you ask him about it, he'll ignore you. FD avoids all questions.

Ultimately, FD's theories are a self-serving, Eurocentric justification for Western supremacy. His aim is to show that the white man is always right, and we should be careful about letting in those who aren't as white as us. FD's aim is to ban them and, if they won't go quietly, kill them.

It is a jolly world, no?

Quote:


Why does it take centuries?

How long did it take South Korea?

Why are the US and Canada in a much better position than South America, despite being settled by Europeans far more recently?

Quote:


I have read both, and several other more interesting ones. There are reviews on this forum somewhere. What institutions does Diamond refer to in Guns, Germs and Steel? Perhaps you should try coming up with a coherent argument before giving others homework to do.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:


An interesting claim, FD.  Where did you pull that from, out of a matter of interest?

However, it is immaterial.  The Government is chosen on the basis of the number of seats that the party that commands the majority of, in the House.  The Party with the greatest number wins government.   Simples, really.   

Auggie wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:


Did it take centuries in South Korea?

Quote:

What institutions? If your argument is so coherent, why are you afraid to say?

FD, why are you afraid to say?

Oh. You've gone.

You put a lot of faith in institutions, Augie. I put more in investment.

Countries like South Korea, Singapore and (once) Hong Kong focused heavily on this from their inception. Sure, they had "institution" to facilitate investment. Singapore passed laws at one point banning long hair for men. But this investment brought their populations into a lifestyle that reinforced those institutions.

In Korea, the money came from Japan. In Singapore and Hong Kong it came from Chinese émigrés. Lberal tax laws had a huge influence.

Institutions are the key, Karnal. They are what make people follow road rules, and how we’re able to enforce our consumer rights via an ombudsman.

Institutions mean we don’t have to act like animals and club each other whenever there’s s dispute.

Auggie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 2:41pm:


Police make people follow road rules, Augie. No one wants to follow rules. Most are enforced.

Name me a US Presidential campaigner who hasn't slavishly grovelled to the Christian lobby, or crawled on his hands and knees over to AIPAC?

It's easy to look at them and laugh. But lets not kid ourselves what the West is like.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:


Really? I think that most people are willing to follow road rules because we have that civil sense.

This sense is brought on by the fact that we expect consistency. We have been shaped by strong institutions.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

When are you moving over there babe? Cheat on your husband and they'll wack your big fat Pakistani ass with a 4 foot long cane at 20 paces. 

Auggie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 11:59pm:


Again, I'd say it's about investment. This requires a rule of law. It requires insurance, which uses the civil courts to delegate liability. Its a long-term plan - Bangkok's overpasses are toll roads with 30 year contracts. Change is slow, but it's driven by investment, which generates risk management and civil liability. These things also turn a profit, such as the revenue from fines.

This is not an orderly march to progress. Some economies thrive on chaos - India, Nigeria, The Philippines - but they have surplus populations. Some Indian states are slowly reforming their civil laws, but it's a mess. And look at what the Filipino president can get away with in a country with very high economic growth and a lot of foreign investment.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 7:52am:


Did the indigenous peoples of the American continent practise the presidential system of government, with a President, Congress and independent judiciary?

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:


What's he on about?

Is this what it's like when he gives an answer?

Auggie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:


The most corrupt and oppressive regimes prior to European settlement are the seat of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes today. At the time they were the wealthiest. Now they are the poorest. The most liberal societies prior to European colonisation are to today the wealthy, liberal democracies.

Do you have a point Karnal?

Social and political institutions are extremely resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations. The Americas today vs prior to European colonisation are a good example of this, but you can see the same patterns in Africa and elsewhere.

Quote:


The point is that the inclusive institutions transplanted by the British to America were 'inclusive' institutions. In countries like Spain that had a strong monarchy but weak parliament, the Crown handed out patents to people who were 'in favour' with the Crown. The institution of parliamentary democracy in Britain helped to establish and solidify 'the rule of law', which means that patents were offered to ALL people, not just those who were close with the Crown.

This gave the middle class in Britain an incentive to innovate and create. By having a fair patent system, it ensured that any person who had a good idea could get a patent. Basically, if you encouraged the protection of intellectual property among the greatest number of people, then you're more likely to get more innovation, aren't you?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:


The Americas is not a comparable example, FD. The indigenous peoples of the American continent weren't a complex civilization, and hence their social institutions cannot be compared with other European institutions at the time.

It would be fairer to compare Spanish institutions with British institutions, but not indigenous American institutions with either Spanish or British institutions.

Auggie wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:


Are you referring exclusive to Northern, Central or Southern America?   In Northern America, I'd tend to agree with you.  Basically the Native Americans were simple hunter-gather-farmer communities.   They had simple tribal structures.   In Central America, you had first the Mayans and then the Aztecs.  They were more complex, stationary, farming communities ruled by fairly complex tribal monarchies.   They had institutions but they mainly revolved primarily around the religious and war making attributes of the cultures concerned.   In Southern America you had a situation which was a mix between Northern and Central American systems.  Most of the continent was ruled by simply tribal societies.  High, in the Andes, you had the Inca and before that they were a patchwork of different cultures and peoples that developed from the Andes of Colombia southward down the Andes to northern Argentina and Chile, plus the coastal deserts of Peru and northern Chile. Archaeologists believe that Andean civilizations first developed on the narrow coastal plain of the Pacific Ocean. The Norte Chico civilization of Peru is the oldest known dating back to 3200 BCE.   Those civilisations had institutions, some quite complex which centred again around the war making and religions of their civilisations.  The last Inca stronghold fell in 1572.

Quote:


Depends upon when, you're talking about.  Britain and Spain had similar monarchies until the advent of the Tudors in the UK.  After that, you have a massive debate about the rights of kings and the institution of republican rule, under Oliver Cromwell, until his death and the restoration of Charles II.   In Spain, the monarchy ruled with an iron hand, fueled by the riches of the New World, which allowed it to alleviate the taxes on the peasants.   It really isn't until 1836 when you get institutionalised electoral reform in the UK that super changes start to occur.  Before that, it was still the world of patronage and privilege.

Auggie wrote on Dec 19^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:


That is not what Acemoglu says. He goes to great lengths to say that the institutions were already there. His central thesis is that these institutions are resilient, naturally polarising, and the dominant cause of wealth disparity between modern nations.

Quote:


Again, they were already either there, or largely imposed on them by circumstance. You should read that book again.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 11:51am:


If the message you got was that the Spanish brought these institutions to the Americas then you are completely missing the point of the book, if you read it at all. You say I am wrong but ignore what I actually say.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:


Ah.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:


I haven't read the book, Augie, but I don't buy it. I have two words for you:

Capital and labour.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:


Both your arguments are interesting.  Have either of you looked at the establishment of democratic Indonesia in 1998-99?   In that case, capital, labour and institutions acted each in their own way to ensure the ousting of Suharto.    He had created the institutions which caused him to be overthrown legally.  He had done so 'cause he need help to rule Indonesia.   The capital and labour turned against him, because they were tired of his crony capitalism and his exploitation of the masses.   With all support withdrawn, there was no where else for him to go but out the door.  However, without the Institutions, with the support of either Capital or Labour, he would have died in office (in all likelihood).

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:


Indonesia initially had a parliamentary system of government, which was a condition of the Dutch when they left. Then Sukarno repealed it by decree. This was a huge mistake. They should've kept the parliamentary system of government the Dutch left them. Indonesia might've turned out differently if they had retained it.

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 3:52pm:


A little bit pointless, really.  Afterall, Sukarno got rid of the Parliament and changed a federal system to a centralised system.   What might have been, can lead to endless and often pointless arguments.   What happened was that Sukarno and then Suharto set up all the democratic institutions (for show and intending to ignore them) but then found that they turned against him, using the Constitution and legal system he had created to overturn his government.   However, it was the loss of support from Capital and Labour which finally did him in.    So perhaps all three are needed for a democratic system to function, working in tune but neither becoming superpowerful?

Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 11:51am:


Auggie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:


Are you saying I am wrong or that I am obfuscating? I am telling you that the book says the exact opposite of what you claim it does, and you cannot figure out whether I am wrong or changing the subject.

freediver wrote on Dec 20^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 7:29pm:


When I asked FD to explain how Afghanistan was a functioning democracy, he wanted to show me the list of candidates in the election.

And what a jolly laugh seeing FD mock Iranian democracy - the last time we discussed Iranian democracy, FD was falling over himself to spinelessly apologise for the UK/US overthrow of Iran's last democracy in 1953. His defense went something like "the Iranian had the hide to want to stop the British from taking their their oil profits and give it back to the Iranian people, so..."

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:46am:


That's right. FD blamed the Iranian government for wanting to renegotiate their oil contract. He ended up repetitively asking, is it a Muslim thing to breach contracts? He raised Muhammed's war treaties as a causal factor. Why shouldn't Uncle overthrow a government like that?