BBC for one. Not all Egyptians think alike, Ricky. There were protests against the military rule (both periods) as well as protests against the presidency of Mohammed Morsi (probably prompting the military, via Gen. Sisi, to overthrow his government). Believe me Ricky I do read. I cannot give you every article I've ever read on everything but I know what I am talking about. Not saying you do not, but I am saying your interpretation of those facts is flawed. Facts are stubborn things, to be sure. But truth is a little more ephemeral.


Why is it Ricky that anybody here who disagrees with you does so at his own risk? The way you seem to think that

PS if what you said about totalitarian regimes inevitably collapsing is true, explain to me how Hosni Mubarak lasted almost 30 years, whereas other democracies, no matter what goods they've delivered to the people, have failed? Let's get back on topic please and stop resorting to ad hominem attacks like, if you don't believe me then obviously you're believing what you want to believe. Because the latter is a disease with which, at Redscape, any doctor could have a field day diagnosing.

hacker

BBC for one

link?

hacker

. I cannot give you every article I've ever read on everything but I know what I am talking about. Not saying you do not, but I am saying your interpretation of those facts is flawed. Facts are stubborn things, to be sure. But truth is a little more ephemeral.

How about something that supports your claims rather than assuming that because you said it it will be accepted as fact?
I try and give evidence for every claim I make. If you would do the same that would be nice? It would support that what you claim to be fact does have supporting evidence.

Mubarek lasted 30 years, and his military council predecessors before him, because 1) they managed to deliver on the aspirations of a significant portion of the populace. 2) they were able to suppress those they could not satisfy with force. ..

Its the same formula for authoritarian regimes everywhere. At some point, even the most brutal despots will lose control of their states if they are unable to manage the same. And those who remain in power understand this..
In the recent Arab Spring KSA announced spending of $37 billion to housing, wage increases, unemployment benefits and other programs, which was widely seen as an effort to placate middle-class Saudis and head off any Arab Spring-style discontent. They did this despite Freedom House calling them the worst of the worst regimes in subjugating their citizenry. They have the most control over every aspect of their society and their people, but still feel the need to meet thier aspirations. (Unlike many monarchies in Europe - leading to their demise)
Every nations people have a point at which they revolt. Sometimes that revolt leads to another despot, but sometimes it leads to a move towards liberal democracy. In part, if not wholly, formed.
I believe that eventually its the route every nation will take.... because people are essentially the same no matter where they live. Our species is the only humans that survived perhaps because (according to Chris Stringer "Lone Survivors") homo sapiens evolved to balance innate reciprocity and innate competitive behavior in their relationships with one another.
Democracy is the natural expression of this behavior in governance.
Eventually we'll all get there if we don't destroy the earth first.

I'll search for some of the BBC stories Ive read, yes. But it seems that no matter what I present, where it's from, you'll disbelieve it. All I (and others) have been saying is that you are likely looking at your data and stats the wrong way. Which means, essentially, that I'm looking at exactly the same stuff you're looking at. Is it so wrong that I believe you are misinterpreting it? I've not been the only one here to say so!

for now however:

Its the same formula for authoritarian regimes everywhere. At some point, even the most brutal despots will lose control of their states if they are unable to manage the same. And those who remain in power understand this..
In the recent Arab Spring KSA announced spending of $37 billion to housing, wage increases, unemployment benefits and other programs, which was widely seen as an effort to placate middle-class Saudis and head off any Arab Spring-style discontent.

Will they really? [even the most brtual despots lose control of their state] How many dictators have died in their sleep that did not deliver to the people? Are you saying as long as they buy off the People they'll be OK and can do what they want to, otherwise? I am sure there's some evidence that can prove that; but if that is the position you're trying to present, I'd like you to explain to me why a few certain dictators survived in power (or who were overthrown, but provided for their people's standard of living just the same). If you want me to come up with a list of dictators or rulers whose histories punch holes in your theory, let me know.

My belief--yes, based on Facts, Ricky, not my conjecture--is that it has more to do with the realities of power than the standard of living. And if it does have to do with the standard of living, they can be overthrown when the standard increases just as much as when it decreases or remains crappy. Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Mao Tse-Tung, Nasser, any number of Soviet leaders.....I think they can disprove your point. Plus, show me the data on the Magic Kingdom: economic as well as political. I have a feeling you're either missing ignoring something there, too. (your the ones with the link to Freedom House so show me exactly which figures you're using, please.)

Unless I have totally misunderstood you, of course....but it's likely that, if I prove my point or disprove yours, you'll just accuse me of totally misreading you, or some such variation on your usual escape clauses.

First, however:

Our species is the only humans that survived perhaps because (according to Chris Stringer "Lone Survivors") homo sapiens evolved to balance innate reciprocity and innate competitive behavior in their relationships with one another.
Democracy is the natural expression of this behavior in governance.
Eventually we'll all get there if we don't destroy the earth first.

That sounds like a lot of creationist bullshit. And here I thought you were the scientific type.

Hacker

How many dictators have died in their sleep that did not deliver to the people?

Most.After the development of the earliest city states and national states, there were thousands of years until the first modern democracies. (With the Greek democracy and exception).
Monarchies could survive for generations, but history is replete with examples where the monarchies fell because of internal strife.
with the long evolution of democracy in the UK and the the American and French revolutions... the continuous virtuous circles.
The difference between the long period of monarchies and emperors and the modern world is that an option for a change of government is not simply a replacement monarch or emperor but democracy.
That's why since 1898 and the establishment of fully free democracies, especially after WWII, democracy has been on the march. Not only is democracy an alternative but in most nations they recognize that democracies offer a better life for most. (China seems to be an exception as the culture appreciates stability and economic improvement over individual liberties...)
I take it from your rhetoric that you can't grasp the balance between popular support for a government and the ability of an authoritarian to maintain power through force. You mentioned Mao. Look at China today and perhaps read or listen to Frances Fukayama on the subject. There is a very delicate balance in China between economic development benefitting the populace and the restriction of rights. China resembles Maoist China in few ways... And in some ways it has liberalized peoples lives remarkably.

hacker

hat sounds like a lot of creationist bullshit. And here I thought you were the scientific type

I take it from this that you've never heard of Stringer and possess little innate curiosity that would lead you to google who he is...

Here:

Stringer is one of the leading proponents of the recent African origin hypothesis or "Out of Africa" theory, which hypothesizes that modern humans originated in Africa over 100,000 years ago and replaced, in some way, the world's archaic humans, such as Homo floresiensis and Neanderthals, after migrating within and then out of Africa to the non-African world within the last 50,000 to 100,000 years. He always considered that some interbreeding between the different groups could have occurred, but thought this would have been trivial in the big picture. However, recent genetic data show that the replacement process did include some interbreeding. In the last decade he has proposed a more complex version of events within Africa, which he has termed "coalescent African origin".

He has also directed three phases of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project since 2001. This consortium has been reconstructing and studying the episodic pattern of human colonisation of Britain during the Pleistocene.

Ricky, the reason I do not listen to some of the things you say is because of the incredibly condescending way you say it. Such as:

I take it from your rhetoric that you can't grasp the balance between popular support for a government and the ability of an authoritarian to maintain power through force. You mentioned Mao. Look at China today and perhaps read or listen to Frances Fukayama on the subject. There is a very delicate balance in China between economic development benefitting the populace and the restriction of rights. China resembles Maoist China in few ways... And in some ways it has liberalized peoples lives remarkably.

And:

I take it from this that you've never heard of Stringer and possess little innate curiosity that would lead you to google who he is...

If it appears that I don't engage you intellectually the way you'd like is because you do not return the favor. Danivon, Sassenach, Fate, geojanes, all the others (who have probably bailed on this conversation for a reason) are obviously a hell of a lot smarter than me. They clear out of the room when you start talking down to them. As far as I am concerned, if you are incapable of speaking to me like a fellow adult, you've lost the privilege of engaging me on Redscape.

You were right when you called me an idiot but not for the reasons you would probably assume. Apparently, I don't just walk away when someone is talking down to me. I did actually read everything you presented, Ricky. I am capable of reading, and reading comprehension. I do not know where you got the idea I am not; except perhaps that you tend to do that to people less intelligent than yourself (e.g., anybody who disagrees with you). I read everything you presented, Ricky. I just do not agree with your interpretation of it. Apparently, that makes me unable to see the obvious.

And if you were curious enough you'd look up many of the words you repeatedly misspell, or perhaps a guide to grammar. Access to Google...sheesh, do you have access to a poor speller's dictionary? or the thing on Firefox that makes the red squiggly lines under words you have misspelled?

Consider this an embargo of sorts. Talk to me as an equal or do not talk to me at all.

hacker

If it appears that I don't engage you intellectually the way you'd like is because you do not return the favor

Is this an example of intellectual engagement on your part?

hacker

That sounds like a lot of creationist bullshit. And here I thought you were the scientific type

You'll notice, on this board, that there are two kinds of argument. One is the advancement of an idea with supporting evidence. Logical, rationale.
The other is the advancement of an idea based upon emotional reaction.
Most people use a combination of the two, although the US conservative tend to the emotional. As do you.
From the far ends of the spectrum they often collide with little effect.
You seem to want to be in the first category but haven't quite got the hang of supporting argumentation with evidence. I don't mind when people disagree with me. When they do and offer the kind of information that changes my mind I learn.
On the other hand if all you want to do is spout unsupported opinions in knee jerk reaction... or in woefully thoughtless rejoinder like your comment on Stringers theory ... ok.

Ricky the support I was using was YOUR information that you provided me. I read it and I disagree with your interpretation of it.

Said that like six damn times. Any time someone disagrees with your interpretation of the information you present you take it so personally and start talking down to them. Enough.

Ricky:

ray

But to say it is on the road to freedom strikes me as a poor characterization of the reality of life for anyone in Iran who doesn't adhere to the theocracy's view.

Here's what i said.

Despite that, Iran is part way down the road to full liberal democracy, especially compared to its chief rival in the region, KSA,

I never said it was heaven. I said it was further along the path to being a liberal democracy... And i pointed you to an authority (Freedom House) which agrees with me. Giving Iran a rating of 6 and KSa 7. 7 being the worst of the worst in terms of freedom.
Historically once nations begin expanding their liberties a virtuous cycle begins. And the more the circle of liberties expands the harder it gets to stop the expansion of liberty. (Civil rights expand, the voting franchise expands etc.)
So, Iran has made a start. And the election demonstrations are certainly proof of that.

What's the evidence that countries which are rated 6 by Freedom House consistently work their way down the road to liberal democracy? It would seem to me that former 6's could also turn into 7's. Do you have any sources to back up the claim that 6's turn into 5's, etc.? I would guess that many nations in the MIddle East and Africa toggle between 6 and 7 over many years.

Which was generally my point as well...I was just saying his data and his interpretation of it--that Iran's sooooo much closer to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness than its even more closed neighbor the Magic Kingdom--was flawed. But then he accuses me of not backing up my assertions and arguments with data---even if it was his own data I was using.

No, it's because of my poor reading comprehension skills he once said.