Democracy or Security? Egypt

[pocketfullofshells]

Egypt is protesting...they want new government...some of those protesters want a Islamic one, and are headed by the Muslim Brotherhood..who in the past has been tied to terror attacks and assignations...Others more secular, and just want democracy and a end to years of dictatorship The Leaders have been good to the US, and very helpful on the war on terror and are viewed as key US allies.

Should we support Democracy and the overthrow of leadership even if it means we could end up with alot less help on security or even a nation hostile to the US?

Should we support our allies, even if it means saying no to Democracy as we know who could possibly win and that could be worse?

is our Long term security helped by pushing out these old rulers and helping democratic reform even though short term it could make things worse?

 

[Apathy]

Other: fvck democracy

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Other: fvck democracy

so your fine with dictatorship?

 

[Apathy]

so your fine with dictatorship?

No, I just dont like democracy.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No, I just dont like democracy.

got a better option?

 

[Apathy]

got a better option?

A republic with protection personal right of rights maybe market anarchism.

"The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised."

-John C. Calhoun

 

[steveox]

Other: fvck democracy

I agree! Support Socialism! Arabs need socialism because they run wild in the streets.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

A republic with protection personal right of rights maybe market anarchism.

"The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised."

-John C. Calhoun

so personal rights, but no right to decide who decides what they are?

I meant Democracy in a brawd sense, not that it has to be 100% direct democracy to be clear.

 

[Apathy]

1)so personal rights, but no right to decide who decides what they are?

2)I meant Democracy in a brawd sense, not that it has to be 100% direct democracy to be clear.

1) No man decides what these rights are just follow the principle of self ownership. If someone could decide what rights are you might as well not have them.

2) Democracy in any sense of the word is dangerous.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

1) No man decides what these rights are just follow the principle of self ownership. If someone could decide what rights are you might as well not have them.

2) Democracy in any sense of the word is dangerous.

sounds more like anarchy then a republic...I have decided my right is to do what ever I want to who ever I want...thus it is my right

 

[Apathy]

sounds more like anarchy then a republic...I have decided my right is to do what ever I want to who ever I want...thus it is my right

You didnt watch the video and thus you are left with a ridiculous strawman but your right this is an anarchist principle but it could be applied to a republic.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You didnt watch the video and thus you are left with a ridiculous strawman but your right this is an anarchist principle but it could be applied to a republic.

my video player is not working right now..my whole system crashed few days ago and still repairing and fixing parts.

 

[Apathy]

my video player is not working right now..my whole system crashed few days ago and still repairing and fixing parts.

Well essentially it says that you own you and you can do anything you want as long as you do not harm others.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well essentially it says that you own you and you can do anything you want as long as you do not harm others.

who defines what harms others enough?

you can build a house to look any way you want...but your look is hurting my homes value and wrecks my view..you have harmed me in my view...thus can't do it.

Like the seat belt question...you drive with no belt...we get in accident thats my fault...your thrown from car and suffer major injury..had you been belted in only minor most likely....Your not having a belt on made my costs owed higher...and my insurance cost more. Thus I will only pay you for what I think may have happened if you had been belted in...my rates and the rates of all insured by my company are at stake..not our fault ( of course this does not happen in the real world where the court says true and just guesses at what may have happened had you been belted in.

 

[Apathy]

who defines what harms others enough?

1)you can build a house to look any way you want...but your look is hurting my homes value and wrecks my view..you have harmed me in my view...thus can't do it.

2)Like the seat belt question...you drive with no belt...we get in accident thats my fault...your thrown from car and suffer major injury..had you been belted in only minor most likely....Your not having a belt on made my costs owed higher...and my insurance cost more. Thus I will only pay you for what I think may have happened if you had been belted in...my rates and the rates of all insured by my company are at stake..not our fault ( of course this does not happen in the real world where the court says true and just guesses at what may have happened had you been belted in.

1) It's not your property if you were worried about them ruining your veiw you should have bought the property or moved elsewhere.

2) They knew the risk of driving without a seatbelt thus they must live with the consequences.