For the “not” scenario, I would cite certain monarchies in Buddhist southeast Asia of the past that took a laid back attitude in terms of socio-economic control, which suited the people just fine. The state’s interference was not needed in the marketplace; the monarch simply had to perform certain ritualistic duties to ensure peace between heaven and earth. The people in the marketplace took care of the business of running the country.

Sounds bizarre for us westerners, but it was possible, and it did exist, mostly in Burma, Thailand, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal, and Tibet. However, the structures of these states were eventually weakened by western models, and today’s states in these nations do not resemble what was in the past.

Keep in mind there was a reason why medieval Europeans coveted “the riches of the East”. These lands truly were rich, mainly because of an incredibly thriving trade that was far more open and “globalistic” than Europe knew back then. And it was not democracy that made them rich.

It was free trade.

You said:

Democracy is not enough; the only way there will be more “rule by the people” is when free-market capitalism (which is the true expression of the will of the people, more so than the democratic ballot box) is uninterfered with by an overreaching state, democratic or not.

You still haven’t sited an example of the “not” scenario. Tell me a country ruled by the people that embraces capitalism, but not democracy. And if you don’t have one, I think you’re underestimating the importance of democracy. I agree that both are needed and work well together, but my argument is that the emphasis needs to be on democracy, not capitalism. The one protects the other.

gary

Wrong. Separating the two compounds to the world’s problems. The two must work together, or neither will solve any problems. Democracy alone is not the solution. It only works well when it works with capitalism.

That is certainly borne by historical evidence.

I would agree that capitalism and democracy go well together, but…

“…is uninterfered with by an overreaching state, democratic or not.”

That last part I very much disagree. Rule by the people is MORE a fuction of demcoracy than the economic system. If you disagree name a country that doesn’t have democracy, employs capitalism as the economic system, AND is ruled “by the people”. No such country exists.

Free markets thrive best in democracies, and vice versa.

Agreed.

You cannot separate the two, and you should discuss both of them in tandem when prescribing solutions to the world’s problems.

Not necessary. In a society where people vote, they have the power to change the economic system. But the reverse is not true. A country like China does NOT give the people a choice of economic systems. And it does all the bad things that a dictatorship does. So in conclusion I agree very much that democracy and capitalism work well together, but you can definitely separate them when addressing the world’s problems.

gary

(sorry if this reply appears twice…I’m having problems with the forum software)

What’s your point? China fails on both counts, as a democracy, and as a free market.

Your fishing for models in all the wrong places.

My point is that the more we move towards democracy, the more we move towards rule by the people. And the more we move towards rule by the people (you and I), the less likely that a “country” will go to war based on dubious grounds.

Or am I wrong?

You are wrong.

Democracy is not enough; the only way there will be more “rule by the people” is when free-market capitalism (which is the true expression of the will of the people, more so than the democratic ballot box) is uninterfered with by an overreaching state, democratic or not.

All talk of the primacy of democracy is useless, unless it is accompanied by the primacy of a free market. Talk to any third-world immigrant in the US, and they’ll tell you it’s not America’s democratic freedoms that brought them to the US, but America’s still unique promise that the state will interfere as little as possible in anyone’s pursuit of making money.

Free markets thrive best in democracies, and vice versa. You cannot separate the two, and you should discuss both of them in tandem when prescribing solutions to the world’s problems.

Sima Samar, the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Sudan, said this month she was concerned about the arrests of opposition politicians and urged more transparency from the government.”

The “Save Darfur” activists never present the complete story of what is going on in Sudan. All they know how to say is the Janjaweed Arabs are killing Black Africans. These activists couldn’t care less about black Aficans or they would have said something about the Congo. But when countries benefit from diamonds, other natural resources and weapon sales these deaths don’t matter.