Originally posted by Melanerpes
Obviously, people in a society need to be protected from those who act violently. That is why countries have police forces and prisons.
But what do we do when a given country's criminal justice system fails, or it becomes inhumane? What happens if civil war breaks out? Should the rest of the world do nothing while blood is being shed? Or should other c ...[text shortened]... ng from eliminating that regime is likely to lead to chaotic anarchy or a terrible civil war?
That might depend on the ability of the potentially intervening countries to actually do something beneficial about it.
Recent history does not indicate that we actually do have a coherent or effective strategy for actually improving a
country or reducing violence.
In an ideal world of course we would intervene and stop the violence and bring peace and stability...
In reality, I would need to see a specific and convincing plan for how in a particular instance we would ensure we
did actually make things better. There is no point expending the resources and lives lost during a war or 'intervention'
unless we actually have a reasonable expectation of actually making a worthwhile difference.
I also think that in these situations, democracy is seriously overrated.
Democracy relies on a population of well educated and informed individuals who are free to both vote for whomever they
want but also have the capacity to make educated and informed choices as to who they want to vote for and know the
value of democracy and freedom.
We struggle with this in the west, trying to impose it on uneducated medieval rabble like the Afghans is a disaster waiting
People often criticize the British empire, but one thing we did (brutally at times but still) was impose law and order and peace.
The number of different peoples who we held in check stopping them from killing each other is so often overlooked.
We created whole countries that exist today from disparate tribes and kingdoms and imposed order and law and that lasted
for a long time. Those countries who subsequently have embraced democracy and have systems of law and order that used to
be part of the empire got those systems and the belief in and desire for democracy from us.
Of course the way the Empire broke up (or rather got broken up) left many countries without leadership before they were ready.
And there are many modern day problems that stem from this fact.
The fact is that many developing countries would be better off under the rule of western powers, possible collectively.
So that we can build the infrastructure, impose law and order, make sure that there is enough food, water, and decent housing,
an economy, decent healthcare, an end to the corruption these places are rife with, and to build a decent education system.
So that the people in these countries can expect to live till they are 70 or 80 yrs old and have a comfortable safe life while doing so
and not (in some cases) consider themselves lucky to reach 40 after a life of violence and trauma.
After a generation or two of living in peace with law and order and a self supporting economy and an educated populace THEN you
hold elections and devolve government to them.
However the investment of resources needed to do this is politically untenable in the west atm and you would have to do it by
force because the peoples of these countries would never allow us to effectively rule them for that long without rising up and fighting back.
They want self rule and they want it now, so let them have it, and try to slowly and patiently nudge them over the decades towards
something more like civilisation.
Provide them with aid and try to build up their infrastructure, try to build secular schools that will teach science and reason and not theism and
Try to make them see us as allies and not enemies.
Unless you really can see a way for us to impose such things on them with military force.