@Putin33 What I'm asking is how can change of government occur in an authoritarian system, other than by coup? Also, what do *you* mean by "a new constitution by hook or by crook?" You mean one that guarantees and sanctifies rule by the winner of the power struggle? Or what?

Changes of government can occur via a transition election, as occurred in most of eastern Europe. Essentially the leadership agrees to step down or a controlled process by which power is handed over.

The new constitution can take on many different forms. Some new constitutions, like the ones in Latin American transitions, contained certain prerogatives for elements of the old governments, especially when military governments ceded power. I simply mean that the new leaders legitimize their rule by passing a new foundational document that at least nominally has gone through some kind of public approval process, either directly or indirectly. They vary as to the extent to which the new rules solidify the power of the new forces in charge.

Not at all. I'm also happy the Shah isn't still oppressing the Iranian people. That doesn't mean I support the current theocracy. I'm happy Saddam Hussein is dead. That doesn't mean I think the Iraq War was a worthwhile endevour. I'm happy the USSR is gone. That doesn't mean I think Putin is a force for good. And so on.

Well, those were all transitions away from authoritarian government and toward liberal democracy, which I though you opposed. I mean, you derided the democratic socialists’ “naive reverence for public opinion,” which indicates a pretty low estimation of the average person’s level of morality and competence.*

You also condone “illiberal, effective” dictatorship, in which decisions are made at the top and economic (and other) aspects of life are centrally planned and controlled.**

Assuming the dictator is the person who is best able to seize and maintain dictatorial power…

…Is the ability to seize and maintain power related to a higher level of morality and competence (in fields other than seizing power)? If it’s not, then the dictator cannot be expected to be better than the average person in this respect, so why should his word be law, given your low estimation of the average person? On the other hand, if you’re proposing that the ability to seize and maintain power *is* related to a higher level of morality and competence (in fields other than seizing power), then that’s an interesting philosophy that I think requires more explanation.

* http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1078538#1079514
** http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1078538#1079301

I again have trouble understanding what it is you are getting at. I'm simply saying that your description of regime transitions is not accurate, I'm describing how they typically take place. It has nothing to do with my estimation of which forms of government work better.

I had thought you were asking how transitions were supposed to take place in a system that isn't liberally democratic, that is - how is a system supposed to from an illiberal to a liberal regime without violence and/or a coup.

That is what I was responding to.

If you're asking about how transitions take place in the other direction, from a 'liberal' regime to an illiberal one, again it is not typically violent. Most military coups are bloodless affairs. The examples of 'revolutions' that we have, such as the Russian revolution, were initially bloodless. The civil war that followed was bloody, but the actual seizure of power was not.

You have taken several of my comments out of context. I said I preffered effective government to ineffective government. You left the latter part out. I derided the democratic socialist belief that revolutionary change will come about through persuasion. It's not a low estimation of the average person's morality and competence (although I certainly don't think it's infallible), it's a realistic analysis of how radical change typically occurs in societies that become accustom to a particular way of life. Culture is not easy to change, and is not going to be changed just because Nigee might be a talented polemicist and persuasive orator.

Change is work. And change generates incredible hostility by those in power. Dem-socs tend to forget both of these things. Hence their typically quick disillusionment.

What I’m getting at is you support authoritarian rule, where the selection process for positions of power is the ability to seize it.

If you believe that the ability to seize power *does* indicate an ability to rule justly, that’s a belief that’s new to me. Is that what you believe?

If not, then the winner of a power struggle should be at some random level of moral qualification. So is it just that such a person should wield absolute power?

"What I’m getting at is you support authoritarian rule, where the selection process for positions of power is the ability to seize it."

That's not accurate. Many non-liberal democracies use elections for positions of power. The difference between they and liberal democracies is that competing bourgeois parties aren't running. The Central Committee for the CCP in China is elected. The Politburo is elected. The leadership has term limits. They step down after the terms are over. Even in most military governments, leadership is at some level elected. It's not just a matter of 'seizing power'.

The American rebels 'seized power', they later overthrew the initial government in a coup via a secretive constitutional convention, which was later ratified by the elected state governments. This is on par with what happens in virtually illiberal government you are criticizing.

The ability to seize power has nothing to do with the ability to rule justly. Effective government is something completely separate. It's the ability to deliver goods and services, provide security, etc that indicates an ability to rule justly. How the government comes to power is irrelevant on that score, and virtually every government, even well established liberal ones, had a 'seizure of power' somewhere down the line.

Why should only one party be allowed to run? What is the point of an election without choice other than to legitimize the authority of those who hold power? By what mechanism can those who hold power be discarded in such a system?

in communist countries you get elections with huge choice - just because there is only one party does not mean there aren't people with hugely different opinions - opinions known by the voter. you often get more choice than you do in liberal countries where you may get to pick between a couple of de-facto identically neo liberal parties, that would all enact practically the same policy.

And that's why you don't go bowhunting for bears.

Happy we cleared that up. How about you guys?

@Putin33 Well, your previous statement is somewhat reasonable. Which puts it at odds with many of your previous statements.

Consistently, you’ve pointed out certain faults and outright crimes committed by liberal democratic states, such as slavery. I’ve never denied or condoned such things, and I still insist it is by *extending* liberal democratic rights more widely that failures such as slavery come to be resolved. As liberal democracy has continued without these things, we can conclude that these crimes are *not* intrinsic to liberal democracy.

On the other hand, when you’re confronted with ongoing crimes committed by illiberal, authoritarian states, you *consistently defend the dictators*, making excuses for the Kims in Korea, Mugabe, and others. It’s difficult not to conclude that you support pure, authoritarian control on the basis of ability to seize power. Do the Kims remain in power based on “the ability to deliver goods and services”?

The concentration of power in an authoritarian state makes it too likely that a ruler will seize and maintain power with no accountability for their actions. I can’t tell if you’re being willfully or genuinely obtuse in denying that this *ever* occurs, given your defense of every brutal dictator who makes use of the label “socialist”.

In my opinion it’s best not to create these overly powerful positions that act as a magnet for power-hungry despots.

"I’ve never denied or condoned such things, and I still insist it is by *extending* liberal democratic rights more widely that failures such as slavery come to be resolved. As liberal democracy has continued without these things, we can conclude that these crimes are *not* intrinsic to liberal democracy."

But it was precisely as government has grown in size and power that these "things" have been eliminated, that's the point. You want to have it both ways - limited government with fragmented power combined with expanded enfrachisement and civil protections. It hasn't worked that way historically. You want to take all the good while ignoring any kind of accountability for the bad. You ask me to discard socialism for its flaws, but are unwilling to discard liberalism for its flaws. You're holding yourself to a different standard.

"you *consistently defend the dictators*, making excuses for the Kims in Korea, Mugabe, and others."

No more than you excuse liberal democracy of its crimes.

I'm asking people to observe the context and conditions in which these governments exist. You want to criticize governments from some kind of high horse in a total vacuum where context and history do not exist. You and liberal democrats the world over have this messianic need to demonstrate how morally superior your politics are and the only way you can do do this is by being willfully blind towards to your own system's failings while exaggerating and sensationalizing the flaws of others.

" It’s difficult not to conclude that you support pure, authoritarian control on the basis of ability to seize power."

You have this need to construct this strawman and I've rejected the premise over and over again. No amount of repetition by you is going to make this nonsense stick.

"Do the Kims remain in power based on “the ability to deliver goods and services”?"

Yes. As I said before, the democratic Korea's healthcare system was hailed by the WHO as being the envy of the developing world. Democratic Korea has responded very well to the food crisis that occurred in the early-mid 90s, so that there is no longer any food crisis. It has developed its agriculture and reformed its economy.

"The concentration of power in an authoritarian state makes it too likely that a ruler will seize and maintain power with no accountability for their actions."

Please tell me how the Congress, which has a 90% retention rate and a 10% approval rating, is held "accountable" for its actions.

"I can’t tell if you’re being willfully or genuinely obtuse in denying that this *ever* occurs, given your defense of every brutal dictator who makes use of the label “socialist”."

I only 'defend' states against liberal aggression and liberal messianism and liberal hypocrisy. Especially states that are apt to be the target of yet another attack by your 'peaceloving' liberal friends who supposedly care so much about human rights. You absolve yourself of any culpability in the crimes of liberal democracies while harping on everything everybody else does. You ignore the progress that is made in non-liberal democracies because it doesn't fit your Manichean narrative of liberalism being good and non-liberalism being bad.

"In my opinion it’s best not to create these overly powerful positions that act as a magnet for power-hungry despots."

And weak ineffective liberal institutions act as a magnet for corrupt self-serving legislators who don't get anything done while the very real needs of the people are neglected.

When you're a rich country you can afford to have a do-nothing government.

@Putin33

Everything you say makes perfect sense in a world where the crimes committed (and admitted) by liberal democracies have taken place, and none of the brutal oppression by authoritarian dictators is taking place. However, that is not the real world. Slavery did occur, Mugabe’s self-interested mismanagement is wrecking Zimbabwe, countries were colonized, the Kims of North Korea are brutal oppressors, and you are denying reality in order to defend your position. You’re erasing half of the story, focusing on the crimes committed (and admitted) by liberal democracies and denying the crimes committed by authoritarian dictators.

In the real world liberal democracies commit crimes, and socialist dictatorships commit crimes, and on balance I reckon that liberal democracies are a better option because they don’t create the conditions for totalitarian oppression. If defending your position requires you to deny that North Korea is a totalitarian hell-hole, your argument applies to an imaginary world, not the real one.

So… can you answer this question: Was Kim Jong Il a sincerely honorable person, committed to delivering the best goods and services to North Koreans?

"Why should only one party be allowed to run? "

Because factionalism harms the construction of the country. People serve their factional interests rather than the public. Also, if there is only one class, why should there be more than one party?

"What is the point of an election without choice other than to legitimize the authority of those who hold power?"

It's not necessarily without choice, as Socrates said. As is fairly obvious, no Central Committee anywhere has ever had uniformity of opinion.

"By what mechanism can those who hold power be discarded in such a system?"

They can be disqualified for corruption, for one. China, for example, has an entire agency that does exactly that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Commission_for_Discipline_Inspection_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China

They can also be defeated in elections.

Do you read responses or do you just keep pestering until you get the answer you want? I already answered your upteenth question about the DPRK. You don't like the answer so you keep repeating yourself.

"Mugabe’s self-interested mismanagement is wrecking Zimbabwe"

Which is why Zimbabwe is one of the fastest growing economies in Africa this past 5 years and why he got thunderous applause at the Mandela memorial, right?

No, you can't project your own selectivity onto me. I acknowledge that there are costs and benefits to each system. You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that liberalism has intrinsic costs, instead wanting to say over and over again how "brutal" illiberal governments are. You also steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that any government that doesn't meet your liberal standards could make any achievements or deserves any praise.

I'm tired of your messianic complex. These questions are not genuine anyway. Your "real world" is nothing but a caricature in which non-liberal governments are given cartoonish descriptions and where anything a liberal government does poorly is deemed "not intrinsic" to liberalism. You give no effort whatsoever to understanding social systems that aren't your own, which is pretty ironic consider your professed commitment to political pluralism.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I’m absolving liberal democracy of it’s crimes. I consistently admit that crimes can be committed under liberal democracy, though I do maintain that these crimes (e.g. slavery) are not intrinsic (as it has been outlawed and liberal democracy continues). When, for instance, have I denied or defended slavery?

And if an authoritarian ruler is the only way to prevent bloodshed (e.g. Paul Kagame) then that can be the least bad option.

But the difference is you’re actually defending criminals such as Kim Jong Il, completely buying their line about doing what’s best for the people. Are you ever skeptical about the promises of dictators of the left? Meanwhile I most certainly am not defending or absolving slavery, which you’ve brought up far more times than I’ve brought up North Korea. Again, the difference is you defend North Korea, and I admit slavery was a crime and do not defend it. A further difference is that tyranny in North Korea is ongoing, and slavery is illegal in liberal democracies.

Also, what’s with the constant accusation about “preserving moral purity?” I’ve consistently said that all governments, including liberal democracies, are loaded with crooked and incompetent assholes. It’s up the the institution itself to restrain and place limits on their excesses.

There's nothing "messianic" about considering limits on power to be prudent.