<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.6" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Chinese Democracy (The revolution, not the album)</title>
	<link>http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/03/16/chinese-democracy-the-revolution-not-the-album/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.6</generator>

	<item>
		<title>Closet Liberal on Chinese Democracy (The revolution, not the album)by: </title>
		<link>http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/03/16/chinese-democracy-the-revolution-not-the-album/#comment-1425</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:56:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/03/16/chinese-democracy-the-revolution-not-the-album/#comment-1425</guid>
					<description>It is conceivable to have a benevolent dictatorship where the freedom of self-determination exists.  The only freedom missing is the freedom to choose ones leaders.  That's more of a right than a freedom.

As far as I'm concerned, freedom can be defined as freedom from being hassled by the government.  That can exist in any society.    

In a democracy it is possible for ones freedoms to be imperiled as well.  If parliament votes to suspend freedoms (war measures act, etc.), well you are not free anymore are you?  How long that situation lasts (until next election) is up to debate, but the freedoms we take for granted are still imperiled.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is conceivable to have a benevolent dictatorship where the freedom of self-determination exists.  The only freedom missing is the freedom to choose ones leaders.  That&#8217;s more of a right than a freedom.</p>
<p>As far as I&#8217;m concerned, freedom can be defined as freedom from being hassled by the government.  That can exist in any society.    </p>
<p>In a democracy it is possible for ones freedoms to be imperiled as well.  If parliament votes to suspend freedoms (war measures act, etc.), well you are not free anymore are you?  How long that situation lasts (until next election) is up to debate, but the freedoms we take for granted are still imperiled.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Joseph on Chinese Democracy (The revolution, not the album)by: </title>
		<link>http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/03/16/chinese-democracy-the-revolution-not-the-album/#comment-1424</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/03/16/chinese-democracy-the-revolution-not-the-album/#comment-1424</guid>
					<description>Well let me ask you this: Do the people in Iraq have freedom? They have a functioning democracy in a sense that they voted for their government, but the lack of any civil society or social institutions has led to widespread violence and repression, elected-government notwithstanding. One can easily make the argument that Iraqis are not free.

On the reverse, lets consider a country like the UAE. Ignoring the plight of non-citizen workers ( a tragedy in and of itself), the citizens there have tremendous freedom to do what they want, but the government is definitely NOT democratic, in spite of outward appearances.

If we really want to get our hands dirty, lets consider the United States. One could argue that individual freedom has &lt;em&gt;increased&lt;/em&gt; dramatically (if you're not brown) in the past century, at the same time however the degree of representation has diminished rapidly. If freedom and democracy are so inseparable how do you account for these disparate trends?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well let me ask you this: Do the people in Iraq have freedom? They have a functioning democracy in a sense that they voted for their government, but the lack of any civil society or social institutions has led to widespread violence and repression, elected-government notwithstanding. One can easily make the argument that Iraqis are not free.</p>
<p>On the reverse, lets consider a country like the UAE. Ignoring the plight of non-citizen workers ( a tragedy in and of itself), the citizens there have tremendous freedom to do what they want, but the government is definitely NOT democratic, in spite of outward appearances.</p>
<p>If we really want to get our hands dirty, lets consider the United States. One could argue that individual freedom has <em>increased</em> dramatically (if you&#8217;re not brown) in the past century, at the same time however the degree of representation has diminished rapidly. If freedom and democracy are so inseparable how do you account for these disparate trends?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Taylor on Chinese Democracy (The revolution, not the album)by: </title>
		<link>http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/03/16/chinese-democracy-the-revolution-not-the-album/#comment-1423</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/03/16/chinese-democracy-the-revolution-not-the-album/#comment-1423</guid>
					<description>I'm not sure that it is possible to have democracy without freedom or freedom without democracy. Self-determination is a fundamental freedom that is provided through a democratic system, and cannot truly exist in any system but a democratic one. Therefore, I'd argue that the two are absolutely inseperable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure that it is possible to have democracy without freedom or freedom without democracy. Self-determination is a fundamental freedom that is provided through a democratic system, and cannot truly exist in any system but a democratic one. Therefore, I&#8217;d argue that the two are absolutely inseperable.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
