If you don't read this, you're a cunt.

[Messianic]

I skimmed the linked pdf. It's actually pretty good. Most of the underlying ideas are why I changed from a basic conservative to a Libertarian (which can be summed up as a proponent of the non-aggression principle). I just don't believe enduring, genuine change ever occurs from some empire trying to "liberate" other countries. You just change dictators after much bloodletting and set back the native people a couple decades from real change by enticing all parties involved to violence at best - and at worst you create colonies which eventually blow up in your face.

People seem to forget that the change of the west from Monarchies and nobles to Constitutional Republics and Social Democracies occurred over hundreds of years and with a lot of cultural and intellectual underpinnings, i.e. Cato the Younger and Plato through Locke and a number of other important figures. You can't just plant it in different soil, with a people of a different language, culture, religion, etc and expect it to work. Go plant Oak Trees in the Gobi desert and see how well they do.

As far as supporting the attempt of a people to change their own government (as in Libya), supporting them militarily is in effect declaring war against another country to changes its regime, which I also oppose.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Messianic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I skimmed the linked pdf. It's actually pretty good.

..

You can't just plant it in different soil, with a people of a different language, culture, religion, etc and expect it to work. Go plant Oak Trees in the Gobi desert and see how well they do.

That's a super bad analogy. Revolutions are not trees.

If you have any doubts as to the effectiveness of nonviolent revolutionary theory as presented by Mr. Sharp, please watch "How To Start A Revolution," a documentary about the effectiveness of this book over time. It starts in Burma, goes to eastern Europe and then into northern Africa, with interviews of some of the most prominent "leaders" of the revolts that happened.. The guy that was the catalyst for the books first printing was/is? a Colonel in the Army (prominently featured in the documentary) who was trying to help the Burmese people revolt into democracy. All of the revolutionaries interviewed give at least partial credit for their revolution to the specific tactics found in the book. I'm not talking about old, tired revolutionary hippies, I'm talking about the young people who actually brought about revolutions in their countries.

These methods are honestly beyond any cultural boundries. They are universally applicable and will be effective wherever they are taken seriously. The book is couched in terms of black vs. white - dictatorship vs. democracy, because it was written specifically for the burmese people (the book is actually a somewhat hasty consolidation of Gene Sharp's lecture career at Harvard) but obviously can be applied to any of the shades of grey which exist in reality today.

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's a super bad analogy. Revolutions are not trees.

If you have any doubts as to the effectiveness of nonviolent revolutionary theory as presented by Mr. Sharp, please watch "How To Start A Revolution," a documentary about the effectiveness of this book over time. It starts in Burma, goes to eastern Europe and then into northern Africa, with interviews of some of the most prominent "leaders" of the revolts that happened.. The guy that was the catalyst for the books first printing was/is? a Colonel in the Army (prominently featured in the documentary) who was trying to help the Burmese people revolt into democracy. All of the revolutionaries interviewed give at least partial credit for their revolution to the specific tactics found in the book. I'm not talking about old, tired revolutionary hippies, I'm talking about the young people who actually brought about revolutions in their countries.

These methods are honestly beyond any cultural boundries. They are universally applicable and will be effective wherever they are taken seriously. The book is couched in terms of black vs. white - dictatorship vs. democracy, because it was written specifically for the burmese people (the book is actually a somewhat hasty consolidation of Gene Sharp's lecture career at Harvard) but obviously can be applied to any of the shades of grey which exist in reality today.

My analogy wasn't with regard to nonviolent revolution described in the PDF - its with regard to violent, foreign intervention to "spread democracy," "Make the world safe for democracy," or some such nonsense. Guns and militaries have a real purpose, but it's not to spread an ideology or to be "a global force for good" or whatever you call military force nowadays.