Egypt -- Tyranny has many faces

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/01/landslide-islamists-on-track-to-dominate-egyptian-parliament/

I told someone the other day that Egypt will make a good case study in consideration of the modern deification of democracy with little concern for the structure within which democracy is practiced. OWS and the American Left have praised democracy in Egypt, yet they said little about the system of government being created in Egypt. There has been a democratic process in many countries which wound up with tyrannical governments, because no one was concerned with limits on government power.

When democratic process is more important than protected freedoms, the collective rises above the individual, and rights for the individual or minorities are not protected. Is tyranny any more palatable because it was chosen through a democratic process? It's not palatable for the individual or minority who are oppressed, abused or simply slaughtered. It's ultimately not good for the majority who voted for it, but the majority always thinks they'll be protected. 

Libya and Sharia Law

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8844819/Libyas-liberation-interim-ruler-unveils-more-radical-than-expected-plans-for-Islamic-law.html

As expected, Libya will likely fall under Sharia Law, which could cause further turmoil if any of the rebels expected liberalization of economic policies and a relaxation of top-down control. Mideast (northern Africa) failure to separate religion and State will ensure decline and lack of economic growth, good jobs and liberty. As much as Islamist apologists minimize the negative aspects of Sharia Law, it's not what democracy is all about. Democracy might establish control of Islamist rule (get enough people to vote for something), but Islamist rule will render democratic principles useless. They are so far away from free market principles and civil liberties, they might as be under the thumb of another crazy tyrant who dresses funny.

Paternalistic revolution

When we think of revolutions, paternalistic is not an inspiring adjective -- the paternalism of the USSR turned off many 20th century communists -- but it appears today that State paternalism is embraced by Leftist revolutionaries. Are they really revolutionaries, though, are or they State dependents sacrificing personal sovereignty and individuality for advantage, security and the illusion of equality and social justice?

The State has always needed "useful idiots", and the supply never runs low. Useful idiots is too harsh, though, and what I mean is that the State takes advantage of idealism, envy, fear and the desire for security. Eugene Robinson asked on Morning Joe today if we need a new Bretton Woods to rearrange the global economic order, and the question revealed Washington's position -- yes, he and many others do think we need a new global order, now that China and Southeast Asia are seen as major economic players. Many on the Left are working diligently for a New Order built on the vague ideas of social justice, redistibutive justice and anti-capitalism. The underlying inspiration is socialist, in that economies should be guided and controlled by States in a global union of major international players. They can guide redistribution, environmental concerns, and they can assure minimum living standards for all people across the globe, and they can empower workers, women and minorities freed from the oppression of capitalist overlords.

This New Order, though, will not likely empower anyone but the elite, many of them Multi-National Corporate chieftains, who would eventually control the New Order, and it's not likely the power elite will be represented by women, workers or poor people of color -- nor will any of the now-supportive intellectuals find representation unless they give up free-thinking. Most revolutions are ostensibly about freedom, but this revolution, as it materializes in America, at least, appears to purposefully embrace submission to State power.

The problem with centralized control which needs to coerce those resistant to control is that it winds up coercing everyone except the most malleable and submissive who just go along with whatever they're told to think, say or do. Paternalism has to keep its subjects as children or it loses control. In order to make the type of omelette revolutionaries say they desire, cracked eggs are inevitable, but who's egg? It's not always the egg of your enemy (the recalcitrant freedom-lovers and free market kooks), if centralized power finds it necessary, they crack the egss of anyone who strays from Papa's control. We've seen it all before in Russia, China, the French Revolution, Germany, North Korea, Cuba, etc. -- the power-elite is almost always male-dominated, older males, authoritarian males, and they almost always turn on early, idealistic supporters, like feminists, young firebrands with the wrong dreams and poor people of the wrong color/religion/culture/whatever who don't fully submit to the centralized Plan.

Of course, the great majority of liberals, centrists and progressives who join the Leftist parade and flirt with the revolutionary/statist spirit and denigrate anything resembling wealth, promotion of limited government or indivdiuality aren't consciously embracing a tryannical New World Order, it's just where these ideas lead when you believe Smart State Power is the purveyor of collective morality and welfare, and that economic liberty, free-thinking and free choice are no longer desirable.

I spoke too quickly about Egypt

I stll believe there's an opportunity for the Egyptian people to gain some measure of economic freedom they didn't have before -- most anything would be better than a dictatorship. But when I see such a large group of people chanting confusing messages, and I look at the polls showing the majority being favorable toward irrational laws like that of sharia law, it concerns me about the liklihood they will experience civil or economic freedom. When political or economic concerns are guided by religious dogma, nothing good can come from it. It's not that I think the Egyptian people would be better off if they were atheists, but religion is a matter of personal faith, not a blueprint for governing a society. Mainly because the religious leaders become in time the worst kinds of tyrants, using faith as the justification to repress and abuse people. The bottom line is always power, whether the power is justified by the deification of the State/military or the god of Islam, or any other religion. 

The modern multi-cultural mindset in America prevents a broad, objective look at any particular religion that's not western-style Christianity or Judaism, but Islam has to be analyzed according to its tenets, not the image painted by those who simply want to establish their multi-cultural street cred. I wouldn't want to see America governed by the tenets of the Christian religion, and Egypt will not change for the better under a government run by the tenets or laws of Islam. Unless Egypt establishes freedom of religion (allowing and protecting any religion, even Judaism), speech, economic acitivty, press and dissent, and to own property, the people will continue to be repressed, even if they think the repression will save them. Too many people seem to think that good intentions are enough, but if government isn't limited, then the State, under secular power-mangers or spiritual power-mongers, simpy takes full control. The next thing you know someone at the top is worth 70 billion dollars and the people are hungry.

Egypt -- What to do?

To be honest, I don't know what to think of Egypt. Something tells me that if the current government is overthrown, what comes in could be worse, but then any government which replaces the current government will certainly want our billions in aid, so they will probably not start out ballistic and radical. I do know that most shaky countries in the world in the 21st century are probably going to throw out old governments when times are bad, especially one who's head of government has been in control for thirty years.

The international relationships are now so intertwined it's hard to know if a domino effect will come about, and if it does, whether the results will be positive or negative. It doesn't appear that Egypt will return to the status quo, but Iran did after young dissidents were suppressed. If I knew for sure that the dissidents want freedom, I'd say hoorah for freedom and hope it wins out regardless of international relationships and stability, but there's no telling what a new government will look like.

My gut, an unreliable source sometimes, tells me that it's none of our business and whatever happens it will not threaten our national interests. However, oil could go sky-high. Just another reason we should have been drilling a long time ago. If anything this tells me we have to remove obstacles to energy production in this country.

If the turmoil causes widespread suffering and hunger, international relief agencies should be prepared to act, but I hope this doesn't happen. I hope that Mubarek steps down and Egypt finds a way to peacefully go forward with more freedom. The whole Middle East region needs to move forward peacefully with more freedom -- there has been enough tyranny and suffering. I'm hopeful but not optimistic.