= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Open thread, 9-15 June 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (239)
They held elections and put the people who got majority into positions of power.
Old-style colonialism wasn't based on crushing military superiority, during the British Raj the number of British born troops in India was a tiny fraction the the native troops. Thus the British relied on the cooperation of large numbers of Indians and Indian troops.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that the laws of nature somehow changed over the past century?
Elections are no big deal. Mugabe holds elections, Putin holds elections, hey, even Assad recently held elections.
Yes, it was. Certainly, it wasn't just military superiority, especially once the colonies were established, and the British, for example, became masters of control through political and financial means as well. However the military strength was the underlying bedrock.
Which particular laws of nature do you have in mind?
Well, the US forces actually attempted not to rig them.
Disagree. Military strength was based on a bedrock of competent management.
Whichever laws you invoked when you said implied that "old-style colonialism won't work in our time" is a reasonable hypothesis.
No need to, the locals can do everything necessary. The US forces just provided the money and prevented the "undesirables" from playing.
I did not invoke any laws of nature. I think that in the current social, political, informational, military, etc. global environment the old-style colonialism is highly unlikely to work. No laws of nature are involved in this assertion.
Can you be specific about what you think is the relevant change?