Comment by esafak
12 days ago
That is not an existential issue; many former hegemons, such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist. Coalitions exist to ward off hegemons.
12 days ago
That is not an existential issue; many former hegemons, such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist. Coalitions exist to ward off hegemons.
The UK continues to exist because it was replaced by a democratic American hegemony.
If an authoritarian country like China achieves hegemony the continued existence of democracy is at risk.
I want to live in a democratic world, not an authoritarian one.
America's democracy is a flawed one but of the two choices -- American hegemony or Chinese hegemony it is the best path to a flourishing global liberal democracy.
Can you foresee Chinese hegemony leading to increased democracy, individual property rights, due process, and rule of law?
No, I do not, but I also do not much stock in America's policy of spreading democracy. I believe that America will do best by setting a good example at home, and it is failing in this regard. China is obviously not a democracy.
My fear is that people will look at China's might and economic success and conclude that democracy is overrated.
France and Spain continue to exist and they were former hegemons. China has stably existed with long periods of turning inwards after more regional hedgemony.
It's really straight forward -- Do you consider things like liberal democracy, property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of association, due process, and the rule of law to be essential features of society?
If you don't -- Chinese hegemony and the path it will lead the world down is the one for you.
If you do -- Then American hegemony with all its flaws is something worth fighting for.
11 replies →
>such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist
They were really close to not existing. France stopped existing, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, all stopped existing. China, Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Myanmar, New Guinea, Guam, East Timor, and Nauru all stopped existing.
That was in a pre-nuclear weapon world.
It certainly was. You think nuclear weapons are less or more likely to have countries not exist anymore? If you believe MAD works, then countries can easily not exist the conventional warfare way. If you think MAD won't work, countries can easily not exist the nuclear war way. The only difference is speed.
Of your list I've been to France, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France (you seem to have it twice for some reason), Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore.
They all most definitely did not stop existing.
Also I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.
>I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.
Battle of Britain, Battle of France?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
>They all most definitely did not stop existing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired_b...
You didn't study WW2 in high school? It monumentally shaped the current world order.
2 replies →