Iran election rivals both declare victory (possible coup d'etat in Iran)

[guartz]

We know this, conformity.

At least I do.

[Conformity]

We know this, conformity.

At least I do.

Well thats good, I just wanted to put that out there in case anyone had their hopes up

[Kuya]

Though you could say that about all elections.

edit: I disgress, we shouldn't be so cynical either. There are differences between Ahmedinejad and Mousavi, and whether you think it's worth voting or not will depend on what you want. For example, it's quite clear that Mousavi will be less authoritarian, but if you're a right winger from the US then you won't like him because he has no intention of stopping the nuclear enrichment which is allowed to Iran according to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It's like, for example, saying that there are no differences between Obama and Bush; let's not be absurd, there are. But if you care more about ending the vital issues that endanger American society, such as the power relationship between military companies, intelligence institutions, and executive institutions, then you probably won't consider it a worthy choice.

It... really depends on what you want.

edit: there are two other candidates too.

[guartz]

Though you could say that about all elections.

edit: I disgress, we shouldn't be so cynical either. There are differences between Ahmedinejad and Mousavi, and whether you think it's worth voting or not will depend on what you want. For example, it's quite clear that Mousavi will be less authoritarian, but if you're a right winger from the US then you won't like him because he has no intention of stopping the nuclear enrichment which is allowed to Iran according to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It's like, for example, saying that there are no differences between Obama and Bush; let's not be absurd, there are. But if you care more about ending the vital issues that endanger American society, such as the power relationship between military companies, intelligence institutions, and executive institutions, then you probably won't consider it a worthy choice.

It... really depends on what you want.

Or it could all be just a clever illusion, orchestrated by people in power to change policies with new adimistration.

Or the candidates are selected by those with power prior to election.

Later is something Iran doesn't hide, but I think both scenarios are true.

[Kuya]

That would depend on how you explain it.

[guartz]

That would depend on how you explain it.

Funny you say that. Might seem off topic but I'm watching this debate video of Christopher Hitchens debating Al Sharpton on God/Atheism.

don't ask,

anyway, Sharpton takes a huge beating, but being the sly idealogue that he is, brings up Hitchen's statist beliefs. (specifically Iraq war) Now i'm sure Sharpton had no idea what he inadvertently did, but I noticed it. Here you have, seemingly two people on complete opposite spectrums. Hitchen's argues very articulately and logically, and Sharpton stumbles awkwardly. Yet the two are remarkable similar. I swear the entire thing must have been scripted by an anarchist for the lols, because almost everything Hitchen said to refute religion and people's belief in religion, could-likewise be used to refute government, democracy and statism in general.

The central theme of their argument is irrelevant to our conversation here Kuya, however, it's fundamentally similar in nature, where you have two sides, seemingly opposite in spectrum, arguing over a system of whatever, meanwhile promoting the exact same effects.

It's like, "you gonna eat shit" but you gotta make sure you eat it right. The idea of not eating shit at all, is never actually brought up.

[Kuya]

Well, under the idea that, whether a conservative state or a liberal state (this is a simplification for the sake of expedience, of course), the problem continues to be that you exist under a state, i would rely on the argument, that the state is inevitable. I don't mean by state what we understand it to be now, an almost "scientifically" organized governing body/bodies. I mean it simply as any form of governing system. And i defend myself in that point by alluding to Madison's argument on "interest groups", and i say those marks because he never called it by that name, i believe he said factions.

Anyway, his argument was that factions are always bad, and it would be better if societies, and governments, functioned under the same interests. However, he realized that such a society is not a society of people, and to create such a society with people, liberty could not exist. I believe he used the example of fire and air. Liberty is the air and the factions (interest groups) are the fire. If you want to stop the fire, you need to get rid of the air, but that might be unwise for someone who relies on air...

Now to get to my point, i use the same idea behind the example. Not that governments are necessary, but that they exist no matter what. Just as Madison thought you could not stop factions from existing and therefore you must create systems to properly guide it into beneficial functions instead of destrutive ones... you have to try and mold the inevitable existence of government into something beneficial.

As to the reason why i say they are inevitable, well, i consider that if a government can serve the interest of any group, then it will exist inevitably. Because it always seems like governments are always somewhat controlled by those with the most resources (and in any free society someone will amass the most, and they will also have interests of their own) and by demagogues. I, once again use Madison to make my point, and i think we once talked about this. Madison thought that the minority needed to be protected from the interests of the majority, the minority being property owners, those who have the most (well, if usually), because the majority will inevitably envy the minority and develope a "leveling spirit". I "reverse" that idea and say that those with the most resources will always have the desire to protect their advantage from the "majority" by means of establishing something that can both "control" the majority and adhere to its interests, not by way of direct ownership, but via the use of resources to influence the way this "means of protecting resources" acts.

edit: this is all just ideas that i've developed myself of course, not that i've read them elsewhere so they are not professional. Except the parts that are Madison's thoughts, of course.

[Darus Grey]

I always find it hilarious to see people ride against Iran's election process, when myself and many Political scientisists consider it one of the fairest processes in the world.

The fact that that is true is what should bother and disturb us.

[guartz]

Good show Kuya, I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

Anyway,

Although I'm no scholar on the federalist papers, I think you refer to paper 10 , where madison argues for a stronger union because true democracy would breed "interest groups".

However, I think you wrongly assume his basis for that argument. His central theme was that violence caused by the factions would break apart the union. His assumptions are similar with Hobbs, is that mankind lives in a perpetual state of war with each other, and only a strong governing body could maintain "ceasefire".

You are right that governments exist naturally, as in, society, a collection of people, but not monopolies of force. So do factions, exist "naturally", the simplest form of which are families.

If you assume Hobbs is right, then yes, the state is inevitable, since the factions would war until a absolute victor is determined. I however, think it a deceit. Like most truths in life, some are counter-intuitive, and the fact that man rather war then co-exist is one of them, especially since what Hobbs says smacks of heavy religious influence.

edit: That is to say, the state(monopoly on violence) comes about due to lies/propaganda/lack of understanding.

[guartz]

I always find it hilarious to see people ride against Iran's election process, when myself and many Political scientisists consider it one of the fairest processes in the world.

The fact that that is true is what should bother and disturb us.

oh dude, I think I saw a video of your fellow polisci classmate here on the forums recently.

[Darus Grey]

classmate wat?

[guartz]

classmate wat?

it's a joke,

you meant well.

[Kuya]

Good show Kuya, I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

Anyway,

Although I'm no scholar on the federalist papers, I think you refer to paper 10 , where madison argues for a stronger union because true democracy would breed "interest groups".

However, I think you wrongly assume his basis for that argument. His central theme was that violence caused by the factions would break apart the union. His assumptions are similar with Hobbs, is that mankind lives in a perpetual state of war with each other, and only a strong governing body could maintain "ceasefire".

You are right that governments exist naturally, as in, society, a collection of people, but not monopolies of force. So do factions, exist "naturally", the simplest form of which are families.

If you assume Hobbs is right, then yes, the state is inevitable, since the factions would war until a absolute victor is determined. I however, think it a deceit. Like most truths in life, some are counter-intuitive, and the fact that man rather war then co-exist is one of them, especially since what Hobbs says smacks of heavy religious influence.

edit: That is to say, the state(monopoly on violence) comes about due to lies/propaganda/lack of understanding.

Not to mention Hobbes existed in the environment of the English civil war, and therefore his outlook on humankind is very pessimistic, not to say that it invalidates his ideas, rather that he just has a different outlook based on a specific experience that is also correct to a certain extent.

As to my answer to what you say, well, yes i am being very pessimistic in that sense, since i'm assuming a minority with the most resources will feel the need to protect its resources from everybody else and the best method of doing so would be to obtain a monopoly over power, but not just a seemingly violent and destructive one, but one that seems legitimate. Basically, the idea i'm defending is very negative, but to me, in order to achieve something where a monopoly over power is not necessary, i think (since i don't know what you really believe) that the best way to achieve it is to change human "nature" rather than through political manufacturing, and by the previous i also realize that all action pertaining to organizing that which is public is political, according to political theory.

More on topic, i heard that the excitement and political activity in Iran over this election has been wild. Especially the one held on Monday, which was a Mousavi rally. I think about 60% of the population is probably going to vote and many of them will be very young, as Iran's population is 3/4 (is this right?) is between the ages of 15-25, or something.

edit: I hope Mousavi wins, it would make it harder for Israel to rail on Iran.

[guartz]

ah yes, necessary evil, etc.

Yes, the lazy answer here is that we will have religion, government and war so long as a species we are subject to fear of death (like frued suggested) and can be easily manipulated by lies.

Also, I looked it up, the violence part was suggested in article 9, by hamilton, article 10 madison offers a solution, aka, republic. As you say, the legitimate government.

[Kuya]

What violence part? I probably didn't read it, but it wouldn't surprise me if Hamilton suggested the use of violence, if that's what you're saying. He is the one who wanted a powerful presidency and centralized economic power.

[guartz]

Hamilton said the factions would, more or less, war, the weak crushed, etc

[Correction]

I always find it hilarious to see people ride against Iran's election process, when myself and many Political scientisists consider it one of the fairest processes in the world.

The fact that that is true is what should bother and disturb us.

I think I found a lot of people close to the story who disagree with you: Iran election protests turn violent - CNN.com

[Kuya]

Juan Cole is saying that the election may have been stolen because Iranians regularly vote along ethnic lines and that Ahmedinejad actually won in cities like Tehran is practically impossible. Also, Khamenei is supposed to certify election results 3 days after the tallies are in, but this time he did it inmediately, and considering how unpopular Ahmedinejad had become due to his mediocre economic policies, that he would have won with such a high margin is downright absurd.

You can expect a lot of rioting, and the Revolutionary Guard beating up a lot of people, but it is suggested that no upheavel will occur because lots of people do not want to relive what happened during the Great Terror of 1980. This is, of course, Juan Cole's analysis.

[Kuya]

Here is an article that was made today about it just in case any of you needed clarification on what this means for the US:

Less was at stake in these elections than many outsiders assumed, however, since the Iranian presidency is weak and most important policy is set by Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (his title is the giveaway). The election was mostly about style, rather than substance. Mir-Hossein Moussavi complained that Ahmadinejad's bizarre downplaying of the Holocaust had made Iran a laughingstock, and that the incumbent had dictatorial tendencies. But he expressed support for the Palestinians. He objected to the cost of ramping up Iran's civilian nuclear energy research program, though he said he was committed to continuing it at a slower pace. He offered to negotiate with American President Barack Obama if the latter was found to be acting in good faith. But most of his differences with Ahmadinejad were on domestic policy, including his advocacy of more personal liberties, more rights for women, and a freer media environment, including private television channels.

The outcome of the election therefore changes little for the Obama administration. The outstanding issues between Iran and the U.S. mainly have to do with Iran's support for the Palestinians against Israel and with Iran's nuclear enrichment program, which Washington fears could ultimately be put to dual use and eventuate in a nuclear warhead. Those two outstanding issues would have remained no matter who won the presidency. Obama is determined to deal with them by undercutting Iran on the Palestine issue by making strides toward a Palestinian state, by avoiding military confrontation, and by direct talks over better safeguards that Iran's nuclear program remains purely civilian in character. These policies are the most promising ones for achieving U.S. and NATO goals with regard to Iran, and should be pursued regardless of who holds the weak and ineffectual office of president in Tehran.

[Beckwin]

here's an interesting HuffPo article I'm reading through... it's a timeline of events post-election. at this point we're looking at blackouts and police crackdowns; there's also an interesting graph of of vote totals where pretty much throughout the entire day, the polls remained at a static percentage in favor of Ahmedijenaa;dafuckthisnameishardtorememberhowtospe ll.

Iran Violence (VIDEO): Protests Erupt, Riot Police Launch Crackdown

and yes, I'd say the fact that so many people are demonstrating, the apparent arresting of the opposition candidate, and the information/communication crackdown indicates pretty squarely that the results have been fixed somehow... you don't pull down 65% of a vote or whatever and end up with this outcome.

Darus, while in design the Iranian electoral system may be fair, I think there's something obviously amiss this time around.