[Buddha-l] Political views of Buddhists

[curt]

Richard Hayes wrote:
> On Thursday 14 December 2006 14:10, curt wrote:
>
>   
>> By placing Chavez in the same category as Stalin, the Pope and Kim
>> Jongil, are you trying to suggest that this new system is just as
>> meaningless as the old "left-right" dichotomy?
>>     
>
> Not at all. Chavez is economically to the left, and he is quite authoritarian 
> in that he is pretty intolerant of those who do not share his views. (Or do 
> you think that calling Bush "el diablo" and imprisoning political dissidents 
> betokens tolerance?) 

I guess it depends on one's definition of Authoritarian. 
Anarchists/Libertarians tend to view ALL government as inherently 
Authoritarian. I just think that someone who holds elected office in a 
constitutional democracy cannot be conflated with Stalin and Kim Jong Il.

Actually, Authoritarianism has multiple subcomponents. In particular one 
can readily differentiate between "social/cultural" authoritarianism and 
"political" authoritarianism. For example, the de' Medici's in Florence 
were politically athoritarian, but were culturally libertarian - and the 
infamous Savonarola was a populist or even a "democrat" after a sort, 
but one of his first acts after overthrowing the de' Medici's was to 
increase the penalty for sodomy from a fine to the death sentence. 
Frederick II was also culturally libertarian but politically authoritarian.

>
> Speaking of democracy, I once heard a talk by the Cuban ambassador. Some 
> well-scrubbed well-heeled boorish right-wing student twit asked him when Cuba 
> would ever hold free elections. The ambassador took a long draw on his cigar 
> and said "Every Cuban household has a gun. Every day we do not kill Castro, 
> he is elected."
>
>   

There's a lot to that! It also happens to be the reason why the United 
States has never attempted a replay of the Bay of Pigs.

- Curt