New World Priorities
Reader comment on item: Avigdor Lieberman's Brilliant Debut

Submitted by Demsci (Netherlands), Apr 3, 2009 at 18:04

Of course many people of governments and media have vastly more experience and knowledge than I have, and I respect them for it. But I think about what they inform me of and say and sometimes come up with ideas.

Now I am inspired by Avigdor Lieberman saying World Priorities should change. If we look at demographics we see that the % of the population that is Islamic in America and Western Europe is rising fast and there are dire warnings that Islam might expand at the expense of say "democratic nations". As there is no migration from democratic countries into dictatorial Islamic ones, which often have much higher birth-rates, the threat seems one-sided. But a high priority of democratic governments could become to increase the % of the world population living under democratic rule at the cost of the % of it living under dictatorial (Islamic or otherwise) rule. And with it the % of people who are democratically or neutral-minded at the cost of the dictatorial minded ones (to me race or genes are completely unimportant). Making the land on and in which people live less important than how they are governed and minded! That means, if financially feasible, so slow at first, to create "new city-states", yes, on democratic territory!

Where people who are prepared to live under democratic rule could go, out from dictatorial states. To let them vote with their feet. To let them sign good contracts with well thought-out conditions beforehand, so that they can legally be expelled from those new states once they no longer adhere to democratic rules. If we make land less important, and the expansion of the % of democratically governed and minded people more important, we may be able to predominantly-peacefully compete successfully with dictatorial (sometimes Islamic) regimes and organisations, even counter to demografics!

We can finance this, instead of waging war for land. Even if we democrats do lose some of these new states, or old democratic states, we can then offer refugees from there new homes! Because it's quite probable that many (oppressed) people, women especially, will flee to democratic prosperous countries from dictatorial, patriarchalistic ones, once given a real viable informed choice! Eventually much land could wind up under democracies, because power + landpossession could well follow the numbers, minds, technologies, prosperity, thus money of people.

So try to make sure THESE are more and more within democracies! And just maybe land is less important than it used to be, now in the 21st century, what with all these travel- and communication technologies and much income and power from other sources than (mere) land. And traveling, migrating never was so POSSIBLE. Of course I also see many problems with this scenario. But, after all, if we do not want more or even worldwide Islamic rule, then what else could we want than more or even worldwide democratic rule?!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.