Re: Michael's Question

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that mine were blanket statements. I do not hold any of these
countries up as a model of democratic participation. My aim was to list
countries born of revolution that had remained independent while
preserving some measure of freedoms for a significant portion of their
populations.

The definitional problem, as Jim says, and Doug said, is that "open
society" is ambiguous. The term does have sufficient content to exclude
countries such as the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, and
China, however. It is a barbaric relativism to hold otherwise. This was
my point.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 19:49:08 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
>The US wasn't especially "open" for the slaves or the Indians (and indeed
>for women or, for many years, those free white men without property).
>Israel isn't especially "open" for the Palestinians. Turkey hasn't been
>especially "open" for the Kurds and Armenians (though I don't know enough
>to talk about Turkey at length). ("Open" seems an ambiguous word.)