June 15 stands as one of the most significant dates in the history of freedom. On this date in 1215, King John affixed his seal on the Magna Carta at Runnymede. The document, agreed to by King John under duress, outlined a number of matters in which the government and its agents couldn't infringe upon the liberties of free men. The first point affirms that "the Church of England shall be free, and shall have her whole rights and liberties involiable." Following the restriction of the King's power over the Church, the Magna Carta grants rights to women regarding marriage and inheritances, limits fines for trivial offenses, prohibits arbitrary land expropriation, forbids government officials from confiscating goods, and affirms the right of self-government within the Church and among the barons. "The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter," one of the document's concluding paragraphs notes.

The agedness of the Magna Carta and how meager the rights, privileges, and freedoms strike many moderns demonstrate that the societies of the West were made and not born. No genius in a laboratory, or council of wise men sitting round a fire, invented the government we have today. It developed. And as much as we might like our form of government, our mere example and persuasion can't convince outsiders to embrace it there overnight absent the historical set of circumstances that gave rise to it here over thousands of years.

Magna Carta to an extent developed too. Although parliament eventually was an evolution from Magna Carta, acc. to my recollections of Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples," it wasn't until the 16th century when it was commonly referenced.

And as much as we might like our form of government, our mere example and persuasion can't convince outsiders to embrace it there overnight absent the historical set of circumstances that gave rise to it here over thousands of years.

People can reach the same ends through different circumstances. If you were right, I'd expect China to democratize in the year 3000. History -- specifically the amazing progress the entire world has made in the past 50 years alone -- tells me that it'll be a lot sooner.

Another thing...

The history of the West is part of a bigger picture, obviously -- that of the world. Influence does not remain within. This is the reason why the protesters in Tienamen Square were so inspired as to create their own Statue of Liberty. They had very different circumstances historically, culturally, and the rest, but there was a parallel: opposition to tyranny. That is an idea of universal proportions.

"And as much as we might like our form of government, our mere example and persuasion can't convince outsiders to embrace it there overnight absent the historical set of circumstances that gave rise to it here over thousands of years."

No, but Globalization can.

Ben T: What do you mean by "Globalization"? Also, what makes you think that it will cause the spread of limited government and the basic rights of Americans?

What do you mean by "Globalization"?

I don't mean to steal Mr. T's questions, but I'm certain he is using the term to mean the spread of free markets. As far as your second question, numerous people -- notably Milton Friedman -- have demonstrated the link between free-market capitalism and political freedom. When people are wealthier due to increased economic choices, they are more likely to agitate effectively for political change.

OK. "Spread of Free markets." I'm all for that. And I believe that economic freedom and other civil liberties/limited government often come together. But my question is whether "globalization" (as a name for the spread of supernational corporations) really is the spread of free markets. Don't you think that the types of companies involved in gloablization are often quite willing to engage in anti-free market behavior?

Don't you think that the types of companies involved in gloablization are often quite willing to engage in anti-free market behavior?

Well companies are always in it for their own interests, and thus will gladly accept a restricted market when it works in their favor. We should try to ensure that situations like that are rare.

Still, poor people around the world (as well as rich people) are much better off, and will continue being much better off, thanks to globalization. 400 million Chinese have risen out of poverty, and similar patterns have been found in India and Uganda. While globalization might not work perfectly, as you point out, it certainly offers a net benefit to the world.

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."

Alexander Hamilton (the third and fourth sentences of The Federalist Papers)

One more comment: The science that led to smallpox vaccine developed over millenia, too. Yet once it was discovered and its efficacy demonstrated, it was adopted by people in other cultures within decades.

Okay I'm back. I'll start by answering Short's question.

As one modern day Chinese revolutionary (AGAINST the Communists) says"

"I now know that freedom is 90 percent economic and 10 percent political."

Globalization starts with the spread of free markets, but it has taken on more than that. It also now means the spread of connectivity, technology, and economic interdependence. And yes, it also refers to the spread of freedom and democracy.

As senior strategic researcher, Thomas PM Barnett says, Globalization can be roughly divided into three sectors:

The Functioning Core-Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, et cetera. Those parts of the world most connected to the international/intercontinental web of economic interdependency. These are also the parts of the world most at peace with each other, and where average standards of living are the highest.

New Globalizers-China, India, Brazil, et cetera. Where Globalization is CURRENTLY in the process of spreading. These are the areas wherein the world economy's "rising stars" lie. In these areas, standards of living, connectivity through things such as the internet, and social, economic, and political freedom are all on the rapid rise. In India, the Caste system is falling by the wayside. In China, the Communist Party finds itself with less and less power every day. This is where the power of Globalization, Connectivity, and Economic Interdependency to effect social and political change can most be seen.

The Non-Integrating Gap-Not only is this the area that is beyond the spread of Globalization and Connectivity, this is where almost all of the world's large problem areas arise. The lack of connectednes and economic interdependence, and the presence of Economic, Social, and Political Desperation,that comes with it, is a spawning pool for just the kind of Political and Religious Extremism that poses a threat to the US today.

As Thomas PM Barnett says, in his book "THE PENTAGON'S NEW MAP: WAR AND PEACE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY"

"Disconnectedness Defines Danger."

DocMcG's parallel between antibiotics and freedom is supposed to show that just because something took a long time to develop does not mean that it takes a long time to adopt by people who didn't develop it. Good. Right.

But technology and medicine seem to be different from large cultural formations like types of government or religions. Antibiotics involves mere physical causality. Big deal. The drugs will work regardless of any cultural differences. Adopting a new government or a new culture isn't quite as simple.

Why? Partly because "the force of law is custom." It's difficult to learn to see authority in some random schmuck without all kinds of custom and pomp. A new government is easily seen through--hey, they're just schmucks like me! E.g., for many Iraqis I assume the government isn't a government at all--but a bunch of jerks with guns.

Also, custom is so rooted, amorphous, invisable, and controlling over a people's understanding. So even when we adopt new ideas or institutions, we often absorb them into already established customs and concepts. Asking the Zulu to copy the American congress would be a theatrical production, until those concepts became properly rooted and authentic for them.

This, I think, is largely what Burke meant when making fun of the (French) rationalists for thinking that a people can change governments the way they change fashions, and for condemning the British mistreatment of Indian and Irish culture (as if they were supposed to become Brits).

This of course assumes that Democracy is a western-only virtue that is somehow alien to non-westerners.

Patently false. As we can see via looking at historical trends, democracy has trouble sprouting not in areas that are traditionally of a non-western social bent, but in areas with economic desperation is the rule of the day.

His the post button by accident.

For example, in the most economically prosperous Non-Western Cultures, we see Liberal Democracy sprouting just fine. Meanwhile, when we see Economic Desperation overtake Western Cultures, Totalitarianism and Radicalism hold sway over Europeans just as easily as they do over Arabs or Africans.