Slashdot Mirror
US ISP Terminates Iranian News Website
grcumb writes "BBC News Online is reporting that the 'semi-official' Iranian Student News Agency has had its contract arbitrarily terminated by the US hosting service The Planet. Quoted in the Central Asian & Southern Caucasian Freedom of Expression Network, an ISNA spokesman said, "Eliminating the site of ISNA, a media outlet widely accessed around the world, is against informatics laws and runs counter to the rhetoric about the free flow of information and the principle of freedom to access information and news,". The BBC Reports that Iranian government officials were quick to accuse the US administration of pressuring The Planet to terminate the contract. So what should we make of this? Government conspiracy, corporate arrogance, or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime? " As the submittor says, details are virtually unknown about this - my research shows some calling the ISNA a 'bastion of freedom' to other saying it's run by flunkies of the old men of Iran; definitely not cut and dried one way or another.
Or perhaps it's just business. Some ISP's don't want the hassle that comes with hosting a controversial web site. It costs money and time to do so, and may not be profitable. I can't argue with The Planet if they just decided they weren't making enough money on the deal for it to be worth keeping.
or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?
You by by an oppresive regime.
Trolling is a art,
When will people realize they don't have a "right" to be hosted? Private businesses can do whatever they like since they pay the bills. I'm sure there are a thousand other host that will take the business and a good portion of them are in the USA.
the site is all arabic to me
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The US is not the shining pinnacle of freedom it once was. The American people have obviously been free for too long and they dont appreciate it anymore.
Where exactly is this "informatics law" inscribed in US legislation?
Government censorship is (nearly) always very bad.
Personal self-censorship is essential to civilization.
Business self-censorship, if done correctly, is good business, and is closer to personal than to governmental censorship.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
It's simply the "administration" shutting down the flow of information in advance of an attack. They don't want any pesky students posting photos for all to see of abuses to Iranians or leaking sensitive tactical information, or perhaps they have simply declared this site as a host for terrorists. Time to watch for other Iranian sites going dark to see if this is the precursor to the next round in "The War on Terror".
I wonder which war will take longer to admit defeat in, Terror or Drugs.
p.s. please read the subject of this post :-)
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Anyone who thinks it is needs to educate themselves on the free market.
Yes, in this country, you have a right to say whatever you want. However nobody is obligated to broadcast your message, especially if they believe that your message could be harmful to their own wellbeing.
Now The Planet may have grounds to sue for breach of contract, but that hardly makes this an issue of constitutional law.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
...its foolish to speculate without any information or evidence to support any claims whatsoever.
Link to actual story from the BBC
Another one bites the dust
- ISNA accepted funding from Palestinian militant groups. Hamas and Islamic Jihad helped sponsor the site, and consequently the site was sympathetic to their viewpoints - at times, even running banner ads.
- ISNA advertised for fake charities. Several now-indicted or convicted fronts to radical groups were also major contributors to the site.
- ISNA advocated the killing of innocent Americans. As any Muslim knows, our faith and the Koran does NOT espouse violence against innocents. The ISNA site, on the other hand, frequently published and distributed hateful anti-American literature encouraging the forceful conversion or even murder of innocent Westerners.
As somebody whose friends have been victims of misguided hate crimes against Arab-Americans, I am happy to see this extremist site gone. We will only live in peace when both Muslim and Christian zealots put down their weapons.They're posting a bunch of messages in news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting about how they've terminated a bunch of spammers, and would the blocklist operators pretty please de-list them? Maybe this is part of that effort, either deliberately or accidentally.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Unless the US government influenced them to shutdown the site, I see no problem. ISPs (actually I think IPP is the term here, not sure) have a right to choose who they do and do not host. Some have blanket refusals of certian kidns of websites (porn sites are commonly disallowed), others make the decision on more of a case-by-case basis.
/.ing of their main site). It's possible that it is as simple as the site using more resources than this particular host can or is willing to provide.
If they deicded that this particular site was unacceptable, either because it included content not allowed by their rules, or simply because the amount of money they made was less than money it cost them in terms of lost bussiness, support, complaints, etc, then it is understandable that they'd decide to terminate it.
From the speed at which their main site is loading (as in not at all) I'm going to guess this isn't a large hosting operation (the big ones like Pair will laigh of a
Unless I see some proof of the US ogvernmetn being involved, I'm thinking it was a bussiness decision, and regardless of if it's a good or bad one, that's their right. ISNA is perfectly free to find another host, and this time hopefully they'll check more carefully to make sure they won't have the plug pulled on them. There are plenty of hsots out there, BLue Gravity being one I'm aware of, that for enough cash will let you host high bandwidth and contraversial things (including porn in the case of Blue Gravity).
Might look like Arabic, but it's not the same...
The Planet has the same right to refuse service to repressive regimes as Ebay does to refuse auctions of Nazi items. Free speech includes the right to control what is said on property you own.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
... the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?
Shut down Fox!
So let's each pick a side and start making wild assumptions and speculation.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I used to work for a web hosting company. Any site that in any way pissed people off or even irritated someone a little bit often lead to someone trying to DDoS the stupid site. I can only image how many people are trying to break into/bring down this site because something they said made them mad. I am not saying that what they say is right or wrong, but it is sure to rub someone the wrong way.
It wouldn't suprise me at all if The Planet was just done dealing with the crap. I know we terminated more than one customers account due to that.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
"...definitely not cut and dried one way or another" /.
One of the more apt punch lines I can recall reading in
But all the more reason to cry foul: precicely because it is not well and widley know whether its a propaganda site or the tattered soap box of some oppressed students, its should be left up to the intelligence of the readers on the web to decide what they believe and what they reject.
I have enormous difficulty accepting that the disruption is due, in effect, to the failure of someone to pay their hosting bills. I spend more on coffee than it takes to host a medium traffic webpage. And both the Iyatollahs and the Shah loyalists and just about everybody but the women in Iran have all the cash that could be needed.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Iran, also not necessarily a 'bastion of freedom'... :)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Which is why it is sad if they got the plug pulled because of their content. Our liberty is defined by whether we err on the side of caution and shut down anything that makes us the least uneasy, or whether we accept the risk of things we don't understand/agree with. See Lee Greenwood fans vs. Flag-burning.
Maybe this is just a business decision, completely independent of politics. I doubt it. The US administration is growing increasingly hostile to Iran. Imagine a US ISP hosting a news service sympathetic to Iraq during the build-up to the war. Do you think that they would keep doing so? Do you think that, in the current climate of "sieze you and your assets with a secret warrant and haul you to Cuba where you never get a trial or even a lawyer", the ISP would even wait for the government to say anything?
Most likely, this web site seemed risky to business, and they figured it would just be best if they ended their business relationship. Understandable, but when we look at the history of human abuse and how it is institutionalized in society, we always ask, how could people just stand by and let that happen? Well, you're watching it happen. This may be a small thing, and not particularly oppressive, but it's a good example of how we've allowed ourselves to be intimidated by the threat of government attention, and how it affects many of the decisions we make every day.
Would you open an AOL account so you could start a pr0n website using the included web space? Would you then cry censorship when they take you page down? Maybe these guys did their homework, but it seems to me you'd want to either self-host or be very selective if you're going to run a contriversial site. Oh but wait, then you wouldn't get that free publicity when they shut you down, or the free hosting when some "hero" steps in to "right the wrong".
Shared hosting is like living in an apartment building. If you want to start a swinger's club, you might want to consider a more out-of-the-way location and either buy it or find an open-minded landlord. Because the first time someone shows up at your building with sex-toy-headgear on, Mr. Flanders in 3B is probably going to start making phone calls.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Either of your first two claims (if true) would probably be reason enough to shut it down, due to the administration's current stance on terrorist financing. Now, I personally think their definition of 'terrorism' is overly broad, but this specifically is the sort of thing they did have in mind.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It is strangely possible that some events occur without any government intervention. While it's quite possible, I have to say I really hate the spin added to this story, especially when it's even admitted that there aren't any real details as of yet.
In other news... Man misses light on way to work because of pedestrian in pedestrian crossing... could this be a government conspiracy? News at 11
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
This is probably just another part of the great war on terror. After concluding that most of the world hates america for it's freedom, america is now stricing back, demonstrating that there isn't actually as much freedom as some like to think, thereby reducing the number of reasons for the 'rest of the world' to hate them.
;)
Go ahead, you can mod me down now, in the name of freedom.
the right to free speech...
/. journal and on my website:
I have been discussing this in my
Please read this with the emphasis:
Congress law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say, 'You have the right to say anything you want, the government has the right to remove religious symbols from the public, etc etc"?
Also, when people say, "separation of church and state" they use it as if it were in the 1st ammendment. It IS NOT!
Before many slashdotters reply to this... take into account that the way the 1st ammendment is worded, technically copyright law was a law restricting speech. Was it not?
So again, I ask you, how is this removal of this material a violation of the free flow of information?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Essentially the only thing holding it back is the infamous mullahs, who have oversight over everything that takes place in the government and can go so far as to declare a candidate for any given office "too liberal," thus taking him out of the running.
So, it seems extremely unlikely that this website was a "mouthpiece of an oppressive regime" unless the mullahs had something to do with it, which from what I can tell is a stretch at best. With that in mind, the only assumption that one can make is that the closing of this website has something to do with the fact that the Bushies have Iran in their sights for the next misguided invasion. And what do the Bushies do when they want to go to war? Spread lies and false information, and try to cover up the viewpoint of the other side. With that in mind, I would not be surprised if they were behind this. However, considering the lack of details, I'll just have to don my TinFoilHat for now.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
I wonder which war will take longer to admit defeat in, Terror or Drugs.
HA! I caught you!
You thought you could fool us all, didn't you?
Defeat will never be admitted in either one!
We all know the conservative pundits in favor of the War on Drugs will NEVER give up, as the "Must protect the children by cutting everything out of life we don't want them to see" crowd would have their political heads on poles if they did.
And the war on terror? Why on EARTH would the Conservatives give up an enemy like Terrorists after losing Communism as a "Give me power so I can protect you" bogeyman. No, as ling as there is political gain to be made from it, the War on Terror will continue, and everyone who opposes it will be portrayed as a weak willed coward incapable of taking a stand and begging for the world to take advantage of them.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
As a customer you should be concerned that they may terminate your service on short notice based on political content.
The article poster, and a fair few people commenting, are suggesting that since the site may have been run by nasty old men from Iraq's flunkies, rather than bona fide students, that it's fine to take it down...
So what you're saying is that freedom of expression is fine - as long as the people are expressing a viewpoint that you concur with?
No matter who the authors are it's still taking someone's freedom of expression away - you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can express themselves freely, and the US Government definitely shouldn't be deciding that!!!
--- Band: Joey Ultra
The ends justify the means these days. We've lost any semblance of ideals. Privacy, the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search...all shamelessly trampled when they become inconvenient in the war on terror.
Although at least this time we learned to keep our internment camps somewhere less visible.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
or the proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime?
Is that possible? Who is to say what is proper? When does the one sanctioning become the oppressor?
After watching for a year, the US become more and more unfriendly towards the rest of the world, I decided they were not worth doing business with. I stopped visiting that country, transferred all my money back to Canada (I worked in US for a while and amassed quite a bit of money), and now avoid buying US products as much as possible. What I don't get... why are other non-Americans still doing business with USA?? There are much much better countries and entities to deal with: the EU, Switzerland, India, even Canada. Why continue to deal with a country that is so obviously hostile towards foreigners?
Iranian Blogger Arrested
20 Iranian Bloggers and Journalists Arrested
Iranian President calls for Investigation of Blogger Torture
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president called Sunday for an investigation into journalists' allegations they were tortured into confessing to charges such as insulting sacred beliefs and endangering national security after publishing articles critical of conservatives in the government.
To explain, consider that Man, in his/her natural state, has no Man-made laws governing him/her. Laws, like government, are an artificial creation, and they are not the natural state of mankind. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who would take away our rights, not those who would restore them to their natural state.
So it does not matter that the Constitution does not explicitly say "you have the right to etc., etc." What matters is that Congress shall make no laws restricting speech, which essentially means that we *maintain* our right to freedom of speech in the face of the State.
By extension, the separation of church and state is also in the Constitution. Instead of "you have the right to separation of church and state," it states, "Congress shall make no laws linking the two." The reason for this is that the State is a compulsory organization, whereas a church is a voluntary one. Linking the two would make whatever church is endorced by the State a de-facto compulsory organization. State religion was not part of our social contract with the State (in which we essentially give up power for protection in an artificial body.) Both the Church and the State are artificial institutions, in other words, but while we collectively allow the State to exist as a compulsory organization, we made no such contract with any church. Mankind in his/her natural state has no religion except that which is invented or passed down, and therefore we have a right to be free from religion unless we voluntarily give that right up (say, by joining one of our own free will.)
I hope I've helped to answer your questions.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
As I wrote 23 years ago:
The grace period may be about over.
Seastead this.
Did I say it was? Do you know what the word 'also' means? I just love these erroneous and blind opinions about my posts, mind you, but I doubt it serves anyone well.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If The Planet felt, for *whatever* reason, they were on the losing side of this deal, and they are prepared to deal with the possible repricussions of the doing so, they can break the deal.
In summary, to all the freedom-freaks: This has nothing to do with freedoms of any kind, except of course, the freedom for The Planet to act how they did. No government squashing of free speech, no freedom to be hosted wherever you please. Nope, nothing like that.Well it says all the ISP really has to say there. That they reached a decision to terminate hosting, as they have a right to do.
I run a small hosting company, and I personaly see nothing wrong with deciding whether I want to host someone or not, based on my own judgment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and more with the hosting company deciding they do not want to be associated with a particular site/message. Every hosting company, small ones like mine included have the right not to do business with someone, at their own discretion.
Why do people immediately think "government cencorship" here? A business has a right to decide how it wants to do business.
They still have their freedom of speech, but I do not have to rent them their soapbox if I don't want to.
Firstly, if this is a "semi-official" (government-run or -connected?) news site, why isn't it hosted in Iran proper?
If for some reason that's not possible, the best thing one could do if they run a site like this is get it out of the "Land of the Free" United States and host it in a country that actually respects political* free expression. For example, the Iraqi resistance website is hosted in the Netherlands. I've come across a lot of similar sites run by organizations like HAMAS or the Hizballah, and IIRC they were hosted in the Netherlands, too. The Chechens used to have their website hosted in Lithuania, until they posted a communiqué from Shamil Basaev after the Beslan incident, whereupon they got temporarily shut down (probably under pressure from Russia); now the site appears to be in Sweden.
So your best bet if you're running some site like this is to look at Europe, particularly Scandinavia, and ignore any claptrap you hear about "Constitutional" protections in the US (much like the government itself does).
--
* In the US, you can get away with some of the most blatant racism and the bizarrest pornography, all under the ægis of freedom of expression, but anything that comes a bit too close to pissing off the State will quickly find you shut down.
Liberty in your lifetime
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Sure it didn't. And when the NYSE revoked al-Jazeera's press credentials, that was also purely a business decision.
Americans put their hands over their hearts and preach to the world about freedom and human rights, and then turn around and torture prisoners, and attack freedom of the press, not to mention .... and then are bewildered that the world doesn't love them.
The US Government requires a specific license to provide any goods or services to anyone in iran.
It's probably the case that the ISP realized they should have asked for this permit first, but to cover their asses they pulled the site asap.
I'm sure the newspaper can host their site in a country with less restrictive export controls - i'm sure they can find somewhere in europe.
And this one:
And so on and so forth...
Essentially, they can revoke my contract for many subjective reasons. They would of course refund my money, and I would of course take it to another ISP. However, I can't imagine any ISPs would not have similar clauses in their contracts, and I can't imagine that any responsibly ISP would enter a contract with an iranian student news agency without some very creative flexible exit clauses.
So... how do you figure it was a breach of contract?
"how is the rest of the non-muslim world supposed to co-exist with a religion that commands the destruction of non-beleivers (infidels)."
Please get your facts straight before posting here...
What you and the other bro said is false. Islam does NOT what so ever command the destruction of human beings no matter what religion, race or sex they are. Show me a quote in the Quran which implies what you are saying, then I will believe you.
The word Islam comes from Salam, which means peace. That is pretty self explanatory I think.
Sir, this is Slashdot, the Usenet of the web. Your sensibility and level-headed approach to a murky situation is not appreciated here.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
The USA has an Equal Time rule when it comes to TV broadcasters. It came into being because the Gov recognized that the power of TV could be abused to promote only one side and is used to help counter it. Essentially, in some cases they "can" be required to broadcast it.
m eru/equaltimeru.htm
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equalti
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
In the US and most (all?) other areas, ISPs are not Common Carriers although they retain certain aspects Common Carriers. ISPs are quite free to "protect" their networks or "customize" their services as they see fit. ISPs have to walk a fine line with this, if an ISP can be shown to have too much control over the CONTENT of what is passed over their network, they may cause themselves to be liable for illegal acts that occur on their network. Terminating a user's service is not normally considered to be censorship. Any halfway clued ISP's contract will say that the ISP can terminate service for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Rhetoric about "freedom" has become about as empty (and calculated) as rhetoric about "supporting the troops" lately. There certainly are Americans who seem to be willing to make an ends-and-means calculation about the sorts of torture that happened at Abu Graib.
My Southern Baptist relations dismissed those photos as one of the necessities of fighting this kind of war, to use one example, and they're all for spreading "freedom" in the world. Big backers of W's, those folks, and just fine with torturing a few people to get it.
Personally I think there's both moral and legal responsibility at a higher level, of course. But some of the same people are okay with both "freedom" and what happened at Abu Graib.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
You have no idea what a "neoconservative" is; these are definitions you've made up yourself (along with others who wish to vilify neoconservatives and make "neocon" a dirty word).
Neocons are not the ultra conservative religious right.
Neocons are not killers of abortion doctors.
Neocons are not gay bashers.
Now, Bush IS a neoconservative. But there seems to be a disconnect here. Because if you think that Bush is anywhere CLOSE to this ultra fanatical religious right you think about, you have no fucking idea who those people are. Hint: it's the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons. Think some of those people and their followers got Bush elected? You bet. But that's not because Bush is one of them, it's just that viewed on a practical scale, Bush (or any conservative) is probably closer to their ideals than, say, Kerry.
Your attempt to associate neoconservatism with abortion doctor-killers, gay beaters/killers/bashers, and ultra right-wing fundamentalists is a ridiculously laughable one, but sadly typical among many liberals and leftists today. Go ahead, try to redefine the word. You and others like you have already been successful to an extent. But that's not what neoconservatism means, at all.
Neoconservatism is based generally in the following ideals:
Free markets and trade
More social investment than traditional conservatives
Aggressive and non-isolationist foreign policy
Unilateralism
Opposition to communism and non-democratic ideals
Your rants on religious fanaticism and gay bashing are utter fantasy.
If you're actually interested in neoconservatism and what it really means, and not what you think it means or what you'd like it to mean, see:
Neoconservatism
And, critically, if you want to see what the entire US foreign policy is based on, see:
Statement of Principles
Interestingly, liberals are mortified when they read that. I have no earthly idea why, as it represents a critical and fundamental understanding that we have an obligation not only to ourselves but to the world at large to spread concepts of freedom and democratic principles for positive gain.
If you can't understand why we're in Iraq right now, here it is in a nutshell:
- NOT because of WMD (even though that was, correctly, presented as the primary reason at the time, since it was, again correctly, assumed that we would indeed find large stockpiles of said weapons, thus justifying the mission on its face)
- BECAUSE Iraq was a largely secular state, there wouldn't be as violent an Islamic fundamentalist backlash as if we had entered, say, Saudi Arabia
- BECAUSE we already had a history with Iraq, and the case could be relatively easily made to the US populace
- BECAUSE we have limited resources, do NOT have 500,000 or more troops to commit, and do NOT want the draft that all the liberals think Republicans want
- BECAUSE of those limited resources, we can only afford change on a single front, and have hopes that this will catalyze democratic reform in neighboring states, or at least begin the processes
- BECAUSE something needs to be done about Panislamic radicalism. Why Iraq, then, and not Saudi Arabia? Because going into Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a war directly on Islam (which this is NOT, by the way, dumbass) even more than going into Iraq is, and would simultaneously cause the oil market stability in the entire mideast to utterly collapse, which would gravely hurt the US economy as well as that of Europe
- BECAUSE the FREE flow of information and ideas and freedom of religion, government, speech, association, coupled with security and rule of law, have a chance at a quick modernization of several borderline nations in the mideast (e.g., Iran, Jordan, Egypt), and could have far-reaching long term implications for our own s
Hmmm....
I always thought that terrorists were a diverse bunch religiously. A few groups to think about:
1) Tamil Tigers (Hindu, inventors of the suicide bomb tactics)
2) IRA (still somewhat active outside N. Ireland, Catholic)
3) Various unionist militias in N. Ireland (unknown how active they are at present, Protestant)
4) Various groups in Columbia and Venezuela (Mostly Catholic)
5) Various groups in India (Hindu and Muslim)
6) Various Israeli groups (Jewish)
Hmmm.... Better become a Buddhist? All Hindus, Christians, Jews, and Muslims must be terrorists!
The only reason why we keep hearing about the Islamic terrorists is that these were the militants we (the US) recruited from all across the Islamic world to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now, when we want to protect or "interests" in the area, we have to contend with the monster that we created: A global collegiate network of Islamist terrorists.
If we were doing the same thing still in South America (as we were doing in the 1970's) we might hear all about the Catholic Terrorists in Columbia and Venezuela. Oh, and their allies, the Provincial Irish Republican Army. That is another global terrorist network that we don't hear anything about. And yes, there are connections to both through the Palestinians too because both sides want to play on the idea that they are in solidarity with an oppressed group.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Suppose you lived in a prison state. Every aspect of your existence was enforced, however, that enforcement was in perfect accord with your own wishes. Are you still free?
There is no difference. You are free, because you are allowed to do everything you want. All major political ideologies want to free people, but they differ in their beliefs on what most people want, and whether people know what they want (revealed preference vs. motivating preference).
As far as Iraq is concerned, in as much as the people didn't break the bonds of Saddam's rule by themselves, but had democracy foisted upon them; I would agree with you. It is just another form of slavery.
I believe most people in Iraq wanted something better than Saddam.
There is another, more fundamental, issue: In the late 19th century, Kuyper (you will not know him unless you happen to be Dutch) argued that a people, by virtue of numbers, is always able to remove its elite as long as you ignore cross-border effects. You cannot oppress a majority. So a people that is sufficiently autonomous (from outside interference) gets the government it deserves.
In reality a weak country cannot remove its elite if that elite is supported with the money and technology of a strong country. In much of the world 'government' is a battleground (or beauty contest) for western money and technology.
The Soviet Union collapsed because the people stopped supporting it. In a small country this does not happen as long as the elite has weapons the people cannot produce for themselves.
The 'invisible hand of democracy' will only work if countries respect the sovereignty of other countries.
Invaders sometimes leave a stable democracy behind, but only because they didn't impose it and left and the people happened to be ready. Germany and Japan after WWII are bad examples for imposing a democracy. There the people did it themselves. Germany and Austria after WWI ARE examples, and they went terribly wrong.
What happens if the people vote to have Saddam installed back in power?
Then Iraq would prove Kuyper's point. I wouldn't dare to speculate what happens in the US, but it probably has a happy ending because the American people are autonomous by virtue of their number and wealth.
Hogwash, unless you get persnickety with the definition of cross-border. There's all sorts of control points on a nation, and you don't generally need to be a majority to have them. Historically, technology has been used. The pyschological advantage of control can't be overestimated either, slavery is a good example here. Control of water sources is a great way for a minority to control a majority.
Kuyper may have meant that if the majority didn't care for their own losses, and manged to throw off all the chains of psychological and class warfare, then they can always overcome the ruling minority. That's true to a point, but I'd take issue with the "always". Take prison riots as a counterexample, which occasionally succeed, but more often are suppressed.
Kuyper's statements make for good rhetoric and probably morale lifting speeches but kinda fall apart in the real world.
I'd say you're a pretty lousy ruling elite if you don't make sure that control of whatever makes you elite stays in your hands, though. Maybe he only meant stupid ruling elites :P
I'd say he meant late 19th century elites. It was largely true then, but right now globalization, science and technology seem to have seriously stacked the odds against the masses. Still the "elite" also has an information problem: who can be trusted with the control points?
The "control points" are safe if they are outside your direct control. That's one of the ways foreigners can play a role. "Outsource" the key jobs to people who cannot have a reason to participate in a revolt.
Iraq's control points are the oil fields, the Shatt-al-Arab and its harbors, and the bank account where the money comes in. Saudi Arabia's control points are the oil fields, the walled city of Dhahran and its harbors, and the bank account where the money comes in. Only foreigners and Saudi Aramco employees live and go there, and the US defends it. In both cases all of them are out of control of the people because they cannot go there. That's the tragedy of these countries: there is nothing but the oil trade.
I would disagree. You omitted the last part of the statement : "except not live in a prison state". In essence, you seem to be saying that if your cage is comfy enough, that is "free". Think of it a different way: mandelbrot set.
Mandelbrot is too abstract for me. Another answer I considered is that your prison state is an absolute monarchy, where only one has that freedom, since the total freedom of choice of one interferes with the freedom of choice of any other.
Since I do happen to live in a real world monarchy: the metaphor of the golden cage is common here, the monarch being the one person who is categorically denied his freedom of speech by the constitution. The monarch also doesn't vote, cannot choose his own career etc. The subjects cage the monarch, and the monarch is there to be a symbolic caged master because the people never could decide on another master.
One of the things I learned from Ofra Bengio's book "Saddam's Word", is that Saddam's rule was not Orwellian in character. Saddam was there because he was the strongest warlord, and the people are divided. Hitler could never have become a communist. Saddam could easily switch from being a pan-arabic nationalist to being a fake muslim fanatic. Saddam was an absolute monarch.
A Christian Fundamentalist Totalitarian State might seem more free if you happen to be of that mindset.
Indeed. Since freedom interferes with the freedom of others, there is only a limited amount of it that everyone can have at the same time. The trick is to align it with what people generally want. Most people can live with the restriction that they cannot interfere with the physical integrity, and honor and dignity of other people, for instance. Some can't.
To some freedom is a democracy, to others a theocracy, monarchy, or communist state. Others want to be a Nazi executioner. Democracy does not help those who fail to recognize what the viable options are, and fail to recognize who really is their master. Democracy, free market rhetoric, and libertarianism make very strong assumptions about people's autonomy. Liberalism (in the European sense, and including Kuyper's political calvinism) and socialism assume that people first have to be liberated by educating them before they recognize their true interests.
If Kuyper were right, no oppressive empires would have ever been made. You underestimate the power of bread and circuses backed by the threat of force.
Within his own frame of reference, Kuyper, who was a calvinist political leader and philosopher, is still right. He would note that the people cannot free themselves because of their own moral defects. Because the citizens of those oppressive empires weren't true calvinists. To oppress true calvinists indefinitely you would have to take their bible, and that would have to happen first. Human nature as it really is, is not part of his equation. People get the government they deserve. Other types of liberals and socialists would have a similar answer on how to 'safeguard the revolution'. The true marxist revolution will come when a people is ready for it.
You can't escape this problem by having no state. That's not freedom, but a Hobbesian state of nature where anyone can be your master. In Somalia you aren't free, even though there is no state.
*insert Orwellian comment here*
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- George Orwell
Even the Catholic church could never end truth. It is always there to be rediscovered, when the people are ready. At any time, some people will feel oppressed while others feel mostly free to do what they want. Orwell's state exists only as a caricature, that is as much a description of the democratic world we live in as it is descriptive of the Soviet Union, or medieval Europe. We make caricatures of our enemies.
Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. -- George Orwell
For people with an Orwellian outlook this site by an intelligent lunatic is wonderful. It explains why democracy, human rights, liberalism, libertarianism, and the free market are totalitarian. To him at least.