What I mean is that most of the time when there's a civil war in some country, especially in pre-ww1 Europe, at least one of the sides wants to establish a democracy. This is because ever since it happened in America and France, the world has seen that a democratic government can be pulled off, and that made monarchy seem unnecessary, outdated, and tyrannical.
We want to do the same thing with Ancap principles. If somewhere, we can establish a society that functions just fine without a government, then people will see that government is unnecessary, outdated, and tyrannical. It's basically a faster, more effective way of convincing people it can work - because there's a real life example they can point to.
ok, sure. I buy parts of that, not really the Civil War part if you really give a good look at the south vs north US and their differences (KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT, vs "we own you"), at least that's how my south buddies tell me...which is totally different than northerner kids like me learn. There was a democracy, and several states, who had rights to leave the union left, then they got invaded by a more industrialized region. (again, southerners description, I like hearing their side). So where's the "I want to establish democracy" in this "war of northern aggression" thing here, where they really illegally invaded several states who had the legal right to leave the union? Democracy?"
Ehh, that was rambling, but cigarette store is closing in 5 min, so I have to come back to this. Food for thought, the south US wanted democracy because they used state rights to leave the US union and the yanks literally invaded them.
Cool with this? back in 5-10.
Sure. I'm probably going to go to bed soon anyway.
The civil wars I was talking about are more like the ones that happened in Pre-WW1 Europe, Latin America, India (though not really a civil war, still a revolution), Australia, and China (the one that overthrew the Qing dynasty, not the communist one).
There's also Japan and South Korea, which are rare examples of people (mostly) embracing a democracy that was forced upon them.
I have to take a quick lol break. Democratic principles do not spread from the Western Governments, they install puppets in regions where they want resources, claim they were fighting oppressive or evil regimes, and proceed to absolutely fuck up the region. See Congo and Iran for prime examples of this. Cuba for where "democracy" failed.
Now, spreading democratic principles is in theory great. Some societies may end up working better in a democratic republic (like the US that is in absolute turmoil after a democratic election...), or a republic (rome/greece back in the day), or a monarchy (UK won the game of Risk). The West has fought several wars, overt and covert, in the name of Democracy, but mostly were for power and resources.
After so many fails at people being decent people...how could a good word of democratic principles spread?