[skrebbel]

To be frank, it's clear the Brits were the baddies here. They used guns to force a state that had banned terrible drugs to unban it.

Whether that state was totally nice or democratic or "Chinese" or whatever value you cherish, is besides the point. It does not legitimize any of what GB did during either Opium War, and therefore I disagree that it's "important to stress".

[dash2]

Some people think banning drugs is a bad idea, and that it's better to allow free trade.

A good response to that would be, "yeah, but it was for the Chinese to make their minds up about that, not the British!"

And a good response to that might be: "when you say the Chinese made their minds up, are you talking about a democratic process?"

[ginko]

>And a good response to that might be: "when you say the Chinese made their minds up, are you talking about a democratic process?"

It was the early 19th century. You could count the number of democratic countries on one hand. (If you counted countries where only men could vote)

[rsynnott]

Really zero hands; there was nowhere in 1839 that would be considered democratic by modern standards (no-one even had universal male suffrage at that point, never mind universal suffrage).

[dash2]

Right. But this renders moot the whole question of force and consent here. One undemocratic government did something to another undemocratic government. Or at least, if you think democracy is the sole source of legitimacy, that's what happens. I think there are other possible stories that could be told.

[skrebbel]

Neither side of this battle thought that allowing 100% unfettered trade in the terrorities they controlled was a good thing. This wasn't some ideological war by starry eyed libertarians.

[dash2]

19th century Britain is probably as close to "starry-eyed libertarianism" as has ever been seen before or since. They repealed the Corn Laws.