EPTWhy China will never be democratic, - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7291 Posts
:OOOO | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
It would be interesting to see a world where the Kuomintang won the Chinese Civil War and was at least to some degree democratic. I think the key is the some degree democratic part. Most nations transfered slowly in who they allowed to vote in their republics. The aristocracy, then land owners, then only those who were wealthy (poll fees, slavery, literacy tests), all males, females. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:07 Sadist wrote: enlightened despot is obviously the best government :OOOO How is it better than an enlightened president in a presidential system where he has the complete support of the legislature (and gets re-elected every time) ? | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:03 trugbylight wrote: I believe people with high IQ are naturally more prone to avoid corruption. Nikola Tesla is a good example, he knew that if he sold out to Westinghouse he would be the richest man in the world but in exchange he would create a monopoly that would make many people miserable and poor, so he tore up the contract. wat? I don't believe that, I think that example just reflected on Tesla's character instead of his IQ. In fact, I think people who are smarter are just less likely to get caught with corruption rather than be corrupted | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11075 Posts
Of course... the dicator could be lil kim, but nothing is ever quite perfect in reality. The American "conservative" movement really is a pretty good indication of the intelligence, education and wisdom of the masses. | ||
|
tryTRY
United States24 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:09 hypercube wrote: How is it better than an enlightened president in a presidential system where he has the complete support of the legislature (and gets re-elected every time) ? even if you are the smartest person in the world and make 100% correct decisions that doesn't mean people will vote for you in america at least people vote for the candidate they "like" not for the candidate they think is the smartest, most capable, etc. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11554 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:09 hypercube wrote: How is it better than an enlightened president in a presidential system where he has the complete support of the legislature (and gets re-elected every time) ? because the president has to compete against and get stuck in the mire of the legislative system which causes bills to become total suck and useless. | ||
|
trugbylight
United States37 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:09 hypercube wrote: How is it better than an enlightened president in a presidential system where he has the complete support of the legislature (and gets re-elected every time) ? The odds of getting an enlightened despot is much higher than getting an enlightened president. Just to even have a chance of campaigning one would need to raise millions, something that is only accomplished by making back alley deals with large conglomerates like BP, Exxon Mobile, Verizon etc..... Especially since it takes a special kind of man to become a despot, most of the people who ended up becoming despots did not do it because they wanted money but rather they had an ideal that they wanted to pursue. | ||
|
Craton
United States17265 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:03 trugbylight wrote: I believe people with high IQ are naturally more prone to avoid corruption. Nikola Tesla is a good example, he knew that if he sold out to Westinghouse he would be the richest man in the world but in exchange he would create a monopoly that would make many people miserable and poor, so he tore up the contract. Telsa was also a complete badass, so he could be more of an outlier, if anything. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:14 trugbylight wrote: The odds of getting an enlightened despot is much higher than getting an enlightened president. Just to even have a chance of campaigning one would need to raise millions, something that is only accomplished by making back alley deals with large conglomerates like BP, Exxon Mobile, Verizon etc..... Good luck trying to seize power (to become an enlightened despot) without making deals with the devil. You need supporters to seize (and even keep) power either way. To point this out for democracies but ignore it for authoritarian systems is dishonest. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
And democracy also provides a very stable government. Transition of power in successful democracies are peaceful compared to that of other systems. Change is difficult because the system is made to be inefficient by design. You must work hard to build consensus to effect radical change. | ||
|
trugbylight
United States37 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:18 hypercube wrote: Good luck trying to seize power (to become an enlightened despot) without making deals with the devil. You need supporters to seize (and even keep) power either way. To point this out for democracies but ignore it for authoritarian systems is dishonest. What deals did Napoleon, Stalin and Mao make? These leaders gained their supporters by spreading their ideology, not because they were born rich or made backroom deals with the wealthy. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:13 FragKrag wrote: because the president has to compete against and get stuck in the mire of the legislative system which causes bills to become total suck and useless. Sorry, I already said he has the complete support of the legislature. You mean that just can't happen? Well, neither can an idealized enlightened despot. If you're going to compare fantasies against reality of course the fantasy comes out on top. But, as far as I can see, you can create fantasies of democracies that work just as well as fantasies of dictatorships. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:20 Slow Motion wrote: Democracy isn't great because it produces the best leaders or the best economic/foreign policy results. The value of democracy (at least the constitutional, liberal variety) is that it protects individuals freedoms and guards against tyrannical governments. And democracy also provides a very stable government. Transition of power in successful democracies are peaceful compared to that of other systems. Change is difficult because the system is made to be inefficient by design. You must work hard to build consensus to effect radical change. In other words, democracy is good because it sucks? I like that. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:21 trugbylight wrote: What deals did Napoleon, Stalin and Mao make? These leaders gained their supporters by spreading their ideology, not because they were born rich or made backroom deals with the wealthy. Are you serious? Why do you think people worked for the Cheka or the NKVD? It wasn't just fear. Their number one motivation was that they enjoyed their position, the prestige and yes the power of being able to crush almost anyone. If Stalin said they should act nice and not hurt anyone he would have been seen as weak and crushed. Mao also relied on the worst part of people's humanity. The Cultural Revolution wasn't just a way he decided to use his power, it was a means to staying in power. Yes, they didn't make deals with the wealthy, they made deals with evil people, or the evil that lives within most of us. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:20 Slow Motion wrote: And democracy also provides a very stable government. Transition of power in successful democracies are peaceful compared to that of other systems. Change is difficult because the system is made to be inefficient by design. You must work hard to build consensus to effect radical change. What? Democracies are notoriously unstable, and that's inherent in their structure. The Chinese argument has always been (for thousands of years) that social stability trumps all and with a heavy hand, they've maintained it remarkably well given the size of the country. That said, it's not like China is completely devoid of democracy either. There's still local elections in towns and municipalities and although they're generally won by the single party, it's not unheard of that other candidates will win. | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:03 trugbylight wrote: I believe people with high IQ are naturally more prone to avoid corruption. Nikola Tesla is a good example, he knew that if he sold out to Westinghouse he would be the richest man in the world but in exchange he would create a monopoly that would make many people miserable and poor, so he tore up the contract. The people in government in Singapore are indeed extremely intelligent, but that's not why they're not corrupt. They're not corrupt because their salaries are so astronomically high that accepting bribes is more trouble than it's worth. A senior White House official on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 admitted he was floored by the news that Singapore's prime minister earned five times more than US President George W. Bush. "I'm going to emigrate and run for office in Singapore," the official said on condition he be identified only as "a senior administration official who sits in disbelief after reading that story." http://www.mrbiao.com/blog/singapore-pms-salary-stuns-white-house-official.html But what if you want to make a little extra on the side? Even with a high salary, wouldn't you be tempted to make even more? Don't worry, they've thought of that too. MPs are also at liberty to pursue their own business interests and to sit on multiple boards of directors. With all this money being paid above board, who would bother to go through the trouble of accepting bribes? He'd just get another directorship! | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:08 Romantic wrote: It would be interesting to see a world where the Kuomintang won the Chinese Civil War and was at least to some degree democratic. Taiwan? And it's now one of the four Asian tigers. But Taiwan also had a long period of martial law before it democratised. | ||
|
Malgrif
Canada1095 Posts
I think the person who won deserved to win, they brought up good counter points to the opponents criticisms and also showed that they were a person who has power and is thoughtful + Show Spoiler + (first the bus ride and then the the cards, or whatever) Side note: fuk chinese idiosyncrasies sure are different than in western world, they can go to restaurants shirtless WTF! | ||
| ||
