Why China will never be democratic, and should never be democratic
This is a documentary done on one of China's many experiments with democracy. Apparently China has done many experiments with democracy and the reason why they have chosen not to become a democracy is that they noticed that the candidates who were usually elected were the ones who could lie with a straight face, bought votes, and always chose short term prosperity over long term gains.
Please watch this documentary and discuss
Also a point of discussion, who do you believe truly deserved to win the election shown in the documentary?
i haven't watched it yet. Things change, chinese people will want a sense of democracy soon anyways. plus China's PR sucks for being a "commie" country. they might move towards socialistic system like Canada.
ALL politicians lie with a straight face, or they will at one point in their career. People know this and elect the best of the choices.
You realize USA probably will not be democratic when they vote for the president right?
Eh if all you see is the bad in democracy then arrange your democracy to exploit those who are bad, arrange it so peoples greed aligns with the greater good.
Hell if they don't want democracy because of corruption then why do they have communism which has just as bad of a track record of being corrupt
On July 15 2010 10:28 Mykill wrote: i haven't watched it yet. Things change, chinese people will want a sense of democracy soon anyways. plus China's PR sucks for being a "commie" country. they might move towards socialistic system like Canada.
ALL politicians lie with a straight face, or they will at one point in their career. People know this and elect the best of the choices.
You realize USA probably will not be democratic when they vote for the president right?
Watch the video, even though the election was done by children apparently the EXACT SAME THING happens in every other democracy experiment. Even with educated adults.
you should watch the other 'why democracy' videos as well.
the thing is that everyone (in the western world) thinks that the democratic system is superior to other systems. but they don't realize that there are other systems that would just cope better with the current state of development in other countries.
On July 15 2010 10:28 Mykill wrote: i haven't watched it yet. Things change, chinese people will want a sense of democracy soon anyways. plus China's PR sucks for being a "commie" country. they might move towards socialistic system like Canada.
ALL politicians lie with a straight face, or they will at one point in their career. People know this and elect the best of the choices.
You realize USA probably will not be democratic when they vote for the president right?
Watch the video, even though the election was done by children apparently the EXACT SAME THING happens in every other democracy experiment. Even with educated adults.
This is not something that only happens to chinese is it? I really do not thing of voting for a person who seems trustworthy only affects the Chinese population. By this logic your saying that all countries that are not currently democratic will never become democratic this is clearly not true.
Well a form of democracy, rarely everything being democratic is impossible as people don't have the mind set to vote on every issue and rather have elected officials go though the small stuff.
A full on true democracy is impossible at any large population set.
So a group of school children is hardly Representative on how a system that could work in china would be implemented and done in practice.
Don't want the people to lie, make it hard for them or make them accountable in a way, nothing says you can't make a system that does it like that.
Why give people the chance to blow it themselves, the government knows better and will make the better long term decisions. Thats why the internet is a big firewall in china. Thinking for yourself is evil..
it's not impossible, but it's rather hard to install a democracy that will not be shattered into anarchy in a country that is similarly as large as china.
On July 15 2010 10:38 Patches wrote: Why give people the chance to blow it themselves, the government knows better and will make the better long term decisions. Thats why the internet is a big firewall in china. Thinking for yourself is evil..
an unstable country is bad. think about it: would you rather live in a free, democratic but chaotic country that could get into anarchy anytime or would you rather live in a country like china. they don't have the standard of freedom we have in the western world, but at least, they are not in a civil war like the whole time they were before 1948.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
That being said, I think the video doesn't particularly make any real points apart from mindless cynicism. A lot of stuff on the internet appeals to people's appetite for quick and easy answers, in this case 'China cannot have democracy because LOOK how the children are socialized.' The real question is infinitely more complex and this video barely touches the surface. Any reasonable, well thought out, and reasonably relevant commentary on whether or not China as a country and society is ready for democracy in the western tradition isn't really viable via youtube.
Apparently China has done many experiments with democracy and the reason why they have chosen not to become a democracy is that they noticed that the candidates who were usually elected were the ones who could lie with a straight face, bought votes, and always chose short term prosperity over long term gains.
When you're not in a democracy (of some sort) the "they" does not represent the citizens' opinon. Arguing against democracy is quite a paradox, because who decides not to have democracy in the first place?
Apparently China has done many experiments with democracy and the reason why they have chosen not to become a democracy is that they noticed that the candidates who were usually elected were the ones who could lie with a straight face, bought votes, and always chose short term prosperity over long term gains.
When you're not in a democracy (of some sort) the "they" does not represent the citizens' opinon. Arguing against democracy is quite a paradox, because who decides not to have democracy in the first place?
On July 15 2010 10:38 Patches wrote: Why give people the chance to blow it themselves, the government knows better and will make the better long term decisions. Thats why the internet is a big firewall in china. Thinking for yourself is evil..
In the end, if there's bread on the table no one's going to bother with the question.
Now here's an interesting question; Have singapore and China created Plato's republic? Guardian Philosophers(scientists) managing and protecting the herd?
On July 15 2010 10:38 Patches wrote: Why give people the chance to blow it themselves, the government knows better and will make the better long term decisions. Thats why the internet is a big firewall in china. Thinking for yourself is evil..
On July 15 2010 10:52 Sabu113 wrote: In the end, if there's bread on the table no one's going to bother with the question.
Now here's an interesting question; Have singapore and China created Plato's republic? Guardian Philosophers(scientists) managing and protecting the herd?
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.
A lot of criticisms of democracy work just as well for any power relation. In any competition for power the guy who is not restrained by social convention has an inherent advantage.
IIRC US intelligence was afraid of the appeal of communism to third-world countries because of the ability it had to transform agricultural societies into more advanced ones very quickly. Obviously, it is done at an incredible cost (See: Soviet Union).
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.
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) ?
On July 15 2010 10:52 Sabu113 wrote: In the end, if there's bread on the table no one's going to bother with the question.
Now here's an interesting question; Have singapore and China created Plato's republic? Guardian Philosophers(scientists) managing and protecting the herd?
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
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.
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) ?
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.
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) ?
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.
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) ?
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.
On July 15 2010 10:52 Sabu113 wrote: In the end, if there's bread on the table no one's going to bother with the question.
Now here's an interesting question; Have singapore and China created Plato's republic? Guardian Philosophers(scientists) managing and protecting the herd?
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.
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) ?
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.
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.
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) ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On July 15 2010 10:52 Sabu113 wrote: In the end, if there's bread on the table no one's going to bother with the question.
Now here's an interesting question; Have singapore and China created Plato's republic? Guardian Philosophers(scientists) managing and protecting the herd?
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."
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!
Since the start of the video it felt extremely staged, but i still believe this is probably an accurate representation of most democratic elections. However, I don't really understand why the OP is aiming these negative points specifically at china. People like to be in power, but some people just like it more, meaning that they'll use any means necessarily to win votes.
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)
. The opponents were too self involved with what they were saying, instead of with how to make people remember what they were saying. I think this was the deciding factor that determined to victor.
Side note: fuk chinese idiosyncrasies sure are different than in western world, they can go to restaurants shirtless WTF!
I lived in China and just came back. There are many people who want democracy. There are many examples of how democracy works in China. This is clearly a government sponsored video. Of course they are going to say democracy doesn't work. No American government film is going to say communism works.
Oh and by the way, this video is fake. The kids were fed lines by the filmers and many of the scenes were staged. (You are going to tell me that they happened to have been filming the little girl at dance class while the "evil" canidate was spying on her through the window? Sure...)
They run a school election for monitors. Three children are appointed as candidates, Xu Xiaofei, Cheng Cheng, and Luo Lei. Xu Xiaofei is an introvert girl, she looks hardworking and talented in some arts but do not pose as a leader. She would make a charismatic leader, at best. Cheng Cheng is confident and smart kid. He has the street smarts, quick wit and several tricks up his sleeve. He looks like some sort of leader by merit. Luo Lei is a bit like Cheng Cheng, except maybe a bit more of a rebel or a bully. He lacks a lot of the qualities of his adversaries, but has some confidence. He wins the election by purchasing his electorate with gifts.
This happens not only in China but pretty much everywhere else in the world. Specially in developing countries where the majority of the candidates live around the poverty line. It is very easy to enchant the simple minded people. If the subject is their own benefits, their minds work quite similar to the those of school children, easily bribed and fooled. I guess this is why popular governments seem more likely to arise in low income countries.
Now, to answer the OP question. If I was in my early childhood days, I would have probably voted for Luo Lei. As an adult however, I think Cheng Cheng would make the best monitor, even though he has a lot of traits I disapprove. Most likely, I would have voted blank.
On July 15 2010 11:42 Malgrif wrote: Side note: fuk chinese idiosyncrasies sure are different than in western world, they can go to restaurants shirtless WTF!
Its standard because its so damn hot and nobody has air conditioning.
I don't think China will ever become a democracy because their culture will never accept individuality over the collectivism of the state. I don't see a reason why they would want to become a democracy anyway.
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.
China would be very similar to India if this happened. Both China and India started out with a huge uneducated population in the 1950's. They had no heavy industry, all of their economic output consists of agriculture. The only difference is that one country followed liberalism principles and the other, communist principles.
By the 1980's, China had a 10% child malnutrition rate while India have a 50% malnutrition rate. China was also much better than India in literacy, poverty, and average life expectancy. The reason for such a big disparity is because China has redistributed land to the peasants. It has been shown that a dictatorship is more effective than a democracy in economic reforms. The initial part of economic reforms are usually tough, things get worse before they get better. Dictators do not have to worry about elections when planning economic reform. It seems like the opposite of what you learned at school, but it's true. Look at South Korea in the 1960's, they were run under a centrally planned economy.
Even though the Chinese people don't have a democracy right now, I believe that they will get one someday. Currently, the Chinese are only concerned about getting wealthy. As the Chinese people get more educated and wealthy, they will demand political reform.
About the Video, It's amazing how much education these kids get. Seems like the one child policy helped force parents to spend all their energy on raising their only child. I feel sorry for the kids though, they have two parents watching their every step making sure that they study all the time.
On July 15 2010 11:53 T.O.P. wrote: About the Video, It's amazing how much education these kids get. Seems like the one child policy helped force parents to spend all their energy on raising their only child. I feel sorry for the kids though, they have two parents watching their every step making sure that they study all the time.
There is a big scandal in France atm because some millionaires gave a lot of money illegally to sponsor Sarkozy's electoral campaign.
Chinese goverment is clearly not perfect, but not as evil as medias are trying to make it look. You need some control over a 1.4 billion population. There is a very important need for continuity in their policy, and it can't be done if you change the Parliament every 4 years and the President every 4 or 5 years.
On a side note, this documentary is garbage. Sorry OP.
@The Storyteller : I worked for Temasek holdings and yeah there is a lot of corruption in Singapore (fyi Temasek is a huge investment company, and the CEO who as been elected as the 3rd most powerful women in the world is Prime Minister's wife lololol)
I don't want democracy in the united states! democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Democracy is not what has made america the way it is, america established a constitutional republic with a strict set of guidelines and boundries in order to avoid those wolves from deciding the law. For example, All humans have a right to free speech. The founding fathers saw this as a fundamental human right, not a right established by the government. In a good republic, local governments will have certain rights to govern lives such as taxes to make parks, law enforcement, etc. However, environments in different geographical area are too different to govern as a single entity. Different areas have different concerns. In oakland, more money should be spent on policing, whereas maybe in salt late, more money should be spent on city infrastructure. One thing should be constant though and that is human rights should be equal for all humans regardless of any condition. Finally, government should never be involved in things that it has no right interferring in. Anything not considered an externality should be avoided. Government should not legislate morality or economics. Politicians should meet once every six months at most, not given any pay and there should be very strict laws against politicians engaging in business. As mel gibson put democracy. "Should i trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?" The answer for government is to remove the ability for individuals to infringe upon other individuals liberties. This includes denying laws which infringe upon others liberties.
As far as predicting whether or not china will become a democracy, I think they will become psuedo-facist in the next 50 years. But indeed, they are becoming more free every day. Whereas countries like france and great britain are becoming more facist or socialist every day. I imagine the day when the freedom index for china surpasses france and most european countries most likely in the next 50-100 years.
On July 15 2010 12:01 endy wrote: There is a big scandal in France atm because some millionaires gave a lot of money illegally to sponsor Sarkozy's electoral campaign.
Chinese goverment is clearly not perfect, but not as evil as medias are trying to make it look. You need some control over a 1.4 billion population. There is a very important need for continuity in their policy, and it can't be done if you change the Parliament every 4 years and the President every 4 or 5 years.
On a side note, this documentary is garbage. Sorry OP.
@The Storyteller : I worked for Temasek holdings and yeah there is a lot of corruption in Singapore (fyi Temasek is a huge investment company, and the CEO who as been elected as the 3rd most powerful women in the world is Prime Minister's wife lololol)
I had the same thought about the documentary initially. However, I realized later on it is quite interesting, but not as a criticism to China. It provides a good perspective about elections in general. Narrowing these occurrences to China alone would be too much of a blunder.
On July 15 2010 11:53 T.O.P. wrote: About the Video, It's amazing how much education these kids get. Seems like the one child policy helped force parents to spend all their energy on raising their only child. I feel sorry for the kids though, they have two parents watching their every step making sure that they study all the time.
Did the policy give them energy?
The policy made parents love their only kid even more. Because they know they will only have one kid in their life. That's why they force their kids to study, play the flute, and run for class monitor. They have high expectations of their kid and they want their kid to live a better life than they lived.
On July 15 2010 12:04 darmousseh wrote: I don't want democracy in the united states! democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Democracy is not what has made america the way it is, america established a constitutional republic with a strict set of guidelines and boundries in order to avoid those wolves from deciding the law. For example, All humans have a right to free speech (except black people and women). The founding fathers saw this as a fundamental human right, not a right established by the government. In a good republic, local governments will have certain rights to govern lives such as taxes to make parks, law enforcement, etc. However, environments in different geographical area are too different to govern as a single entity. Different areas have different concerns. In oakland, more money should be spent on policing, whereas maybe in salt late, more money should be spent on city infrastructure. One thing should be constant though and that is human rights should be equal for all humans regardless of any condition. Finally, government should never be involved in things that it has no right interferring in. Anything not considered an externality should be avoided. Government should not legislate morality or economics. Politicians should meet once every six months at most, not given any pay and there should be very strict laws against politicians engaging in business. As mel gibson put democracy. "Should i trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?" The answer for government is to remove the ability for individuals to infringe upon other individuals liberties. This includes denying laws which infringe upon others liberties.
Let's not get into an absurd originalist debate on American democracy in a thread about Chinese democracy.
As you said, different areas and cultures require variations on the democratic model. Thinking that an American ultra ultra ultra libertarian model can be supplanted onto China is just... well it's a waste of thought. :|
It would be interesting to see a world where the Kuomintang won the Chinese Civil War and was at least to some degree democratic.
Their would be no assurances that the Nationalists would become democratic had they not lost the war. The Nationalists were (almost) just as cruel and inhumane during the war as communists
On July 15 2010 12:04 darmousseh wrote: I don't want democracy in the united states! democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Democracy is not what has made america the way it is, america established a constitutional republic with a strict set of guidelines and boundries in order to avoid those wolves from deciding the law. For example, All humans have a right to free speech (except black people and women). The founding fathers saw this as a fundamental human right, not a right established by the government. In a good republic, local governments will have certain rights to govern lives such as taxes to make parks, law enforcement, etc. However, environments in different geographical area are too different to govern as a single entity. Different areas have different concerns. In oakland, more money should be spent on policing, whereas maybe in salt late, more money should be spent on city infrastructure. One thing should be constant though and that is human rights should be equal for all humans regardless of any condition. Finally, government should never be involved in things that it has no right interferring in. Anything not considered an externality should be avoided. Government should not legislate morality or economics. Politicians should meet once every six months at most, not given any pay and there should be very strict laws against politicians engaging in business. As mel gibson put democracy. "Should i trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?" The answer for government is to remove the ability for individuals to infringe upon other individuals liberties. This includes denying laws which infringe upon others liberties.
Let's not get into an absurd originalist debate on American democracy in a thread about Chinese democracy.
As you said, different areas and cultures require variations on the democratic model. Thinking that an American ultra ultra ultra libertarian model can be supplanted onto China is just... well it's a waste of thought. :|
Yes, but even within china thoughts and environments are different. Collectivism on a national scale cannot survive forever. Even china knows this and thats why there are many rich businessman in china now. The seeds of individualism are being spread in china. Chinese culture is highly dependant on collectivism, however, that collectivism has been the direct cause for poverty in many parts of china. For china to really become a major economic competitor it will eventually be forced into individualism. The powers that are in china will always try to retain their power, but it won't last forever. Individualism vs collectivism is not a western thing, it is a human thing.
On July 15 2010 12:09 Ichabod wrote: Philosopher King > Representative Republic > Chinese Communism > Pure Democracy
A little opinionated, but in a representative republic, at least the leaders are held directly accountable for their actions.
Philosopher Kings? You mean like Mao, Stalin, Khomenei, etc.? Because in their minds, they were.
Not only did they think they were, they actually were in reality, it just turns out Platos ideas of an ideal "republic" are simply tyrannical bullshit. I mean he thought art was worthless and non-instructional books should be burnt among a host of other things. Being a "philosopher king" is almost a contradiction because philosophy thrives in an environment that contains a wide variety of ideas, not ruled by any single one.
On July 15 2010 12:09 Ichabod wrote: Philosopher King > Representative Republic > Chinese Communism > Pure Democracy
A little opinionated, but in a representative republic, at least the leaders are held directly accountable for their actions.
Philosopher Kings? You mean like Mao, Stalin, Khomenei, etc.? Because in their minds, they were.
I'm not sure that The Republic is really applicable to anything anymore.
I think a constitutional monarchy is what he is referring to. When the king is the ultimate authority, but still has to obey the liberties of his citizens. I've never really seen a good example that worked. It's possible, but not likely. I think a constitutional military republic is more likely.
On July 15 2010 10:52 Sabu113 wrote: In the end, if there's bread on the table no one's going to bother with the question.
Now here's an interesting question; Have singapore and China created Plato's republic? Guardian Philosophers(scientists) managing and protecting the herd?
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.
obviously not that smart.
being the richest man in the world gives him the power to help a lot more people than being the poorest genius.
The kid who I expected to win won. Hell, I voted for him myself. There were plenty of underhanded techniques used by those little kids. That's amazing, yet sad at the same time.
On July 15 2010 11:53 T.O.P. wrote: About the Video, It's amazing how much education these kids get. Seems like the one child policy helped force parents to spend all their energy on raising their only child. I feel sorry for the kids though, they have two parents watching their every step making sure that they study all the time.
Did the policy give them energy?
The policy made parents love their only kid even more. Because they know they will only have one kid in their life. That's why they force their kids to study, play the flute, and run for class monitor. They have high expectations of their kid and they want their kid to live a better life than they lived.
As annoying as it must be to have expectations forced on you I think that overall the mass infanticide is still probably my biggest gripe with the one child policy.
The video isn't real! Seriously. Videos like this are a dime a dozen in China. It's as staged as Grey's Anatomy. Don't lose your faith in democracy or children!
On July 15 2010 11:53 T.O.P. wrote: About the Video, It's amazing how much education these kids get. Seems like the one child policy helped force parents to spend all their energy on raising their only child. I feel sorry for the kids though, they have two parents watching their every step making sure that they study all the time.
Did the policy give them energy?
The policy made parents love their only kid even more. Because they know they will only have one kid in their life. That's why they force their kids to study, play the flute, and run for class monitor. They have high expectations of their kid and they want their kid to live a better life than they lived.
As annoying as it must be to have expectations forced on you I think that overall the mass infanticide is still probably my biggest gripe with the one child policy.
Definitely an issue with a one child policy. My other issue is the massive imbalance in the gender ratio. To me, it's disgusting how some people will go through sex-selection abortion just to give birth to a male instead of a female. Makes me wonder if I was a product of such manipulation.
Additionally, when these children come out, as TOP said, a good majority of children are extremely loved by their parents. However, when it's time for them to get used to living alone, they realize that society doesn't pamper them like their parents and some have real tough times adjusting to life on their own.
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) ?
It isn't, they are essentially the same thing.
On July 15 2010 12:25 Beef Noodles wrote: The video isn't real! Seriously. Videos like this are a dime a dozen in China. It's as staged as Grey's Anatomy. Don't lose your faith in democracy or children!
Of course it is real, it is in the OP and I am watching it. + Show Spoiler +
Noone is losing faith in democracy or children, kid
On July 15 2010 11:53 T.O.P. wrote: About the Video, It's amazing how much education these kids get. Seems like the one child policy helped force parents to spend all their energy on raising their only child. I feel sorry for the kids though, they have two parents watching their every step making sure that they study all the time.
Did the policy give them energy?
The policy made parents love their only kid even more. Because they know they will only have one kid in their life. That's why they force their kids to study, play the flute, and run for class monitor. They have high expectations of their kid and they want their kid to live a better life than they lived.
As annoying as it must be to have expectations forced on you I think that overall the mass infanticide is still probably my biggest gripe with the one child policy.
Definitely an issue with a one child policy. My other issue is the massive imbalance in the gender ratio. To me, it's disgusting how some people will go through sex-selection abortion just to give birth to a male instead of a female.
It's a policy problem too. Sausage party = violence and instability. Another sad thing is that the government actually commissioned several studies to predict whether the population growth was sustainable or not and whether something should be preemptively down to slow it down, but Mao ignored it until the problem was unavoidable. :/
On July 15 2010 12:04 darmousseh wrote: I don't want democracy in the united states! democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Democracy is not what has made america the way it is, america established a constitutional republic with a strict set of guidelines and boundries in order to avoid those wolves from deciding the law. For example, All humans have a right to free speech (except black people and women). The founding fathers saw this as a fundamental human right, not a right established by the government. In a good republic, local governments will have certain rights to govern lives such as taxes to make parks, law enforcement, etc. However, environments in different geographical area are too different to govern as a single entity. Different areas have different concerns. In oakland, more money should be spent on policing, whereas maybe in salt late, more money should be spent on city infrastructure. One thing should be constant though and that is human rights should be equal for all humans regardless of any condition. Finally, government should never be involved in things that it has no right interferring in. Anything not considered an externality should be avoided. Government should not legislate morality or economics. Politicians should meet once every six months at most, not given any pay and there should be very strict laws against politicians engaging in business. As mel gibson put democracy. "Should i trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?" The answer for government is to remove the ability for individuals to infringe upon other individuals liberties. This includes denying laws which infringe upon others liberties.
Let's not get into an absurd originalist debate on American democracy in a thread about Chinese democracy.
As you said, different areas and cultures require variations on the democratic model. Thinking that an American ultra ultra ultra libertarian model can be supplanted onto China is just... well it's a waste of thought. :|
Yes, but even within china thoughts and environments are different. Collectivism on a national scale cannot survive forever. Even china knows this and thats why there are many rich businessman in china now. The seeds of individualism are being spread in china. Chinese culture is highly dependant on collectivism, however, that collectivism has been the direct cause for poverty in many parts of china. For china to really become a major economic competitor it will eventually be forced into individualism. The powers that are in china will always try to retain their power, but it won't last forever. Individualism vs collectivism is not a western thing, it is a human thing.
I agree that China will probably never revert to collectivism and become a "true" communist state again. However, that does not mean that China will eventually adopt democracy. Having economic freedom does not mean there will be political freedom for the masses.
As for me, I believe that as long as the economic growth of China can continue, the people will not push hard for democracy. A revolution probably will not occur if the people don't have something to revolt about. However, because of the pretty widespread corruption that occurs in the Communist party that happens because there is only one party with a lot of power, maybe one day the Chinese people will have something to revolt about.
On July 15 2010 11:53 T.O.P. wrote: About the Video, It's amazing how much education these kids get. Seems like the one child policy helped force parents to spend all their energy on raising their only child. I feel sorry for the kids though, they have two parents watching their every step making sure that they study all the time.
Did the policy give them energy?
The policy made parents love their only kid even more. Because they know they will only have one kid in their life. That's why they force their kids to study, play the flute, and run for class monitor. They have high expectations of their kid and they want their kid to live a better life than they lived.
As annoying as it must be to have expectations forced on you I think that overall the mass infanticide is still probably my biggest gripe with the one child policy.
Definitely an issue with a one child policy. My other issue is the massive imbalance in the gender ratio. To me, it's disgusting how some people will go through sex-selection abortion just to give birth to a male instead of a female.
It's a policy problem too. Sausage party = violence and instability. Another sad thing is that the government actually commissioned several studies to predict whether the population growth was sustainable or not and whether something should be preemptively down to slow it down, but Mao ignored it until the problem was unavoidable. :/
Interesting Story that somewhat relates to the one-child policy.... Once, while visiting Beijing, my mom was taking me and my sister to some new shopping mall and our taxi driver asked my mom "which one of the two kids is yours?" My mom didn't want to say that we were born in America, so she said my sister was her child and I was a cousin...
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) ?
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.
lol it's because you like the person because they align with your political ideology. If you take a subject in which very few ordinary people understanding it ends up becoming an over simplification and popularizing subject in which you either go one way or another with a person, so if something is one way you don't care for them thus you don't believe they are capable because you conflict with their understanding of the subject.
So they vote for the one they like because they do believe they are the most capable.
On July 15 2010 11:42 Beef Noodles wrote: Very entertaining. BUT!
I lived in China and just came back. There are many people who want democracy. There are many examples of how democracy works in China. This is clearly a government sponsored video. Of course they are going to say democracy doesn't work. No American government film is going to say communism works. Oh and by the way, this video is fake. The kids were fed lines by the filmers and many of the scenes were staged.)
(emphasis mine)
I'm surprised that nobody has responded to this quote. just goes to show that the "super genius" tl crowd is just as much of an immature bickering crowd of idiots as the little kids in the video =). thread should have stopped there.
On July 15 2010 11:42 Beef Noodles wrote: Very entertaining. BUT!
I lived in China and just came back. There are many people who want democracy. There are many examples of how democracy works in China. This is clearly a government sponsored video. Of course they are going to say democracy doesn't work. No American government film is going to say communism works. Oh and by the way, this video is fake. The kids were fed lines by the filmers and many of the scenes were staged.)
(emphasis mine)
I'm surprised that nobody has responded to this quote. just goes to show that the "super genius" tl crowd is just as much of an immature bickering crowd of idiots as the little kids in the video =). thread should have stopped there.
I do not appreciate you imposing logic into this debate, fine sir.
2) it is not real. CLEARLY staged. Half the scenes were far too cliche. Anyone who has done a documentary can tell you half the footage was way too perfect to be real. There is a scene at the little girls dance studio with the "evil" kid's face IN THE WINDOW! Soooo fake.
Haha I loved that little chubby kid. He was a Tiny baller, but I think this video supports democracy if anything lol. Sure there was some corruption of the political process, but that happens in every system. However in the end the best man for the job won the election. Democracy triumph once again!
I expected Cheng Cheng to win before Luo Lei's monorail stunt. that and the last minute mid-automn gift or w/e right before the vote def sealed the deal for him.
I feel in a way Xiaofei had the most sincere intentions and Cheng Cheng was just trying to bully himself to the top while Luo Lei just used his parents' power (and money) to win.
I don't see left-wing politics as a bad thing (communism is definitely misunderstood especially in the US) but welp, I don't see democracy as a good thing because it makes people do whatever they can (and shouldn't) to secure votes they shouldn't have in the first place.
On July 15 2010 12:25 Beef Noodles wrote: The video isn't real! Seriously. Videos like this are a dime a dozen in China. It's as staged as Grey's Anatomy. Don't lose your faith in democracy or children!
Except this video was made in BRITAIN, not by evil communists as propaganda
They run a school election for monitors. Three children are appointed as candidates, Xu Xiaofei, Cheng Cheng, and Luo Lei. Xu Xiaofei is an introvert girl, she looks hardworking and talented in some arts but do not pose as a leader. She would make a charismatic leader, at best. Cheng Cheng is confident and smart kid. He has the street smarts, quick wit and several tricks up his sleeve. He looks like some sort of leader by merit. Luo Lei is a bit like Cheng Cheng, except maybe a bit more of a rebel or a bully. He lacks a lot of the qualities of his adversaries, but has some confidence. He wins the election by purchasing his electorate with gifts.
This happens not only in China but pretty much everywhere else in the world. Specially in developing countries where the majority of the candidates live around the poverty line. It is very easy to enchant the simple minded people. If the subject is their own benefits, their minds work quite similar to the those of school children, easily bribed and fooled. I guess this is why popular governments seem more likely to arise in low income countries.
Now, to answer the OP question. If I was in my early childhood days, I would have probably voted for Luo Lei. As an adult however, I think Cheng Cheng would make the best monitor, even though he has a lot of traits I disapprove. Most likely, I would have voted blank.
Why would you vote for Cheng Cheng? He did basically nothing but lie, sell out positions for supporters. His entire campaign was designed around making his opponents look bad.
Would you trust a kid that blatantly lies to everyone and seemingly no morals to be president?
@The Storyteller : I worked for Temasek holdings and yeah there is a lot of corruption in Singapore (fyi Temasek is a huge investment company, and the CEO who as been elected as the 3rd most powerful women in the world is Prime Minister's wife lololol)
How is this an evidence of corruption? The investment company can make WHOEVER they want into their CEO.
Its only corruption if Temasek starts getting government favoritism AFTER hiring family members of the prime minister.
The BBC just like every other company/film maker has to go through the Chinese government. Just because it says BBC, that doesn't mean anything.
Also, I'm not saying that the Chinese government is evil. They are just making a video to fit their agenda and they stage/bend the footage. Every country does this...
This documentary can't be taken seriously... they're just kids. When I was that young, I'd vote for whoever gave me the lollipop ezpz. I do feel bad for Cheng Cheng though. and did anyone else notice the blatant corruption on the part of luo lei's father as a police chief. using his power to gave his son's class free and private rides on the monorail. also notice how rich he is. tsk tsk government corruption. (and he's teaching his untalented bully of a son the same dirty tricks)
@The Storyteller : I worked for Temasek holdings and yeah there is a lot of corruption in Singapore (fyi Temasek is a huge investment company, and the CEO who as been elected as the 3rd most powerful women in the world is Prime Minister's wife lololol)
How is this an evidence of corruption? The investment company can make WHOEVER they want into their CEO.
Its only corruption if Temasek starts getting government favoritism AFTER hiring family members of the prime minister.
No it's still not corruption. It would just go to show that the CEO is just so good that she's able to get government favoritism, and hence show that Temasek were right to hire her in the first place.
Like Arthor Branch said in Law and Order, democracy is the worst form of government there is, yet still better than every other forms of governments (lol-logic).
The only reason China is not democratic is because people in the Communist Party are desperate to keep hold of their powers.
@The Storyteller : I worked for Temasek holdings and yeah there is a lot of corruption in Singapore (fyi Temasek is a huge investment company, and the CEO who as been elected as the 3rd most powerful women in the world is Prime Minister's wife lololol)
How is this an evidence of corruption? The investment company can make WHOEVER they want into their CEO.
Its only corruption if Temasek starts getting government favoritism AFTER hiring family members of the prime minister.
No it's still not corruption. It would just go to show that the CEO is just so good that she's able to get government favoritism, and hence show that Temasek were right to hire her in the first place.
Hey, it's not corruption if it's legal! =D
So what do you want? a law forbidding any company from hiring people related to politicians?
An elected office that has to answer to a bill of rights, civil liberties, human rights, and a seperate judicial system is currently an effective system, imo. This is what developed countries aim for in terms of providing for their citizens. However, this may not work for China since realization of economic goals may not be as efficient without a fluid process derived from dictatorship.
EPT
