|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally.
|
On September 09 2015 20:45 Simberto wrote:
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally.
Yup, the difference now is that the rest of the world can have a big impact on the politic of a country, especially a small one.
And a benevolent dictator would also understand when to step down and transition its country to a democracy or similar system.
A better system than an autocracy though is a one party system, like China where if one leader were to be a fucking dumbass, you could evict him easily.
|
|
|
I'm sorry for my late answer (it was 2 am in Denmark, so I went to bed), but just to reply super-short to warding: Birthright - or more precisely jus sanguinis is the primary difference between citizens and immigrants. While I can agree that freedom of movement within a country is a moral right, I disagree that this right extends to freedom of movement between countries. I see no moral imperative for a country to accept immigrants (and please note that I do not consider economic immigrants comparable to refugees). In short, the world is an unfair place and it sucks if you lost in the lottery of birth. However, those that won in the lottery do not have to ruin their own country to help you out (by accepting immigrants who are going to have a detrimental effect on society). Having read your last post, I'm unable to find any major disagreement between us, but I felt I owed you an answer.
|
On September 09 2015 20:50 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 20:45 Simberto wrote:
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally. Yup, the difference now is that the rest of the world can have a big impact on the politic of a country, especially a small one. And a benevolent dictator would also understand when to step down and transition its country to a democracy or similar system. A better system than an autocracy though is a one party system, like China where if one leader were to be a fucking dumbass, you could evict him easily.
Incredibly corrupt, censored press and the rule of law being a pipe dream. I don't see how this is a good system in any way.
I don't really see how it's easy to get rid of the rulers either. Mao ruled untill his death, Deng was also an incredibly powerful figure untill his retirement and the currect president Xi is the first one to purge someone from the politburo standing commitee.
|
pressed quote instead of edit =/
|
On September 09 2015 22:17 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 20:50 Faust852 wrote:On September 09 2015 20:45 Simberto wrote:
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally. Yup, the difference now is that the rest of the world can have a big impact on the politic of a country, especially a small one. And a benevolent dictator would also understand when to step down and transition its country to a democracy or similar system. A better system than an autocracy though is a one party system, like China where if one leader were to be a fucking dumbass, you could evict him easily. Incredibly corrupt, censored press and the rule of law being a pipe dream. I don't see how this is a good system in any way. I don't really see how it's easy to get rid of the rulers either. Mao ruled untill his death, Deng was also an incredibly powerful figure untill his retirement and the currect president Xi is the first one to purge someone from the politburo standing commitee.
You're missing the forest for the trees. In truth, corruption and censorship in the press is an ultimately minor issue compared to stability and a strong economy. It's a luxury that comes only after the necessities are satisfied. And not sure why you think the rule of law isn't being respected, because to a very large extent it is.
Sure, dictators can also make things a whole lot worse, while no person can make things a whole lot worse in a democracy. I will also note that it's unlikely that any person will make things significantly better in a democracy. In short, that sounds like a system that works when things are already stable, which is exactly how it works in the real world.
|
On September 09 2015 22:17 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 20:50 Faust852 wrote:On September 09 2015 20:45 Simberto wrote:
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally. Yup, the difference now is that the rest of the world can have a big impact on the politic of a country, especially a small one. And a benevolent dictator would also understand when to step down and transition its country to a democracy or similar system. A better system than an autocracy though is a one party system, like China where if one leader were to be a fucking dumbass, you could evict him easily. Incredibly corrupt, censored press and the rule of law being a pipe dream. I don't see how this is a good system in any way. I don't really see how it's easy to get rid of the rulers either. Mao ruled untill his death, Deng was also an incredibly powerful figure untill his retirement and the currect president Xi is the first one to purge someone from the politburo standing commitee.
The current president is kicking out corrupted member by shovel.
You should also mixed your feeling against China with a bit of rationality. China is at 1.35 billion inhabitants, with a lot of ethnicities, and a lot of disparity in ressources. It's really playing a civ game in its hardest mode, yet with the burden of the massive real death that any bad decision could ensue.
China is evolving at a huge pace, yet still projecting very far into the future. Having a single party leading a country of this size will obviously reak of corruption, yet it is definitly the only system viable until all the disparities are evened out.
China is investing massively in renewable energies, isn't that much into pressuring people with laws. They are really shitty about freedom of expression and stupid in a lot of way, but currently, getting a full on democracy in China would be neigh impossible. It needs to raise a lot of standard which is ficking hard to do at this level.
Mao was long ago, Deng did ok to redress China.
Let's just say that currently, China is leveling the ground to a potential democracy in the incoming 50 years, in my opinion.
On September 09 2015 22:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 22:17 RvB wrote:On September 09 2015 20:50 Faust852 wrote:On September 09 2015 20:45 Simberto wrote:
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally. Yup, the difference now is that the rest of the world can have a big impact on the politic of a country, especially a small one. And a benevolent dictator would also understand when to step down and transition its country to a democracy or similar system. A better system than an autocracy though is a one party system, like China where if one leader were to be a fucking dumbass, you could evict him easily. Incredibly corrupt, censored press and the rule of law being a pipe dream. I don't see how this is a good system in any way. I don't really see how it's easy to get rid of the rulers either. Mao ruled untill his death, Deng was also an incredibly powerful figure untill his retirement and the currect president Xi is the first one to purge someone from the politburo standing commitee. You're missing the forest for the trees. In truth, corruption and censorship in the press is an ultimately minor issue compared to stability and a strong economy. It's a luxury that comes only after the necessities are satisfied. And not sure why you think the rule of law isn't being respected, because to a very large extent it is. Sure, dictators can also make things a whole lot worse, while no person can make things a whole lot worse in a democracy. I will also note that it's unlikely that any person will make things significantly better in a democracy. In short, that sounds like a system that works when things are already stable, which is exactly how it works in the real world.
The biggest issue with democracy is the terrible short termism that will lead us all in a pit of desolation. Politicians will do anything to please the people without long term planing, leading to terrible thing decades after their passages.
While in the meantime, a not completly corrupted dictatorship will plan for the long term, sometimes ignoring current issues.
|
On September 09 2015 15:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 14:55 kwizach wrote:On September 09 2015 14:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 09 2015 13:34 kwizach wrote:On September 09 2015 13:21 LegalLord wrote:On September 09 2015 12:53 lord_nibbler wrote:On September 09 2015 10:53 LegalLord wrote:On September 09 2015 09:13 lord_nibbler wrote:On September 08 2015 22:45 LegalLord wrote:On September 08 2015 19:28 Faust852 wrote:
Welp, as terrible as Assad is, the current observation is that without a dictator leading the middle east countries, ton of shit happens. Lybia with Gaddafi, Syria with Assad, Egypt with Mubarak and now el-Sisi. Iraq and Hussein.
Every damn time the dictator is outed, fucking millions die. Apparently middle-east need to be taken in-check to keep secularism and fonctionning as a society. Unfortunately it seems that heavy-handed puppet dictatorships are the best way of dealing with Muslim nations and their inherent instability. The examples you mentioned are just a few among many; I could honestly think of more cases in which exactly what you describe has happened. What too many people don't understand is that a democratic system isn't always viable and only really works in a stable society that is capable of respecting decisions made through the democratic process. Sadly there isn't one government system that fits for all occasions in life. This line of thinking is the at the root of most problems we have in this world. A dictatorship is not a stable government! It is purely an illusion kept up at all costs. Sooner or later these constructs fall, they always do. And what happens then? Surprise, surprise, societies that have never learned how to deal with dissenting members other than brutal oppression do not simply 'flip the switch' to peacefulness and rule of law once the head of state is gone. But who was it, that set up the dictatorship? Who prepped it up? Who looked the other way when it build up a police state? And who implemented inhuman sanctions when the dictator started to get funny ideas of who to sell his oil to? Sanctions, that naturally do not bother the leadership much, but literally kill thousands of ordinary folk, who had it coming I guess, because they did not revolt against their brutal government or something. If you reduce the value of life in these regions so much (for example accepting to kill hundreds of thousands civilians directly and indirectly in Iraq because you want to get rid of Saddam), do not act surprised when they do not value your life or your security that high. You reap what you sow. To turn around and say "see, these people were not ready for self government, we should have kept up their dictatorship longer, with more effort" is a bit rich. It is also so convenient, because this way we will never have to look into the mirror. It is only ever their problem and their fault, nothing we can do about it. But deep down we know the truth. A truly democratic Middle East would be against our own interests. We like democracy and we wish they could have some of it, but not if we have to make real sacrifices ourselves just so that they can enjoy it as well. Our jobs, our power, our way of life trumps any of their concerns ultimately. Unfortunately, feel-good conjecture like this does not have a basis in reality. You did not understand what I sad. It is you that created a feel-good story for yourself, not me! Think a heavy-handed dictatorship is bad? Try being in a perpetual civil war. The civil war is created by the dictatorship! To the naive it might look calm on the surface, but in reality it is amplifying the rifts in the society. In a way a dictatorship is just a form of civil war, where one factions currently has an overwhelming advantage but has no interest to fully eliminate the other factions in order to legitimate its own position. If they lose their grip on power, open civil war breaks out, if they regain it back, they 'freeze' the conflict by brutal oppression. In the end these are two sides of the same coin. To accept dictatorship is to accept perpetual civil war! And to expect one can hold any society together in a dictatorship forever is ahistorical. Well, it's not untrue, but it presumes that there are at present more viable alternatives. There are not. Except there are. Is Tunisia a dictatorship or in a state of civil war? Was Egypt a dictatorship under Morsi, despite all of the tensions and problems related to his rule? Tunisia seems to have a much further-reaching secular tradition than most nations in question, and also it seems to have been spared from a fair bit of external meddling, with a pretty reasonable colonial arrangement from both the Ottomans and the French. I admit it's an interesting case, but a rare one and not one that I would use to make a point about the ME states because the two have not all that much in common. Your lumping together of various states into the imagined "cannot become functional democracies" category completely obscures the factors behind the different trajectories of those states and is utterly ahistorical. There is nothing inherent to those states or populations that prevents democracies from emerging - only social factors, which can be subject to change and which can see their influence negated by other factors (for exemple a peaceful popular uprising that is not repressed/confiscated). On September 09 2015 14:23 LegalLord wrote:
If you presume to call Egypt stable, then I really don't know what to say. You need to stop looking at reality through ideal-types. I did not say Egypt was perfectly stable democracy, I said it did not fit into your "dictatorship/civil war" dichotomy under Morsi. Perhaps you should have read my original post rather than snippets from it. "Not a viable democracy at present" is not the same thing as "can never be a democratic state." The idea that the current populace cannot support a democracy because the conditions for one aren't there is a valid one. However, misrepresentations and strawmen seem to be a pattern with you specifically. I think I'll leave this as my last reply to you.
I read your original posts, and I did not misrepresent them at all. You argued that "Muslim nations" had "inherent instability", as opposed to "stable societies" where "a democratic system" is "viable", and that "heavy-handed puppet dictatorships" were therefore "the best way of dealing with Muslim nations".
Like I said, this line of reasoning is completely ahistorical and utterly misses the fact that transitions may sometimes be difficult (and sometimes not), but that there is nothing "inherent" about instability in the countries we're talking about. Various factors explain why some of the Arab spring revolutions failed, and they're not "inherent instability". It's rich that you're complaining about being misrepresented and a victim of strawmen when you've consistently been displaying a simplistic and binary view of these issues with no trace of nuance whatsoever.
|
On September 09 2015 16:11 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 15:03 kwizach wrote:On September 09 2015 14:44 RenSC2 wrote:On September 09 2015 14:13 kwizach wrote:On September 09 2015 13:47 RenSC2 wrote:On September 09 2015 08:50 warding wrote:
* More concretely, I'd like to understand why you believe that you have a right to inhabit Denmark and take advantage of the prosperous institutions that exist in your country but you don't believe these refugees do. Have you personally given away everything that's been given to you because some poor guy in some other country never had the opportunity that you had? Of course you haven't, you're typing on an online messaging forum with some sort of technological device (computer, tablet, cellphone, or other). You're educated enough to at least speak English and presumably Portugese based on your listed country of residence. There are people all over the world that have never had that opportunity. What gives you the right when they don't have it? Give away your computer. Give away your housing. Give away all but the clothes on your back and the smallest amount of food to live on and begone from here because someone else never had the opportunity that you have. Or do you only talk the talk and not walk the walk? This is a fallacious argument, since warding is talking about the systemic treatment of migrants and not simply individual contributions to their well-being. Your position is the same as that of the people who replied to Warren Buffet, when he said he thought taxes should be higher for the rich, "well why don't you just give what you have to the government?". The resolution of the issue needs to be systemic/structural for there to be an actual impact. The comparison to the Warren Buffet situation is close, but not quite there. Warren Buffet proposed a realistic solution that he believe would significantly improve the economy. The response of "donate your own money to the government", fails to create a realistic solution that would significantly improve the economy. To improve the economy, it would take systemic changes and thus his critics created a poor retort. In the Warding case, this is a moral argument that centers around "birthrights". He's trying to stand on a moral high ground and criticizes those who have accepted and try to protect their birthright, yet he too is clearly taking advantage of his own birthright. This is much more of a moral argument than a practical solution and when it comes to morals, your own individual actions give or remove the high-ground. I just pointed out that his high ground has been lost. Alternatively, I could ask him if he's lobbying his government to take away everything he owns and everything that everyone else in his country owns. Then give all of that away equally to everyone on Earth that has received less than what Warding was given as his birthright. That would be a more systemic change that seems to go along with the beliefs he's expounding. Perhaps he has been lobbying for it and I just don't know. warding is arguing that being born in wealthy democracies grants us advantages that we did not earn, and that other humans which were not as lucky as us at birth should not be denied the kind of legal benefits that we enjoy. Again, his argument operates on the structural level, and his personal contributions to migrants/poorer populations are irrelevant to the point he is making. You're talking morals/philosophy again, not structural solutions. First of all, who says that we didn't earn what we have? Inside of each of us is the genetics of our forefathers. You have a piece of your father and your grandmother and great-grandfather et al inside of you. It is the human form of immortality. In most cases, those people helped contribute to build the society that you now live in along with the others around you. You carry your ancestors with you and they earned your birthright. In some cases, people might not like how those people that you carry inside you earned your birthright (illegal immigration, violent conquest, etc), but it still has been earned. The argument then goes into should everyone be given everything exactly the same, no birthright, despite what our ancestors earned. That's another moral/philosophical argument. You seem to think it's such a simple cut and dry answer, yet it's actually not. People struggle their whole lives to give their children a better future. Do we just throw all that effort away? Does that seem fair to you? Perhaps the people of today want to protect what their ancestors worked so hard for. Warding has been making a moral argument, but when we get to actual structural solutions, morality has little place. We need to get to the practicality of everything. When it comes to immigration, we need to talk about the economics of it. Historically, immigration has been good economically, but the way economies work are changing. Will this specific immigration wave work economically? Some immigration waves have created major cultural tensions. Will this immigration wave settle into a new culture or will it completely destroy the existing culture that peoples' ancestors have worked to create? How do we ensure that this immigration wave will become part of the melting pot rather than a destroyer of the local culture? The welfare state that people rely on exists on a precarious balance. Will this immigration wave be sustainable or will it lead to the entire collapse of the welfare state? How do we ensure that the welfare state remains stable through this wave? There are very real risks to the economics, the culture, and the social safety nets of those who currently occupy a society created by their ancestors which they appreciate. Being concerned with the effects of immigration doesn't make you some evil racist Islamophobic monster. It just makes you a human who wants to protect what you have. Trying to beat people over the head with "you didn't earn it, so you should just give it away to everyone else that didn't earn it either" actually misses the mark in multiple ways (as noted above). So stop trying to guilt people with moral arguments and tell us how we can ensure that our society remains strong during this immigration wave. As I said before, my personal preference is to find solutions and help at the source of the problem and not risk bringing new problems into my territory. That's no less moral than massive immigration and a lot less risky for Europeans. Unfortunately, Europe has refused to take action at the source. Now the issue of immigration has come to Europe. Allowing mass immigration likely will create a whole new set of problems. Saying it's the right thing to do won't actually solve those new problems.
When you are born, you haven't earned anything yet. That's a fact, not an opinion. You are not the same person as your parents and ancestors.
Pretty much the entirety of your post is irrelevant to the point that was being argued. You're misrepresenting warding's position, which is obviously not "you didn't earn it, so you should just give it away to everyone else that didn't earn it either". Like I said, he was not talking about individual possessions but about the institutional and legal framework in which we live. His point is about the systems we are born in, and that all other things being equal we're lucky to be born in those found in the West.
With regards to your fears about the "immigration wave", I've discussed them earlier in the thread and I'm not really interested in debating them again at this point.
|
On September 09 2015 22:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 22:17 RvB wrote:On September 09 2015 20:50 Faust852 wrote:On September 09 2015 20:45 Simberto wrote:
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally. Yup, the difference now is that the rest of the world can have a big impact on the politic of a country, especially a small one. And a benevolent dictator would also understand when to step down and transition its country to a democracy or similar system. A better system than an autocracy though is a one party system, like China where if one leader were to be a fucking dumbass, you could evict him easily. Incredibly corrupt, censored press and the rule of law being a pipe dream. I don't see how this is a good system in any way. I don't really see how it's easy to get rid of the rulers either. Mao ruled untill his death, Deng was also an incredibly powerful figure untill his retirement and the currect president Xi is the first one to purge someone from the politburo standing commitee. You're missing the forest for the trees. In truth, corruption and censorship in the press is an ultimately minor issue compared to stability and a strong economy. It's a luxury that comes only after the necessities are satisfied. And not sure why you think the rule of law isn't being respected, because to a very large extent it is. Sure, dictators can also make things a whole lot worse, while no person can make things a whole lot worse in a democracy. I will also note that it's unlikely that any person will make things significantly better in a democracy. In short, that sounds like a system that works when things are already stable, which is exactly how it works in the real world.
Corruption and censorship are hardly minor issues although I agree food on the table comes first. Anyway you're assuming one party rule is better for the economy than a democracy something not true according to this paper:
We provide evidence that democracy has a significant and robust positive effect on GDP. Our empirical strategy relies on a dichotomous measure of democracy coded from several sources to reduce measurement error and controls for country fixed effects and the rich dynamics of GDP, which otherwise confound the effect of democracy on economic growth. Our baseline results use a linear model for GDP dynamics estimated using either a standard within estimator or various different Generalized Method of Moments estimators, and show that democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run. These results are confirmed when we use a semiparametric propensity score matching estimator to control for GDP dynamics. We also obtain similar results using regional waves of democratizations and reversals to instrument for country democracy. Our results suggest that democracy increases future GDP by encouraging investment, increasing schooling, inducing economic reforms, improving public good provision, and reducing social unrest. We find little support for the view that democracy is a constraint on economic growth for less developed economies.
www.nber.org
A lot of China's super growth is also because of being massively depressed after Mao's era and them simply playing catch-up.
Really what rule of law is there in China? The courts are massively corrupt and you basically need party connections to get anything done.
The current president is kicking out corrupted member by shovel.
You should also mixed your feeling against China with a bit of rationality. China is at 1.35 billion inhabitants, with a lot of ethnicities, and a lot of disparity in ressources. It's really playing a civ game in its hardest mode, yet with the burden of the massive real death that any bad decision could ensue.
China is evolving at a huge pace, yet still projecting very far into the future. Having a single party leading a country of this size will obviously reak of corruption, yet it is definitly the only system viable until all the disparities are evened out.
China is investing massively in renewable energies, isn't that much into pressuring people with laws. They are really shitty about freedom of expression and stupid in a lot of way, but currently, getting a full on democracy in China would be neigh impossible. It needs to raise a lot of standard which is ficking hard to do at this level.
Mao was long ago, Deng did ok to redress China.
Let's just say that currently, China is leveling the ground to a potential democracy in the incoming 50 years, in my opinion.
The curent president is kicking out corrupt political opponents by the shovel yes. His allies not so much.
Anyway I'm not saying the one party system is all bad since they obviously also brought some good stuff. But calling it better than democracy when seeing all the massive problems it brings (bigger than we have in the west by a long shot) does not make any sense to me.
|
On September 10 2015 00:00 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 22:32 LegalLord wrote:On September 09 2015 22:17 RvB wrote:On September 09 2015 20:50 Faust852 wrote:On September 09 2015 20:45 Simberto wrote:
Of course a dictatorship can work well if you have a dictator who is both competent and benevolent.
The problem here is to make sure that every single dictator in your line of succession has both of these quantities. Because if you have a dictator who lacks any one of them, he can fuck the country up even more than a benevolent dictator can improve it. And in a dictatorship, there are no safeguards against that happening.
If you want a good example of this, take a look at the history of the Byzantine Empire. You have a long line of Emperors here, with the competent ones greatly increasing the prosperity and the safety of their citizens, and then a bad one turns up who manages to just fuck everything up totally. Yup, the difference now is that the rest of the world can have a big impact on the politic of a country, especially a small one. And a benevolent dictator would also understand when to step down and transition its country to a democracy or similar system. A better system than an autocracy though is a one party system, like China where if one leader were to be a fucking dumbass, you could evict him easily. Incredibly corrupt, censored press and the rule of law being a pipe dream. I don't see how this is a good system in any way. I don't really see how it's easy to get rid of the rulers either. Mao ruled untill his death, Deng was also an incredibly powerful figure untill his retirement and the currect president Xi is the first one to purge someone from the politburo standing commitee. You're missing the forest for the trees. In truth, corruption and censorship in the press is an ultimately minor issue compared to stability and a strong economy. It's a luxury that comes only after the necessities are satisfied. And not sure why you think the rule of law isn't being respected, because to a very large extent it is. Sure, dictators can also make things a whole lot worse, while no person can make things a whole lot worse in a democracy. I will also note that it's unlikely that any person will make things significantly better in a democracy. In short, that sounds like a system that works when things are already stable, which is exactly how it works in the real world. Corruption and censorship are hardly minor issues although I agree food on the table comes first. Anyway you're assuming one party rule is better for the economy than a democracy something not true according to this paper: Show nested quote +We provide evidence that democracy has a significant and robust positive effect on GDP. Our empirical strategy relies on a dichotomous measure of democracy coded from several sources to reduce measurement error and controls for country fixed effects and the rich dynamics of GDP, which otherwise confound the effect of democracy on economic growth. Our baseline results use a linear model for GDP dynamics estimated using either a standard within estimator or various different Generalized Method of Moments estimators, and show that democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run. These results are confirmed when we use a semiparametric propensity score matching estimator to control for GDP dynamics. We also obtain similar results using regional waves of democratizations and reversals to instrument for country democracy. Our results suggest that democracy increases future GDP by encouraging investment, increasing schooling, inducing economic reforms, improving public good provision, and reducing social unrest. We find little support for the view that democracy is a constraint on economic growth for less developed economies. www.nber.orgA lot of China's super growth is also because of being massively depressed after Mao's era and them simply playing catch-up. Really what rule of law is there in China? The courts are massively corrupt and you basically need party connections to get anything done. Show nested quote +The current president is kicking out corrupted member by shovel.
You should also mixed your feeling against China with a bit of rationality. China is at 1.35 billion inhabitants, with a lot of ethnicities, and a lot of disparity in ressources. It's really playing a civ game in its hardest mode, yet with the burden of the massive real death that any bad decision could ensue.
China is evolving at a huge pace, yet still projecting very far into the future. Having a single party leading a country of this size will obviously reak of corruption, yet it is definitly the only system viable until all the disparities are evened out.
China is investing massively in renewable energies, isn't that much into pressuring people with laws. They are really shitty about freedom of expression and stupid in a lot of way, but currently, getting a full on democracy in China would be neigh impossible. It needs to raise a lot of standard which is ficking hard to do at this level.
Mao was long ago, Deng did ok to redress China.
Let's just say that currently, China is leveling the ground to a potential democracy in the incoming 50 years, in my opinion. The curent president is kicking out corrupt political opponents by the shovel yes. His allies not so much. Anyway I'm not saying the one party system is all bad since they obviously also brought some good stuff. But calling it better than democracy when seeing all the massive problems it brings (bigger than we have in the west by a long shot) does not make any sense to me.
I think it's more about evaluating it in a comparative context. Do you think China would have done better/similar under a democratic government overall? How about for let's say the decade post revolution/civil war, what's the impact of the great leap?
If things would have worked out in a democratic society with great civil liberties, obviously that'd be preferable. We'd have to weight the potential societal improvements against the likelihood of a country regressing because of political instability. It's probably impossible to statistically quantify that to a degree at which it'd make sense though. : /
|
On September 09 2015 20:08 WhiteDog wrote:The idea that we're all "lucky" in Europe is open to discussion. I have a very hard time accepting arguments that, in my mind, can be resumed to loving people who are far (and thus unknown) and hating those who are closer. There are plenty of misery in europe, not only in the poorest countries, but also in the richest : poverty has greatly increased in Germany and France since the crisis. Homelessness is a real problem in big cities, and unemployment a reality - 10 % in average in europe. Great, welcome refugees because it's the only thing to do, but stop comparing the suffering and face the social question head on and not just at its margin. Show nested quote + What seems to be closer to the truth is that these institutions and the wealth that exist in the Western world are there through pure chance, including factors such as: the presence of easily domesticateable animals around; access to steel; exposure to animal microbes and viruses; geography; non-proximity to the malaria bug. Not that I disagree with you - Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is an important book - but I can't prevent myself from noting the discrepancies between the picture you are drawing of the way our collective wealth has been accumulated (that can be resumed to "luck" - something I disagree a little with, our wealth has also been accumulated through labor and exploitation, many people died in and for europe, J. Diamond talk actually touch this subject by the end of his book when he points out the number of state in europe and the ferocious competition that arose because of it) and your impossible defence of the wealth individuals accumulate.
Diamond's amalgamation of research is dubious as best, and one can easily draw different conclusions based on his own facts, let alone completing facts that are readily available. This is particularly true when comparing The Middle East or Asia to Europe. He more or less treats this group as all the same. On top of that the book, despite setting out to debunk some of the more "racial" justifications for the desparity, he routinely stumbles into saying that "Eurasians" are genetically superior today because of his beloved environmental factors.
|
On September 10 2015 02:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 20:08 WhiteDog wrote:The idea that we're all "lucky" in Europe is open to discussion. I have a very hard time accepting arguments that, in my mind, can be resumed to loving people who are far (and thus unknown) and hating those who are closer. There are plenty of misery in europe, not only in the poorest countries, but also in the richest : poverty has greatly increased in Germany and France since the crisis. Homelessness is a real problem in big cities, and unemployment a reality - 10 % in average in europe. Great, welcome refugees because it's the only thing to do, but stop comparing the suffering and face the social question head on and not just at its margin. What seems to be closer to the truth is that these institutions and the wealth that exist in the Western world are there through pure chance, including factors such as: the presence of easily domesticateable animals around; access to steel; exposure to animal microbes and viruses; geography; non-proximity to the malaria bug. Not that I disagree with you - Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is an important book - but I can't prevent myself from noting the discrepancies between the picture you are drawing of the way our collective wealth has been accumulated (that can be resumed to "luck" - something I disagree a little with, our wealth has also been accumulated through labor and exploitation, many people died in and for europe, J. Diamond talk actually touch this subject by the end of his book when he points out the number of state in europe and the ferocious competition that arose because of it) and your impossible defence of the wealth individuals accumulate. Diamond's amalgamation of research is dubious as best, and one can easily draw different conclusions based on his own facts, let alone completing facts that are readily available. This is particularly true when comparing The Middle East or Asia to Europe. He more or less treats this group as all the same. On top of that the book, despite setting out to debunk some of the more "racial" justifications for the desparity, he routinely stumbles into saying that "Eurasians" are genetically superior today because of his beloved environmental factors.
I read his book a few years ago, but I don't believe that he treats all those groups as the same - I even perfectly remember some pages about Asia and the reason why Europe had an advantage. Plus he barely talk abouts genetics, aside from the question of germs. There is no superiority in having more disease and anti bodies.
|
I was not even saying I agreed with Diamond. My point was that the leading research and thought on development does not include stuff like the quality of particular ethnicities when explaining disparities in development. Because of that, then the idea that there was merit on the part of our ancestors for creating the countries we live in is misguided.
To jump into the discussion of dictatorships, it is true that in moments of history there may be examples of dictators who created policy that benefit their nations. The vast majority didn't and there's good reason for that. We know what creates economic prosperity: stuff like protection of property rights, functioning legal systems and freedom of initiative. Dictators usually follow their own self-interest, so even if they are not looting their own countries for their benefit, they have to maintain power by pandering to powerful interest groups around them. In the vast majority of cases that creates elites around the dictatorship that extract wealth from their societies through political favor. The dictator must then continue to make these elites happy. Unfortunately, this is the case in the overwhelming majority of dictatorships.
The creation of those extractionary elites is what then causes totalitarian regimes to perform poorly economically: the creation of new economic wealth creates new power that threatens elites, so new economic opportunities are always politically awarded to the elites.
As for China, in recent years they've been merely picking the low-hanging fruit. They've managed to build a powerful central government that after the disastrous years of Mao, saw that there was a lot to be gained from opening up their economy. That was possible because that opening of the economy greatly benefited the established elites around the communist party. We might be seeing today the limitations of their political system as the low-hanging fruit might not be available anymore. To continue a path of growth, they will have to continue a path of creating an open and free market economy. We'll see how they balance that with the interests of the political elites.
WhiteDog, can we be satisfied that we agree more than we disagree on that subject? That's not going to happen very often.  My view on individual wealth is that it is necessary in order to maintain wealth-creating incentives.
|
I think that, in general, people are underestimating how quickly our world would look like Children of Men if ever humans started acting how they appear to think they act.
|
My point was that the leading research and thought on development does not include stuff like the quality of particular ethnicities when explaining disparities in development. Because of that, then the idea that there was merit on the part of our ancestors for creating the countries we live in is misguided.
That's untrue. In any studies about the form the state take or the way the economy develop itself, the culture is always an important part. All social sciences being historical (i include economy in all that), the history of particular cultures is decisive.
Diamond's goal is to explain the inequalities between societies, and not to explain the form societies took over the years - he is only pointing out some specific things that permitted the europeans to dominate as they did.
To jump into the discussion of dictatorships, it is true that in moments of history there may be examples of dictators who created policy that benefit their nations. The vast majority didn't and there's good reason for that. We know what creates economic prosperity: stuff like protection of property rights, functioning legal systems and freedom of initiative. Dictators usually follow their own self-interest, so even if they are not looting their own countries for their benefit, they have to maintain power by pandering to powerful interest groups around them. In the vast majority of cases that creates elites around the dictatorship that extract wealth from their societies through political favor. The dictator must then continue to make these elites happy. Unfortunately, this is the case in the overwhelming majority of dictatorships.
The creation of those extractionary elites is what then causes totalitarian regimes to perform poorly economically: the creation of new economic wealth creates new power that threatens elites, so new economic opportunities are always politically awarded to the elites.
There are tons of exemple of dictatorship that had better economic performance - from Hitler to Stalin (yes the USSR had a huge growth, just read book from Samuelson during the cold war and see what he thinks about it). The reason is that those people use every mean necessary - destroying natural ressources, stealing wealth from others and even using the blood of their people in order to "grow" an indicator that is supposed to measure the "wealth" produced - but that does not, thankfully, measure the wealth destroyed.
WhiteDog, can we be satisfied that we agree more than we disagree on that subject? That's not going to happen very often. My view on individual wealth is that it is necessary in order to maintain wealth-creating incentives.
We disagree on many things, I just don't want to get too involved into a discussion about refugees because it's an impossible discussion right now.
Just let the technocrats and the government do what they do best, which is failing.
I'm quite pissed at the fact that the refugees that are coming to France right now come directly from Germany (and not from Greece or Italy - where they come from) : what is basically happening is that we are taking some refugees off of Merkel's back because she does not want PEDIGA to rise too much. And Germany appears as the herald of humanist values after basically forcing Greece into recession for five consecutive years. Brillantly done.
The Europe is basically a German state right now.
|
The biggest problem with the refugee crisis is that it just won't stop only by having harder policies against it. It will just direct the flow (partly) elsewhere. For people risking the migration it is not harder immigration policies that will stop the decision and make them stay where they are. They're probably more afraid to die on the road than they care about what happens once they reach europe.
So now you have migrants that keep coming. Refusing access will just keep creating ghettos/camps of them and explosive situations in very specific areas like Greece or Calais. The problem won't just go away. Sure... maybe not in a specific country. But in that case it reflects how divided Europe truly is.
It's not even a problem of whether or not the Western world has the moral duty of welcoming 3rd world refugees. This is not the problem. The west is faced by the situation only because it's the most attractive destination (and Europe because it is closer). If the whole world was poor, refugees from a war zone would still go somewhere. I believe however that the west is better equiped to deal with this the humane way than a poor country would. The problem is that they come or are already there and an agreement on a solution has to be reached by Europe rather than having half the countries burrying their head in the sand while others are crumbling. I see only 3 solutions personally.
Welcome them and put in place a structure of integration that avoids concentration.
Put a wall all over Europe and deport illegal migrants (not humane from my pov)
Get rid of the situation at its source (Europe isn't ready for a war and with asad supported by other countries this seems impossible).
The problem is how Europe seem divided. Like the Greece debt crisis it is mostly an event that show how weak politically the Europe is from an external view.
|
On September 10 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:
) : what is basically happening is that we are taking some refugees off of Merkel's back because she does not want PEDIGA to rise too much. And Germany appears as the herald of humanist values after basically forcing Greece into recession for five consecutive years. Brillantly done.
We're probably going to take in close to a million refugees this year alone, this has to be a joke
|
On September 10 2015 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:
) : what is basically happening is that we are taking some refugees off of Merkel's back because she does not want PEDIGA to rise too much. And Germany appears as the herald of humanist values after basically forcing Greece into recession for five consecutive years. Brillantly done.
We're probably going to take in close to a million refugees this year alone, this has to be a joke
And what ? They come to your country not mine. Before it was okay for you, because most refugee had to pass through a ton of countries to get to germany (dublin rules - that germany profited from). Now that the situation touch Germany, somehow it is our collective problem and Germany made a deal in order to pass on to their neighbor a part of that influx of migrants. As I said : brilliant.
By the way, the situation would be somewhat fair if :
- the economic situation in germany and other country was similar (which is not ? we have 3 to 5 million people unemployed) ;
- the demographic situation in germany and other country was similar (which it is not ? not only our population is growing while yours is falling, but we have been welcoming migrants at a constant flux for the last three or four decades - 200 000 people a years for 40 years - so much that 20 % of our youth has at least a non-french parent; meanwhile germany just welcome migrants for a few years and then nothing).
And the worst in that is that the media paint french as racist and german as beautiful openminded people : some people even talk about a nobel prize for Merkel ! lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
