4 ms·

I think this depends on what you define as "better". Certainly totalitarian regimes have lower economic growth. But if you measure economic growth as your meas

by lzw 16y ago

I think this depends on what you define as "better". Certainly totalitarian regimes have lower economic growth. But if you measure economic growth as your measure of "better" then it seems that democracy is not as much a determinant as the economic system (eg: the more capitalist the faster the growth, higher the standard of living, the more powerful the central government and thus the more socialist, the lower the standard of living and the slower the growth.) I wouldn't call China a democracy, but they have given up a lot of central power and are growing fast. Certainly there are also example of successful societies that have lasted for very long periods of time that are not democracies, such as tribal communities. They don't exhibit significant economic growth, but they also are far less likely to make war, which would be a good candidate for being "Better" (it is bad to lose a generation of men every couple of generations.) Their lower economic growth may also be a result of their lower war making, but their higher standards of living of the populace relative to the overall standard of living, when compared to democracies, argues again for their form of government being superior. My point being that it is very common for a culture to reinforce in its members a perception that the cultures way of doing things is "right" and that it produces a better outcome-- and it does it in such a way that people presume that this to be a fact, rather than a bias.

tokenadult 16y ago
Immigration flows (which, indeed, involve people leaving one culture and entering another) do a lot to show that there probably are some genuine advantages to democracy over the other forms of government that have been tried from time to time. So far there isn't any fast-growing dictatorship that has achieved long-term prosperity greater than that of the various democratic countries around the world.
cabalamat 16y ago
> I think this depends on what you define as "better". I think by most standards that most people would agree on, democracies come out well. For example, consider life expectancy -- this is IMO a good measure because nearly everyone wants to be alive, and someone who is alive is (usually) better off than someone who is dead. If you look at countries with the highest life expectancy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country ) democracies seem to be over-represented at the top. This is particularly the case if you discount territories that aren't counties (such as Hong Kong). Of if you go by UN Human Development Index, you get a similar story. > Certainly there are also example of successful societies that have lasted for very long periods of time that are not democracies, such as tribal communities. They don't exhibit significant economic growth, but they also are far less likely to make war I'm not sure this is the case. Are you familiar with the high rate of homicide among the Yanomamo? > My point being that it is very common for a culture to reinforce in its members a perception that the cultures way of doing things is "right" and that it produces a better outcome-- and it does it in such a way that people presume that this to be a fact, rather than a bias. You're right that this is a cognitive bias we should guard against.
- lzw 16y ago
  When looking at statistics you must guard against differences in methods and political bias. The UN is not a neutral organization, and life expectancy is not measured in a consistent way (in my understanding.) At any rate, I believe what you're seeing is the superiority of democracy as a form of tyranny, and I won't dispute that. Most of the comparisons, looking at those statistics are to other forms of tyranny. There are very few free countries, and few people who have been educated to respect human rights enough to take up arms to overthrow their government to defend them. When these people do this, though, as the somalis overthrew their dictator, they are visited by no end of warmaking from these so-called "peaceful" democracies. Somalia has been attacked without provocation by the US and UK many times since throwing off their dictator. As for the Yanamamo, I'm not familiar with them, but it would be interesting to understand how many of these homicides are murders and how many are instances of the death penalty. (EG: crimes themselves or responses to crimes.) I, of course, can't say. Other than people have a natural instinct for a form of morality, but this morality can be perverted by culture. (note americans propensity for supporting violence against the innocent in the forms of war and taxes.)

by lzw 16y ago

tokenadult 16y ago

Immigration flows (which, indeed, involve people leaving one culture and entering another) do a lot to show that there probably are some genuine advantages to democracy over the other forms of government that have been tried from time to time. So far there isn't any fast-growing dictatorship that has achieved long-term prosperity greater than that of the various democratic countries around the world.

cabalamat 16y ago

> I think this depends on what you define as "better". I think by most standards that most people would agree on, democracies come out well. For example, consider life expectancy -- this is IMO a good measure because nearly everyone wants to be alive, and someone who is alive is (usually) better off than someone who is dead. If you look at countries with the highest life expectancy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country ) democracies seem to be over-represented at the top. This is particularly the case if you discount territories that aren't counties (such as Hong Kong). Of if you go by UN Human Development Index, you get a similar story. > Certainly there are also example of successful societies that have lasted for very long periods of time that are not democracies, such as tribal communities. They don't exhibit significant economic growth, but they also are far less likely to make war I'm not sure this is the case. Are you familiar with the high rate of homicide among the Yanomamo? > My point being that it is very common for a culture to reinforce in its members a perception that the cultures way of doing things is "right" and that it produces a better outcome-- and it does it in such a way that people presume that this to be a fact, rather than a bias. You're right that this is a cognitive bias we should guard against.

lzw 16y ago
When looking at statistics you must guard against differences in methods and political bias. The UN is not a neutral organization, and life expectancy is not measured in a consistent way (in my understanding.) At any rate, I believe what you're seeing is the superiority of democracy as a form of tyranny, and I won't dispute that. Most of the comparisons, looking at those statistics are to other forms of tyranny. There are very few free countries, and few people who have been educated to respect human rights enough to take up arms to overthrow their government to defend them. When these people do this, though, as the somalis overthrew their dictator, they are visited by no end of warmaking from these so-called "peaceful" democracies. Somalia has been attacked without provocation by the US and UK many times since throwing off their dictator. As for the Yanamamo, I'm not familiar with them, but it would be interesting to understand how many of these homicides are murders and how many are instances of the death penalty. (EG: crimes themselves or responses to crimes.) I, of course, can't say. Other than people have a natural instinct for a form of morality, but this morality can be perverted by culture. (note americans propensity for supporting violence against the innocent in the forms of war and taxes.)