5 ms·

Ok. They have a dictator for life and can have long term goals, "good" and "bad." They have a single party system with basically no rights, human or environment

by cronix 8y ago

Ok. They have a dictator for life and can have long term goals, "good" and "bad." They have a single party system with basically no rights, human or environmental. They can do what they want, whenever they want, however they want. If you don't like it, you go to prison without a fair trial and are forced to conform through reeducation, hard labor and torture. There is no opposition to contend with. If there is, you just kill them or toss them in prison. Does that help you a bit? Now, maybe you can explain how that is a better or more desirable way? https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/666287509/ex-detainee-describes-torture-in-chinas-xinjiang-re-education-camp https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/666287509/ex-detainee-describ... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/04/xi-jinping-from-president-to-china-new-dictator https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/04/xi-jinping-fro... https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/china-and-tibet https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/china...

im3w1l 8y ago
Is there are a way to get the good parts without the bad parts?
- cronix 8y ago
  The last 150 years or so of history kind of says no, but people keep trying because the last person "didn't implement it quite right" and "they," somehow, "know how to do it better." Maybe people need to see another 150M+ deaths to prove a failed philosophy/ideology is somehow what we need. It's the underlying philosophy that is the failure, no matter how you dress it up or try to implement it. The individual is sovereign.
  - im3w1l 8y ago
    I meant more along the lines of "what if we give eminent domain just a bit more bite?"
- seniorivn 8y ago
  Yes, competitive democratic political system with minimalist federal government that is used only to solve issues that need a monopoly to be solved, everything else can and should be done by free unregulated market. But if you want people to have some sort of safety net, it's a separate issue. And government can be used for that, as a middleman to help organize financing of those safety net. But government is never tho most efficient player on the market, so it should not be a part of the solution. And US and most western countries don't have all of this at the same time. Some countries have competitive democracies(US not one of them) some have kind of minimal/efficient governments. Some not that regulated markets. But no one has all at the same time.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Long term not really - succession has always been a problem. Hereditary monarchs try to groom and train heirs from birth but it is no guarantee and there are messier bits of inner politics like back ups and murder to claim the throne. Chosen successors were tried with emperors but that has many of the same problems including the "A people hire A people, B people hire C people thing". It isn't an intrinsic merit thing "because I am great those I hire are great" but that those who are competent and secure want the best to work with and try to get them. Their judgement is not perfect and has subjectives but they try to. Meanwhile those who aren't secure or competent and know it hire worse people to secure their position and well work their way down the alphabet. Democracy is ironically a very stable system because it works on blocks and ideals instead of people - not to mention peaceful transition of power.
nneonneo 8y ago
Agree with most of this. Right now they’re lucky to have had a string of decently good leaders - but that could easily change. I will point out though that the current Chinese leadership does care a fair bit about the environment. It’s not evenly applied, but in many cases they’ve been working very hard to reduce pollution and environmental damage and pursue sustainable developments (hydroelectricity, electric vehicles, widespread electric scooters and bicycles, public transit initiatives, etc.)
- FartyMcFarter 8y ago
  > they’re lucky to have had a string of decently good leaders Unless of course they're one of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps more than a million) of Uighurs in Xinjiang province who are being held in "internment camps".

by cronix 8y ago

im3w1l 8y ago

Is there are a way to get the good parts without the bad parts?

cronix 8y ago
The last 150 years or so of history kind of says no, but people keep trying because the last person "didn't implement it quite right" and "they," somehow, "know how to do it better." Maybe people need to see another 150M+ deaths to prove a failed philosophy/ideology is somehow what we need. It's the underlying philosophy that is the failure, no matter how you dress it up or try to implement it. The individual is sovereign.
- im3w1l 8y ago
  I meant more along the lines of "what if we give eminent domain just a bit more bite?"
seniorivn 8y ago
Yes, competitive democratic political system with minimalist federal government that is used only to solve issues that need a monopoly to be solved, everything else can and should be done by free unregulated market. But if you want people to have some sort of safety net, it's a separate issue. And government can be used for that, as a middleman to help organize financing of those safety net. But government is never tho most efficient player on the market, so it should not be a part of the solution. And US and most western countries don't have all of this at the same time. Some countries have competitive democracies(US not one of them) some have kind of minimal/efficient governments. Some not that regulated markets. But no one has all at the same time.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Long term not really - succession has always been a problem. Hereditary monarchs try to groom and train heirs from birth but it is no guarantee and there are messier bits of inner politics like back ups and murder to claim the throne. Chosen successors were tried with emperors but that has many of the same problems including the "A people hire A people, B people hire C people thing". It isn't an intrinsic merit thing "because I am great those I hire are great" but that those who are competent and secure want the best to work with and try to get them. Their judgement is not perfect and has subjectives but they try to. Meanwhile those who aren't secure or competent and know it hire worse people to secure their position and well work their way down the alphabet. Democracy is ironically a very stable system because it works on blocks and ideals instead of people - not to mention peaceful transition of power.

nneonneo 8y ago

Agree with most of this. Right now they’re lucky to have had a string of decently good leaders - but that could easily change. I will point out though that the current Chinese leadership does care a fair bit about the environment. It’s not evenly applied, but in many cases they’ve been working very hard to reduce pollution and environmental damage and pursue sustainable developments (hydroelectricity, electric vehicles, widespread electric scooters and bicycles, public transit initiatives, etc.)

FartyMcFarter 8y ago
> they’re lucky to have had a string of decently good leaders Unless of course they're one of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps more than a million) of Uighurs in Xinjiang province who are being held in "internment camps".