7 ms·

You're not considering the real and terrifying strengths that dictatorship has over democracy. In true democracies the politicians never undertake a plan that l

You're not considering the real and terrifying strengths that dictatorship has over democracy. In true democracies the politicians never undertake a plan that lasts longer than one election term because they have no incentive to do so. In China they feel free to undertake 20 year plans with large upfront investments because the party does not care about winning an election every 2-4 years. Why do you automatically assume that elections provide a reality check? Would you say that the Democrats and Republicans in the USA are tightly coupled to reality given their frequent elections? On the contrary I believe that elections merely tie legislative actions towards what voters perceive as electable. It doesn't matter what the PATRIOT act does as long as a political ad can sell the idea of "safety" to you. Politics in democracies have devolved to little more than entertainment. On the other hand, China has achieved something very close to a technocracy where rules are based on expert opinion. The economy is controlled by economists, health policy is controlled by epidemiologists, and media censorship is controlled by political and social scientists. You are more likely to advance based on competence in Chinese politics than you are in the USA, where elections are just a high school popularity contest. The Chinese government has plenty of terrifyingly competent bureaucrats.

koheripbal 6y ago
This is why a successful democracy is one where only well educated and thoughtful people vote. Making it easier and easier to vote is a losing formula.
- ryantgtg 6y ago
  I know you are trolling. But, what country are you using as an example? And what is the “this” in the comment you are replying to (I think you are attempting to make a point rather than actually responding to the content)? And finally, investing in education is a better solution than suppressing the vote.
- throwaway8879 6y ago
  How are you defining a successful democracy? If 20% of a nation elect a philosopher king type leader, is that more "successful" than 90% of another nation electing a tyrannical despot?
fossuser 6y ago
There are advantages to the efficiency of authoritarian power, but how do they handle peaceful transition of power? How do they handle abuse? A lot of democratic stability comes from it being hard to change things quickly, separation of power, and the existence of a lot free speech so it's hard to cover things up. Ultimately, with a dependence on the people. I could be persuaded that there are better ways to structure things within that, if a lot of thought was put into how to handle a tyrant's rise and how to handle a transition of power. I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people. I generally agree with the sentiment that elected leaders fear getting voted out, while dictators fear getting dragged out. The ability to vote seems important for long term stability. In China's case, it seems they've done away with terms entirely for Xi. Speech and dissent is tightly (and violently) controlled, and even when there's just potential for future dissent, entire groups are put into camps to destroy their culture to supposedly reduce that risk. The west has problems too, but there's a reason people emmigrate out to countries that are more free when they're allowed to. Enormous economic growth and strategic planning have allowed their people to accept this abuse for now, though the party should be worried if that ever changes.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  >There are advantages to the efficiency of authoritarian power, but how do they handle peaceful transition of power? Europe had hereditary transitions of power, which were about as peaceful as any other form of transition of power. In Rome you would choose your successor and he would be the next emperor. > I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people. Just because it's supposed to work that way doesn't mean it actually works that way. Do you think Americans are using free speech well? Do you feel like the government is accountable to you? In America you have free speech but it's not practically useful for anything. Have a go at trying to stop some government abuse of power.
  - 6y ago
mellow2020 6y ago
Even taking what you said at face value, what you're describing is a strong body with no mind. If you could get a lifespan of a million years, but had to spend it in a coma, would you want to? If you could live a million years, but only as a passive passenger, while other people (or dice, why not) control your actions, would you want to?

koheripbal 6y ago

This is why a successful democracy is one where only well educated and thoughtful people vote. Making it easier and easier to vote is a losing formula.

ryantgtg 6y ago
I know you are trolling. But, what country are you using as an example? And what is the “this” in the comment you are replying to (I think you are attempting to make a point rather than actually responding to the content)? And finally, investing in education is a better solution than suppressing the vote.
throwaway8879 6y ago
How are you defining a successful democracy? If 20% of a nation elect a philosopher king type leader, is that more "successful" than 90% of another nation electing a tyrannical despot?

fossuser 6y ago

There are advantages to the efficiency of authoritarian power, but how do they handle peaceful transition of power? How do they handle abuse? A lot of democratic stability comes from it being hard to change things quickly, separation of power, and the existence of a lot free speech so it's hard to cover things up. Ultimately, with a dependence on the people. I could be persuaded that there are better ways to structure things within that, if a lot of thought was put into how to handle a tyrant's rise and how to handle a transition of power. I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people. I generally agree with the sentiment that elected leaders fear getting voted out, while dictators fear getting dragged out. The ability to vote seems important for long term stability. In China's case, it seems they've done away with terms entirely for Xi. Speech and dissent is tightly (and violently) controlled, and even when there's just potential for future dissent, entire groups are put into camps to destroy their culture to supposedly reduce that risk. The west has problems too, but there's a reason people emmigrate out to countries that are more free when they're allowed to. Enormous economic growth and strategic planning have allowed their people to accept this abuse for now, though the party should be worried if that ever changes.

deathgrips 6y ago
>There are advantages to the efficiency of authoritarian power, but how do they handle peaceful transition of power? Europe had hereditary transitions of power, which were about as peaceful as any other form of transition of power. In Rome you would choose your successor and he would be the next emperor. > I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people. Just because it's supposed to work that way doesn't mean it actually works that way. Do you think Americans are using free speech well? Do you feel like the government is accountable to you? In America you have free speech but it's not practically useful for anything. Have a go at trying to stop some government abuse of power.
- 6y ago

mellow2020 6y ago

Even taking what you said at face value, what you're describing is a strong body with no mind. If you could get a lifespan of a million years, but had to spend it in a coma, would you want to? If you could live a million years, but only as a passive passenger, while other people (or dice, why not) control your actions, would you want to?