3 ms·

> Our restrictions came about through a democratic process A democratic process where most of the people affected weren't allowed to vote.

rsanek 5y ago
Not sure how this is at all relevant? In both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. Or do you mean they should be allowed to have a say in this?
- erklik 5y ago
  It does seem relevant. Whether some supreme leader decides what's better for you, or some other random group decides what's better for you. What's the difference? Either way, you aren't doing the deciding, and the change enforced upon wasn't really democratic to you.
- thephyber 5y ago
  The vast vast majority of citizens in either country do not play a part in legislation. The USA has lobbying, which is seen by the rest of the OECD countries as a legalized form of bribery. This allows regulated industries to corrupt and otherwise influence the regulation of their own industry. The USA might very well have similar restrictions to China on say prize boxes in video games if not for the outsized effect of industries on legislators. The US also has a history of actual disenfranchisement and state legislators gerrymandering away the influence of a large minority of votes for Congress. The effect is that the US actually has a complicated system of perverting the democratic system, whereas the Chinese system doesn’t even try to appear democratic, thereby appearing at least more honest about what it is.
  - vinay427 5y ago
    Without commenting on the specific issue at hand, if playing "a part in legislation" is a literal criterion for democracy, I think the direct democracy in a place like California (or Switzerland, and possibly 1-2 other places) which allow for public votes on essentially everything including constitutional amendments place a decent number of US voters ahead of most OECD counterparts. Anecdotally, I think there are far more significant issues with US democracy than lobbying given that legislators still largely seem to do what they campaign on, lobbying-influenced or otherwise, and voters elect them in almost universally accepted elections. If the disconnect were between the expectations of voters (from campaigns, etc.) and actual legislation, I would be more inclined to place further blame on lobbying, but I'm not sure that's the case. I wouldn't say lobbying isn't a problem, obviously.
  - lai-yin 5y ago
    Lobbying is a beautiful mechanism of democracy. Anyone can register to be a lobbyist. Any organization's members can pool money together to form an association which represents its interests to legislators. I worked as a Congressional staffer on Capitol Hill and saw firsthand how it works. We met with lobbyists on both sides of every niche issue you could possibly imagine. There's no perversion of government caused by lobbyists. On net balance lobbyists are beneficial - and sometimes they're all that stops a 20-something Legislative Aide from drafting a terrible piece of legislation which the Member only faintly understands.
    - __m 5y ago
      What is the money for?
      - lai-yin 5y ago
        Lots of things. To name a few - printing literature, building a website, salary for a coordinator to schedule the hundreds of meetings that will come up, and salary for a communications expert who can strategically articulate your position to legislators and their aides. I know all of that sounds distasteful to some people, but the alternative is not the utopia they imagine - it's Chinese authoritarianism.
    - ycuser2 5y ago
      > Lobbying is a beautiful mechanism of democracy. I don't think so. Poor people have no lobby. Families have no lobby.
      - nearbuy 5y ago
        Regardless of how you feel about lobbyists, this is just untrue. The CBPP and WCLP are a couple examples of lobbyists for the poor.
        ycuser2 5y ago
        But they won't have as much money as rich organisations and not as much influence.
- nearbuy 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean about relevance, but I'll attempt to answer. This thread is debating whether we should be appalled at China for this law, or whether it's morally similar to some of our own laws (like banning drinking and gambling for minors). Bogwog suggested the difference is we banned minors from drinking democratically, while China's "supreme leader decided he knows what's best". The parent to Bogwog's comment suggested they're similar and we're holding China to a higher standard (possibly due to our biases). As you say, in both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. That seems like a similarity between here and China. If children could vote here, that would strengthen Bogwog's argument. (If it makes a difference, I'm against governments restricting minors from playing video games more than 3 hours per week. But I also don't think democracy is what would make it okay.) A lot else could be said about this. Just to list a few possible objections to the democracy argument: - It's kind of easy to just throw the word "democracy" around without actually establishing why the law is just and good and moral. For example, if a democratic country decided to ban Muslims, would people think it was moral and justified? - Maybe the commenter feels democracy justifies it because the people (indirectly) chose the law. But in this case, the majority (people over 21) are placing restrictions on a minority (people under 21). That's a possible failure of democracy: a majority can abuse a minority, even if the minority is overwhelmingly against the proposed law. - On top of that, most of the people being restricted (people under 18 or 21 depending on which law and which state we're discussing) weren't allowed to vote at all. They can't choose representatives in Congress. - The comment overstates the difference between the US and China and makes it sound like this law is solely the whim of a dictator. While the US is certainly much more democratic than China, the US isn't completely democratic, and China isn't completely undemocratic. China has elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China). Video game addiction is a popular concern in China. South Korea democratically passed a similar (though less severe) law restricting video games for minors. This is a position of the communist party, with a lot of public support, not just a personal whim of Xi Jinping. (People exaggerate how much China is ruled solely by Xi Jinping instead of the party as a whole. Xi is powerful, but he can be replaced by the party and he's only been leader since 2012, and no person governs alone.) Meanwhile, there are many reasons why US politics don't always perfectly reflect the will of the people.
  - 5y ago
- beaunative 5y ago
  I think he's pointing out in this specific case, a democratic process of elected representatives is not better than that of appointed officials since it's still a group of people making decision for another totally unrelated group of people, teenagers, who didn't get to vote for those making the decisions/votes.

rsanek 5y ago

Not sure how this is at all relevant? In both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. Or do you mean they should be allowed to have a say in this?

erklik 5y ago
It does seem relevant. Whether some supreme leader decides what's better for you, or some other random group decides what's better for you. What's the difference? Either way, you aren't doing the deciding, and the change enforced upon wasn't really democratic to you.
thephyber 5y ago
The vast vast majority of citizens in either country do not play a part in legislation. The USA has lobbying, which is seen by the rest of the OECD countries as a legalized form of bribery. This allows regulated industries to corrupt and otherwise influence the regulation of their own industry. The USA might very well have similar restrictions to China on say prize boxes in video games if not for the outsized effect of industries on legislators. The US also has a history of actual disenfranchisement and state legislators gerrymandering away the influence of a large minority of votes for Congress. The effect is that the US actually has a complicated system of perverting the democratic system, whereas the Chinese system doesn’t even try to appear democratic, thereby appearing at least more honest about what it is.
- vinay427 5y ago
  Without commenting on the specific issue at hand, if playing "a part in legislation" is a literal criterion for democracy, I think the direct democracy in a place like California (or Switzerland, and possibly 1-2 other places) which allow for public votes on essentially everything including constitutional amendments place a decent number of US voters ahead of most OECD counterparts. Anecdotally, I think there are far more significant issues with US democracy than lobbying given that legislators still largely seem to do what they campaign on, lobbying-influenced or otherwise, and voters elect them in almost universally accepted elections. If the disconnect were between the expectations of voters (from campaigns, etc.) and actual legislation, I would be more inclined to place further blame on lobbying, but I'm not sure that's the case. I wouldn't say lobbying isn't a problem, obviously.
- lai-yin 5y ago
  Lobbying is a beautiful mechanism of democracy. Anyone can register to be a lobbyist. Any organization's members can pool money together to form an association which represents its interests to legislators. I worked as a Congressional staffer on Capitol Hill and saw firsthand how it works. We met with lobbyists on both sides of every niche issue you could possibly imagine. There's no perversion of government caused by lobbyists. On net balance lobbyists are beneficial - and sometimes they're all that stops a 20-something Legislative Aide from drafting a terrible piece of legislation which the Member only faintly understands.
  - __m 5y ago
    What is the money for?
    - lai-yin 5y ago
      Lots of things. To name a few - printing literature, building a website, salary for a coordinator to schedule the hundreds of meetings that will come up, and salary for a communications expert who can strategically articulate your position to legislators and their aides. I know all of that sounds distasteful to some people, but the alternative is not the utopia they imagine - it's Chinese authoritarianism.
  - ycuser2 5y ago
    > Lobbying is a beautiful mechanism of democracy. I don't think so. Poor people have no lobby. Families have no lobby.
    - nearbuy 5y ago
      Regardless of how you feel about lobbyists, this is just untrue. The CBPP and WCLP are a couple examples of lobbyists for the poor.
      - ycuser2 5y ago
        But they won't have as much money as rich organisations and not as much influence.
nearbuy 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean about relevance, but I'll attempt to answer. This thread is debating whether we should be appalled at China for this law, or whether it's morally similar to some of our own laws (like banning drinking and gambling for minors). Bogwog suggested the difference is we banned minors from drinking democratically, while China's "supreme leader decided he knows what's best". The parent to Bogwog's comment suggested they're similar and we're holding China to a higher standard (possibly due to our biases). As you say, in both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. That seems like a similarity between here and China. If children could vote here, that would strengthen Bogwog's argument. (If it makes a difference, I'm against governments restricting minors from playing video games more than 3 hours per week. But I also don't think democracy is what would make it okay.) A lot else could be said about this. Just to list a few possible objections to the democracy argument: - It's kind of easy to just throw the word "democracy" around without actually establishing why the law is just and good and moral. For example, if a democratic country decided to ban Muslims, would people think it was moral and justified? - Maybe the commenter feels democracy justifies it because the people (indirectly) chose the law. But in this case, the majority (people over 21) are placing restrictions on a minority (people under 21). That's a possible failure of democracy: a majority can abuse a minority, even if the minority is overwhelmingly against the proposed law. - On top of that, most of the people being restricted (people under 18 or 21 depending on which law and which state we're discussing) weren't allowed to vote at all. They can't choose representatives in Congress. - The comment overstates the difference between the US and China and makes it sound like this law is solely the whim of a dictator. While the US is certainly much more democratic than China, the US isn't completely democratic, and China isn't completely undemocratic. China has elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China). Video game addiction is a popular concern in China. South Korea democratically passed a similar (though less severe) law restricting video games for minors. This is a position of the communist party, with a lot of public support, not just a personal whim of Xi Jinping. (People exaggerate how much China is ruled solely by Xi Jinping instead of the party as a whole. Xi is powerful, but he can be replaced by the party and he's only been leader since 2012, and no person governs alone.) Meanwhile, there are many reasons why US politics don't always perfectly reflect the will of the people.
- 5y ago
beaunative 5y ago
I think he's pointing out in this specific case, a democratic process of elected representatives is not better than that of appointed officials since it's still a group of people making decision for another totally unrelated group of people, teenagers, who didn't get to vote for those making the decisions/votes.