5 ms·

> But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic. The problem is that

> But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic. The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". China and the US both have authoritarian governments, although they do of course differ in certain ways. > And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic. I don't think this is what has happened at all. Your suggestion that > the few in that society who are educated...take charge is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. Take the US, for example. It is run by a massive, permanent bureaucracy. In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense. > Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason. The key question when it comes to political systems is, who is making the decisions? Let's take education, a subject I think we're both interested in. In Country A, the decision of how a person is to be educated is made by a large, government bureaucracy, supposedly filled with experts. The decision is not made by the person in question or even his/her parents. They have no choice but to pay for the government schools. Meanwhile, in Country B, a student and/or his/her parents have full control over their own education and what is spent on it. In this case, they are making the decisions. I would call Country A "authoritarian" and Country B "free". My question is, which is the US, and which is China?

chrischen 17y ago
> The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". Sorry bad choice of word I guess. What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly. > is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally. > In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense. Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule. As for your education point, China has restrictions on information, and it has a similar style of education as the US, but with an even more mechanistic approach. So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, but in the US you at least have freedom of information, which permits and promotes anyone to self educate if he or she wants to.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  > What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly. Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems. This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many resources on propagandizing their populations. > The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally. I have to disagree with you here. As you pointed out, it's more efficient when people are generally left to do as they wish, including in the area of education, for example. Yet, the ruling classes in both countries have decided against this and are enforcing their views. In fact, your idea, fully applied, precludes the existence of a ruling class. > Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule. This paragraph would honestly make more sense if you replaced "democracy" with "aristocracy". In fact, many proponents of aristocracy make essentially the same argument you just did. > So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, I agree, China's education system is even worse. But my main point is that we're talking about two bad options now, not one good option and one bad option.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Yes every government has to satisfy it's people, or it will be overthrown. The question is which typed of government is designed to satisfy the people. Whether or not it satisfies the people is up to reality to determine and enforce. The idealogies of the governments may not necessarily account. I think the current gov't in china, an authoratative oligarchy, is designed so that the majority of people are kept from weighing in on the decision making. This is again because of the assumption that the majority is uneducated and therefore unfit to rule. The democratic style in the US is by design meant to give people more power, and make the government more accountable to the public. It does his because of it's design of seperation of powers, so that no one entity can take over all governmental bureaucracies. This also makes it easier for dissenting groups to introduce disruptions to the government, which is so slow, ineffective, divided, and powerless. Since everyone is striving for power, and it's so easy to disrupt power if any one entity gains too much power, the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. So it introduces stability. Of course this gets into the other topic about conformists killing society. But in a democracy nonconformist still have more freedom to thrive. For your second point, I have to say while the US has a formalized education system, the very concept of freedom of speech information is freely accesible and propogated outside of the education system, independent of government control. Compare this to China where the government has the final say on information on top of control of he education system. Also not everyone has to attend government schools in he US. So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want. For the third paragraph, I am not talking about rule based on hereditary titles or class. In fact I am talking about the exact opposite. The US system promotes a smart business man to run a business because he will have the best practical results, and a smart person to run a state, presidency, etc. This is what I mean those fit to rule will rule. The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top. In terms of efficiency, the American system may not be that great, but it is stable, and this stability means any attempt to radically improve it's system will be tough since there is always the risk it could fail miserably. Democracy is the stage for when people are comfortable, and stability is needed. Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.
thismat 17y ago
the US is definitely B. Because my parents did just that, they didn't like the public (or private) schools in my area, and instead mixed homeschool/unschooling principals for me and my brothers. I don't know enough about China to say it's "A", I can assume it is, but I could be very wrong.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  No doubt there is still some flexibility in the US, but unfortunately the US is also A, not B. I'm assuming you and your parents did not receive exemptions from taxes, legal credentialing requirements, and the like.
  - thismat 17y ago
    Not from taxes no, that's a must I'm afraid and a big downside to the whole situation. legal credentialing requirements in Texas at the time were almost non existent so we didn't have to worry about that, my parents were considered pretty radical by peers back when we started, because homeschooling wasn't fleshed out nor well received at the time. I still remember my parents not letting us go out mid-day by ourselves due to them not wanting everyone thinking we were just a bunch of hoodlums skipping school. Instead we got invaluable experience working at the family business.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    It is not A by your definition that the person has NO choice in education. In the US we clearly do have choice, and even if we go the public education route, we still have the freedom to pursue spread and pursue information independently.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      You don't have the option of not paying for govt. schools. You don't have the option of avoiding legal credential requirements in many careers. Again the US is obviously not identical to China, but they are both A.

chrischen 17y ago

> The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". Sorry bad choice of word I guess. What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly. > is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally. > In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense. Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule. As for your education point, China has restrictions on information, and it has a similar style of education as the US, but with an even more mechanistic approach. So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, but in the US you at least have freedom of information, which permits and promotes anyone to self educate if he or she wants to.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
> What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly. Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems. This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many resources on propagandizing their populations. > The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally. I have to disagree with you here. As you pointed out, it's more efficient when people are generally left to do as they wish, including in the area of education, for example. Yet, the ruling classes in both countries have decided against this and are enforcing their views. In fact, your idea, fully applied, precludes the existence of a ruling class. > Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule. This paragraph would honestly make more sense if you replaced "democracy" with "aristocracy". In fact, many proponents of aristocracy make essentially the same argument you just did. > So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, I agree, China's education system is even worse. But my main point is that we're talking about two bad options now, not one good option and one bad option.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Yes every government has to satisfy it's people, or it will be overthrown. The question is which typed of government is designed to satisfy the people. Whether or not it satisfies the people is up to reality to determine and enforce. The idealogies of the governments may not necessarily account. I think the current gov't in china, an authoratative oligarchy, is designed so that the majority of people are kept from weighing in on the decision making. This is again because of the assumption that the majority is uneducated and therefore unfit to rule. The democratic style in the US is by design meant to give people more power, and make the government more accountable to the public. It does his because of it's design of seperation of powers, so that no one entity can take over all governmental bureaucracies. This also makes it easier for dissenting groups to introduce disruptions to the government, which is so slow, ineffective, divided, and powerless. Since everyone is striving for power, and it's so easy to disrupt power if any one entity gains too much power, the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. So it introduces stability. Of course this gets into the other topic about conformists killing society. But in a democracy nonconformist still have more freedom to thrive. For your second point, I have to say while the US has a formalized education system, the very concept of freedom of speech information is freely accesible and propogated outside of the education system, independent of government control. Compare this to China where the government has the final say on information on top of control of he education system. Also not everyone has to attend government schools in he US. So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want. For the third paragraph, I am not talking about rule based on hereditary titles or class. In fact I am talking about the exact opposite. The US system promotes a smart business man to run a business because he will have the best practical results, and a smart person to run a state, presidency, etc. This is what I mean those fit to rule will rule. The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top. In terms of efficiency, the American system may not be that great, but it is stable, and this stability means any attempt to radically improve it's system will be tough since there is always the risk it could fail miserably. Democracy is the stage for when people are comfortable, and stability is needed. Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.

thismat 17y ago

the US is definitely B. Because my parents did just that, they didn't like the public (or private) schools in my area, and instead mixed homeschool/unschooling principals for me and my brothers. I don't know enough about China to say it's "A", I can assume it is, but I could be very wrong.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
No doubt there is still some flexibility in the US, but unfortunately the US is also A, not B. I'm assuming you and your parents did not receive exemptions from taxes, legal credentialing requirements, and the like.
- thismat 17y ago
  Not from taxes no, that's a must I'm afraid and a big downside to the whole situation. legal credentialing requirements in Texas at the time were almost non existent so we didn't have to worry about that, my parents were considered pretty radical by peers back when we started, because homeschooling wasn't fleshed out nor well received at the time. I still remember my parents not letting us go out mid-day by ourselves due to them not wanting everyone thinking we were just a bunch of hoodlums skipping school. Instead we got invaluable experience working at the family business.
- chrischen 17y ago
  It is not A by your definition that the person has NO choice in education. In the US we clearly do have choice, and even if we go the public education route, we still have the freedom to pursue spread and pursue information independently.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    You don't have the option of not paying for govt. schools. You don't have the option of avoiding legal credential requirements in many careers. Again the US is obviously not identical to China, but they are both A.