5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  > the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction. > So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want. I agree, but it is not very difficult to beat China in this respect. > The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top. This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy. > Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction. Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    I hate to be jingoistic or defensive here, but you guys are way out there. In practice, the US is an oligarchy Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we? We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become president. We had another president impeached for lying in court. During this same time, we've had expansionist foreign policies, realistic policies, conservative policies. We've had all sorts of financial policies. Our court system has swung both left and right. I'm not arguing that there isn't a ruling class of bureaucrats and rich politicians in key roles, but the government has effectively changed up policies, executives, and legal theory in surprisingly quick order. With all due respect, China just doesn't compare here at all. They're great people and all, but if they have that kind of flexibility in governance I haven't seen it.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago

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.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
> the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction. > So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want. I agree, but it is not very difficult to beat China in this respect. > The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top. This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy. > Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction. Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  I hate to be jingoistic or defensive here, but you guys are way out there. In practice, the US is an oligarchy Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we? We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become president. We had another president impeached for lying in court. During this same time, we've had expansionist foreign policies, realistic policies, conservative policies. We've had all sorts of financial policies. Our court system has swung both left and right. I'm not arguing that there isn't a ruling class of bureaucrats and rich politicians in key roles, but the government has effectively changed up policies, executives, and legal theory in surprisingly quick order. With all due respect, China just doesn't compare here at all. They're great people and all, but if they have that kind of flexibility in governance I haven't seen it.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago