Chinese General news resource thread

[airsuperiority]

Geographer, the entire problem revolves around choice.

Does it make sense for every nation at every stage of development to give every citizen the choice to choose? Ideally, Democracy can and should properly succeed if voters are well informed about the candidates, their policies, and if voting is based on what candidates can deliver rather than emotional personal preference. Furthermore the entire idea of democracy is tarnished through back end campaign financing, and private media that can shape the discourse to suit their own ridiculous needs. It has reached a point where a few individuals controlling vast private empires can control the outcome of their nation's so called democratic processes

I do firmly believe democracy can work, but the right to vote must be earned by thorough understanding of the political, economic, geostrategic policies of each contender. The country I live in is due to have its annual elections, and I am not voting entirely because I respect democracy and because I do not understand the intimacies of the nation's current situation. If I voted, my decision would simply be based on what the media told me combined with a few irrelevant personal preferences. I do not think it is a stretch to say that many people in many democracies do not follow their nation's politics with as much of an objective eye as they should.


Furthermore, democracy itself dilutes government power and makes government action dependent upon what sounds good for individual groups of voters rather than the nation. They make governments plan in election cycles rather than decades. Infrastructure is a perfect example. Trying to build extensive infrastructure in any democracy these days is always fraught with opposition. The sheer cost, the impact on people's homes, all causes political backlash from a minority of those effected, often severely delaying the much needed project. Now I'm not saying such situations should simply disregard the concerns of those effected, but depending on whether you are a third world or first world country, then you have to objectively understand that the suffering of a few will have to be worth the development of many others.

In my view, the problem with democracy is two fold: that many people do not vote based on clear information and understanding of what their nation needs, and secondly it forces governments to plan policies in short cycles between elections which may cause unpopular but much needed policies to consistently get postponed.


For some nations at a state of development when the above two problems have a minimal physical and humanitarian impact, then such sluggishness and indecisiveness may be seen as worth the ability to give everyone a degree of choice via voting. In other nations, a lack of decisive, centralised leadership may mean the difference between millions or tens or even hundreds of millions of people staying under the poverty line or rising above it, in which case the freedom of choice should be one which IMO is not worth much.

Edit: whether democracy is right for china at its current stage of development is another big discussion entirely, but my opinion is a sound no.

The People's Republic of Socialist Romanticism should really nominate you as the head of state. Very well said and rational. You get my vote.

 

[Geographer]

I'm playing devils advocate for those that hide behind democracy. The preachers don't expect to be tested on their faith in democracy. Resistance to being tested on one's faith in democracy is the first sign of selfishness. One would pass with flying colors if one truly believed in democracy. They hold out democracy as if it's beyond them and not selfishness and therefore people must obey without question. But when one turns out to be a hypocrite it is selfishness at the heart of it. Everyone hates a hypocrite even hypocrites hate hypocrites because they know themselves hypocrites are motivated by selfishness.

The one world government argument is a red herring. A democracy does not require a single central government responsible for all policies everywhere. It is good and normal for democracies to have federalism--multiple levels of government with different responsibilities. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of elected entities. Everyone knows the federal, state, and city governments. Did you also know there are thousands of countries, school districts, hospital districts, and water districts, each their own taxing authority? Each one must have an elected committee in charge. In Texas local judges are even elected. Federalism and devolved powers is a democratic idea. One all-powerful central government is an authoritarian idea.

The Ease of Doing Business report is relevant to our discussion of infrastructure because private companies build a lot of infrastructure. Nearly all homes, apartment buildings, office towers, and hotels in the U.S. are constructed entirely through private developers. Local governments may throw them some tax incentives if it's a big project but mostly developers are left to fend for themselves. How easy or difficult it is to do business affects developers' willingness to invest. Moreover, all government infrastructure projects have private contractors who have to do business. Again, the ease of doing business affects prices and willingness to undertake big projects.

It's true that high-speed rail and metro projects have been very slow-going, if they go at all. There's no doubt China and Europe are way ahead of the U.S. in this regard. But that has more to do with the widespread lack of faith in HSR and public transit in American culture more than NIMBYism or a general lack of enthusiasm for infrastructure. In the 1990s Texas went on a prison-building spree to accommodate victims of the War on Drugs. I can't say that was a good investment but it shows that a state government can build a lot of infrastructure fast when it wants to.

Another survey is the World Economic Forum's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ranking in which the United States is third and China is a respectable 28th.

the additional benefit of autocracies, is that the leaders are aware that if they do not have the support of the people, then they will lose their rule and likely have no way to get it back.

This is actually one of the biggest weaknesses of an autocracy. How do autocrats lose power? Through military coup d'tats, revolutions, assassinations, or invasions. Those methods are violent and cause great instability. Democracies provide a regular, peaceful way to remove unpopular leaders. If an autocrat knows he/she will be in big trouble (as in they could be killed) should they lose power, then they will do anything to hold power. It's an unhappy spiral: the autocrat creates enemies by their exercise of total power, this makes the autocrat feel threatened and want to stay in office longer, which creates more enemies, making the autocrat more afraid of losing power, etc.

Providing a peaceful, regular way to change leaders encourages would-be rebels to participate in the democratic process and encourages would-be dictators or coup leaders to stand down in the knowledge that they will have another chance in the future. The all-or-nothing mindset of an authoritarian government leads people to use extreme measures.

 

[airsuperiority]

Why are Americans so against the notion of a "One-World government?" Ironically it's the true democracy they don't like simply because they don't have the numbers. If one actually believed in democratic principles, they would be for a one-world government. Americans are a minority in this world. Add the whole Western world and they're still not a majority. If the Western world made up the majority of the world, then they would want a one-world government. The irony is Western democracies are doing now what they never want to see happen in a one-world government. And that is someone else dictating to them what they have to do.

BTW for the people can only think in black and white... just because I wrote this, it doesn't mean I believe in a one-world government. People that are paranoid over a one-world government is the one of many things that shows how it won't work. People who hide behind democracy but don't like the concept of a one-world government are just hypocrites. When you eliminate all the contradictions from hypocrisy, what's left is just plain selfishness. Not a cause or the need to find what's best for everyone else. How undemocratic.

Hmmm but I have concerns with this line of argument. Just because you like democracy doesn't mean technically you also have to support democracy for everything, or to endorse an unified world government, right?

Like for example, lessons in Libya, Iraq, Syria showed that it's better to leave those places alone and let their gatekeeper do the job than to remove them and unplug that cork that's preventing all the sh!t come bursting out like what the IS are?

So yea, for me I will say I support democracy for certain places like HK where the public cries for it, but not for places like Syria, Iraq, and not the overarching world, and not for China until China as a whole has matured/modernized to a self-sufficient level they deemed self-ready for. My line of reasoning is the same as Blitzio's: democracy should only occur in places where they feel ready or suitable. And the world is certainly too diverse for one government for "all under the heaven"(just an expression).

And I won't really consider it hypocritical because my preference for democracy is not blanketed across, and rather conditional deemed on circumstances.

 

[Blitzo]

@ geographer

This is actually one of the biggest weaknesses of an autocracy. How do autocrats lose power? Through military coup d'tats, revolutions, assassinations, or invasions. Those methods are violent and cause great instability. Democracies provide a regular, peaceful way to remove unpopular leaders. If an autocrat knows he/she will be in big trouble (as in they could be killed) should they lose power, then they will do anything to hold power. It's an unhappy spiral: the autocrat creates enemies by their exercise of total power, this makes the autocrat feel threatened and want to stay in office longer, which creates more enemies, making the autocrat more afraid of losing power, etc.

Providing a peaceful, regular way to change leaders encourages would-be rebels to participate in the democratic process and encourages would-be dictators or coup leaders to stand down in the knowledge that they will have another chance in the future. The all-or-nothing mindset of an authoritarian government leads people to use extreme measures.

I agree with this completely, and I've said that the good thing about a democracy is that they allow incompetent governments to leave without national collapse and violence.

However I've also listed the various other advantages and disadvantages for a more democratic versus autocratic political system.

Further, if an autocracy is even handed in its approach to political challengers from the population, and at least partially understands popular sentiment of the people and moves to address them in a way which delivers some results, then the risk of violent social unrest can be lessened. China's process where generations of leaders only stay in power for a limited amount of time also helps this somewhat even if the political party in question doesn't change.

The challenge for people's perceptions of autocracies in general, is that most tend to use the suppress-the-population method of retaining their power far more than using the addressing-population's-needs method which actually provides them a mandate to rule. If it comes a point where China tends significantly more to the former than the latter, then they will lose their mandate to rule in the population's eyes, as well as the overseas chinese population.

----

Ultimately, I just want to repeat my initial statement: democracy for all, no matter the cost, disregarding each nation's level of development and recent history, is just asking for trouble. In some nations a more democratic system may provide the most benefits and least harm, in other nations a more autocratic system may provide more benefits. Countries cannot be shoehorned into an all fit all political system, optimally they should be decided on a case by case basis.

 

[airsuperiority]

@ geographer



I agree with this completely, and I've said that the good thing about a democracy is that they allow incompetent governments to leave without national collapse and violence.

However I've also listed the various other advantages and disadvantages for a more democratic versus autocratic political system.

Further, if an autocracy is even handed in its approach to political challengers from the population, and at least partially understands popular sentiment of the people and moves to address them in a way which delivers some results, then the risk of violent social unrest can be lessened. China's process where generations of leaders only stay in power for a limited amount of time also helps this somewhat even if the political party in question doesn't change.

The challenge for people's perceptions of autocracies in general, is that most tend to use the suppress-the-population method of retaining their power far more than using the addressing-population's-needs method which actually provides them a mandate to rule. If it comes a point where China tends significantly more to the former than the latter, then they will lose their mandate to rule in the population's eyes, as well as the overseas chinese population.

----

Ultimately, I just want to repeat my initial statement: democracy for all, no matter the cost, disregarding each nation's level of development and recent history, is just asking for trouble. In some nations a more democratic system may provide the most benefits and least harm, in other nations a more autocratic system may provide more benefits. Countries cannot be shoehorned into an all fit all political system, optimally they should be decided on a case by case basis.

Especially the last part. Very well-said. Totally agree.

 

[Blitzo]

:OOOOO

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's Rise Isn't A Threat To The U.S., Former President Jimmy Carter Says
Comment Now
Follow Comments

China’s rising success in the world isn’t a threat to the United States, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said in a speech in Shanghai to mark the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries this year.

“I don’t think there is any doubt in the future that China will be No.1 economically, and of course China will be just as strong militarily as you choose to be,” Carter said. “That is not a threat to the United States.”

The former president approvingly recalled a remark by Chinese President Xi Jinping, “The Pacific Ocean is big enough for both of us.”

Carter’s views contrast with critics that say China’s growing military assertiveness is at odds with U.S. interests and that mercantilistic policies have worsened America’s already serious — though largely self-inflicted – long term economic problems.

It was under Carter’s leadership that Washington switched diplomatic relations to Beijing from long-time ally Taiwan in 1979. China’s Nationalist government lost a civil war to the Communist Party on the mainland in 1949 and moved its capital to Taipei.

Communist leader Mao Zedong set up the People’s Republic of China on the mainland that year and went on to lead the country through the nationalization of private property and tumultuous “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution” campaigns. Mao’s death in 1976 – the year Carter was elected president – helped to pave the way for a reset in U.S.-China ties and led the former Georgia peanut farmer to embrace Chinese reformer Deng Xiaoping in a relationship that has since stunningly altered global wealth and power.

For its part, Taiwan, over which Beijing claims sovereignty, is today a well-off democracy that considers itself to be a politically separate part of a divided China but also has close economic ties to the mainland.

China’s economic reforms, launched shortly after the U.S.-China rapprochement, have helped both China and the global economy, Carter said, noting the benefits of China’s involvement in Africa.
Deng Xiaoping and Jimmy Carter during Sino-Ame...

Deng Xiaoping and Jimmy Carter. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“We will always have differences,” Carter said of the U.S. and China, arising from unlike forms of government, varying history, geography, and other factors. However, he expressed optimism that a search for common ground and an emphasis on mutual respect would create a foundation for progress between the two.

“Peaceful competition between my country and yours is a good thing,” Carter said. He lauded the large number of students from each side studying in the other’s country.

Carter noted that “it s not just China that is becoming stronger and stronger in the world but also other countries,” such as India, Russia, South Africa and Brazil. “The United States of America is going to have to accommodate this in a peaceful way,” he said.

Carter didn’t specifically address contentious business and economic issues, such as the huge, chronic U.S. trade imbalance with China, or recent Xi government anti-monopoly probes that many foreign companies see as unfairly aimed at international businesses. Carter expressed support for a crackdown on corruption being led by China’s president, and called for more cooperation between the U.S. and China on environmental issues.

Carter’s address, “Reflections on Sino-American Relations 35 Years After Normalization,” was part of the Barnett-Oksenberg lecture series on Sino-U.S. relations. It was sponsored by the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the Shanghai Association of American Studies.

The speech attracted almost 500 people, the largest number since the series was started nine years ago. Carter’s wife Rosalynn also appeared at the Shanghai event.

–Follow me on Twitter TWTR -2.67% @rflannerychina

 

[15 year old]

^ Jimmy Carter is truly one of a kind. If all leaders were a little bit like him, the world would certainly be a beneficiary to all in terms of geopolitics. We would not see such reprehensible events that kills innocent lives each day.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Hmmm but I have concerns with this line of argument. Just because you like democracy doesn't mean technically you also have to support democracy for everything, or to endorse an unified world government, right?

Like for example, lessons in Libya, Iraq, Syria showed that it's better to leave those places alone and let their gatekeeper do the job than to remove them and unplug that cork that's preventing all the sh!t come bursting out like what the IS are?

So yea, for me I will say I support democracy for certain places like HK where the public cries for it, but not for places like Syria, Iraq, and not the overarching world, and not for China until China as a whole has matured/modernized to a self-sufficient level they deemed self-ready for. My line of reasoning is the same as Blitzio's: democracy should only occur in places where they feel ready or suitable. And the world is certainly too diverse for one government for "all under the heaven"(just an expression).

And I won't really consider it hypocritical because my preference for democracy is not blanketed across, and rather conditional deemed on circumstances.

Where did I say if you support democracy...? I said if you preach it you have to live by it? Do you see the difference? If you demand others live by democracy but you don't have to, that's called a hypocrite. By your logic you probably think I don't believe in democracy since I dare to ask questions and challenge. That's my democratic and human right. Ever hear of the road to Hell is paved with good intentions? It means the people that go to Hell the most hide their selfishness behind what's good maybe even believing it themselves. And why is that? Because those that hide their self-serving motivations behind what's good are the most despicable people.

I know some people don't understand what I'm talking about. It's because of a misguided meaning of what they believe. It reminds me of when I was in college I knew some people who labeled themselves as Young Republicans. Were they actually a part of that organization? I don't know. I would hang around them sometimes and hear their views. They believed the Republican Party should be the only one in power and they should control everything. You know what's that called? Communism. That's what I see when people hold out democracy so cheaply they don't even know the meaning of the word. They just think it gives them authority to stifle other opinions and prohibits anyone from questioning or challenging them. All because they think they're the good guys. That's the only difference from the average dictator around the world. It's easy to believe in democracy for yourself. Hitler probably believed in democratic rights for people who thought just like him too. Should he get kudos for that?

 

[airsuperiority]

Where did I say if you support democracy...? I said if you preach it you have to live by it? Do you see the difference? If you demand others live by democracy but you don't have to, that's called a hypocrite. By your logic you probably think I don't believe in democracy since I dare to ask questions and challenge. That's my democratic and human right. Ever hear of the road to Hell is paved with good intentions? It means the people that go to Hell the most hide their selfishness behind what's good maybe even believing it themselves. And why is that? Because those that hide their self-serving motivations behind what's good are the most despicable people.

I know some people don't understand what I'm talking about. It's because of a misguided meaning of what they believe. It reminds me of when I was in college I knew some people who labeled themselves as Young Republicans. Were they actually a part of that organization? I don't know. I would hang around them sometimes and hear their views. They believed the Republican Party should be the only one in power and they should control everything. You know what's that called? Communism. That's what I see when people hold out democracy so cheaply they don't even know the meaning of the word. They just think it gives them authority to stifle other opinions and prohibits anyone from questioning or challenging them. It's easy to believe in democracy for yourself. Hitler probably believed in democratic rights for people who thought just like him too.

Ahh Ok the clarification helps. Thanks.

And yea I do kinda agree, that if you're gonna preach something, it's best that you help create it..unless you have good reasons.

And I also agree that ideas that are strong, sound, or valid deserves to be freely challenged and tested by worthy, well-constructed criticisms. However, if the points offered in the criticism against the primary argument are moot and can not hold up to any proper arguments, validity, or evaluation, then it's pretty much an opinion at best. It will be redundant and useless to serve as criticism because there are barely any logic usable to extract from to counter the primary's main arguments.

 

[Equation]

1. OC is losing its appeal from pockets of majority for its more combative tactics and disruptive natures of businesses. That's about it. The anti-OC rally literally said "anti-OC, anti-violent methods for HK's direct election". None of this have anything to do with how popular Beijing is. It's also failed logic to say OC is unpopular, therefore Beijing is popular. Both are totally 2 different things.

2. My words ain't golden, but I can tell you for certain my opinions came from countless revisions based on what I've seen, the sources I've looked into, direct experiences before my eyes, witnessing, talking to numerous people around me, further reads, etc. So no I don't base my words on my pure thoughts and nothing to back it up. For you, you are entitled to your own opinion. However if you're gonna start arguing about it, then you are expected to know what you're talking about, otherwise it's pointless. This whole time is about you not knowing what you're talking about.

3. No one is saying for it to be its own city-state. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

4. I never proposed for separatism. Are you hallucinating? And what am I assuming?

1. OC's method became unpopular because the people no longer believes in their ulterior motives or the leadership within OC. People don't suddenly stop supporting a political group all sudden because of method used, which you claim, therefore I doubt it. They stop because they no longer have confidence in them.

2. No you think I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do and who are you say I don't? The people you encounter and talked doesn't equates to 100% of the over all people of Hong Kong. I suggests you read some more sources outside your own view points to make better comparison.

3.

No one is saying for it to be its own city-state. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

But awhile ago you just compare HK to be almost like Singapore and NOW you are back tracking on that claim? Weren't you earlier bragged about it and list all of the "unique"ness of Hong Kong? I smell hypocrisy and lying in you.

4. IF NOT, than why are you getting all worked up and angry about in the first place? It hasn't hindered your right to vote on 2017 does it? NO it doesn't.