Democracy vs Authoritarianism

If democracy is so wonderful why didn't Great Britian give it to Hong Kong? Really Hong Kong isn't Somalia. It probably had the best conditions for deomcracy yet the British never considered it. Even the US at a point tried to push the British into establishing democracy there. When you want absolute control, you don't give people you want power over a voice. When the handover was coming around I was watching a US national TV network who did a story interviewing a Hong Kong man who back in 1960s when he was a teenager along with his younger brother protested what was being taught in school by the British which were lies about the history of Hong Kong and how the British acquired it. The British threw a couple of children in prison for two years. I don't call that a belief in democratic freedoms and human rights.

The distraction is they promote what they do for themselves and for people who are just like them as an example. I'm sure the KKK can show how civilized they are by how they treat their own members. Just ignore everything else. The Olympics brought up a debate about which countries had heart and passion for the sport and which did not. Token examples of freedoms especially in light of a colonial history where no one else got any shows there's no heart and passion for said beliefs. Is there heart and passion when it is expected that everyone judge them by their words and not by their actions?

AssassinsMace said:

If democracy is so wonderful why didn't Great Britian give it to Hong Kong? Really Hong Kong isn't Somalia. It probably had the best conditions for deomcracy yet the British never considered it. Even the US at a point tried to push the British into establishing democracy there. When you want absolute control, you don't give people you want power over a voice. When the handover was coming around I was watching a US national TV network who did a story interviewing a Hong Kong man who back in 1960s when he was a teenager along with his younger brother protested what was being taught in school by the British which were lies about the history of Hong Kong and how the British acquired it. The British threw a couple of children in prison for two years. I don't call that a belief in democratic freedoms and human rights.

The distraction is they promote what they do for themselves and for people who are just like them as an example. I'm sure the KKK can show how civilized they are by how they treat their own members. Just ignore everything else. The Olympics brought up a debate about which countries had heart and passion for the sport and which did not. Token examples of freedoms especially in light of a colonial history where no one else got any shows there's no heart and passion for said beliefs. Is there heart and passion when it is expected that everyone judge them by their words and not by their actions?

Click to expand...

Never change a running system.
HK was a naval trade outposts with many voluntary settlers. From a UK perspective you could argue that they neither install democracy on each oil rigg.
Another factor will have been fears of mainland Chinese subversion and infiltration of any political body that claims to represent the locals. Hong Kong was in no defensible and legally secure position such as Singapore.
Thoroughly democraticizing HK also would have been countering a reunification with mainland China, requiring to give HK to Taiwan. For Taiwan this would have been a most important gift, but I reckon HK as a payment for the Chinese realignment with the other Cold War camp was more important.

And you missed the point of democracy being a specific expression of successful business organisation. Was HK business not going well? You guys just get too focused on too empty words tossed around "democracy" & "authoritarianism". What is the concept behind? You can democratically elect Sith-Lord Palpatine as emperor and Darth Vader as his chief executive. Are they anti-authoritarian in any possible way?

Kurt said:

Never change a running system.
HK was a naval trade outposts with many voluntary settlers. From a UK perspective you could argue that they neither install democracy on each oil rigg.
Another factor will have been fears of mainland Chinese subversion and infiltration of any political body that claims to represent the locals. Hong Kong was in no defensible and legally secure position such as Singapore.
Thoroughly democraticizing HK also would have been countering a reunification with mainland China, requiring to give HK to Taiwan. For Taiwan this would have been a most important gift, but I reckon HK as a payment for the Chinese realignment with the other Cold War camp was more important.

And you missed the point of democracy being a specific expression of successful business organisation. Was HK business not going well? You guys just get too focused on too empty words tossed around "democracy" & "authoritarianism". What is the concept behind? You can democratically elect Sith-Lord Palpatine as emperor and Darth Vader as his chief executive. Are they anti-authoritarian in any possible way?

Click to expand...

I don't know if anyone tell you this... but you make some of the weird post around here.

Kurt said:

Never change a running system.
HK was a naval trade outposts with many voluntary settlers. From a UK perspective you could argue that they neither install democracy on each oil rigg.
Another factor will have been fears of mainland Chinese subversion and infiltration of any political body that claims to represent the locals. Hong Kong was in no defensible and legally secure position such as Singapore.
Thoroughly democraticizing HK also would have been countering a reunification with mainland China, requiring to give HK to Taiwan. For Taiwan this would have been a most important gift, but I reckon HK as a payment for the Chinese realignment with the other Cold War camp was more important.

And you missed the point of democracy being a specific expression of successful business organisation. Was HK business not going well? You guys just get too focused on too empty words tossed around "democracy" & "authoritarianism". What is the concept behind? You can democratically elect Sith-Lord Palpatine as emperor and Darth Vader as his chief executive. Are they anti-authoritarian in any possible way?

Click to expand...

Well just like in this thread people can talk but exercising it with action is all that matters. When you have someone using democracy and freedom as their excuse for whatever they do, they're more a criminal than any communist when they deny those things. Like I said, Hong Kong wasn't a chaotic country. If anything a perfect place to bring democracy. But the British didn't. Afraid of Mainland influence? Isn't that a democratic choice if that were the case? All that says is the British think they have the right to brainwash someone to serve their interests before they give democratic rights. It's not really true democracy if your overlords get to choose what choices you have and then call that democracy. Any of those excuses for why the British didn't give democracy to Hong Kong , the communists can say the same. The communists suppress democracy in order to prevent subversion. If we go by the rhetoric from the West criticizing China today, there's no excuse for denying democratic rights. If its universally recognized that the West are the only ones that are benevolent dictators and can deny democracy to those because it's to their own best interests, then why don't they just say that upfront instead of crying there's no excuse for denying democratic rights? People who contradict themselves do that because of self interests are at the heart of what motivates them. Why are hypocrites one of the lowest lifeforms? Because everyone hates a hypocrite. Even hypocrites hate hypocrites. Why? Because they know themselves at the heart of a hypocrite is serving themselves only.

That's what I'm talking about. It's all a lie. When push comes to shove the West will even deny democracy and rights if it favors their interests. What's the difference when the Chinese communists do that? They're just doing it to their own people. The West will keeps it for themselves but deny it for others. Hugo Chavez was elected in a democracy. The West doesn't accept it. The West supports Arab Spring revolutionaries in some countries but support the dictators against them in another. Look at Yemen. Throw Hong Kong and Singapore into context and that shows it's historical and not due to extraodinary circumstances.

Taiwan was in parallel an undemocratic police state along with communist China for most of its history. Democracy was only a recent event and only because it was a brilliant political maneuver that would force the West to give it contunual protection. You pretty much can't hide behind democracy and human rights if you're notoriously not practicing it yourselves. Hong Kong couldn't be handed over to Taiwan under the British own rule of law by the treaty they signed where they had to hand back to Mainland China not Taiwan who were already identifying themselves as not Chinese. There was story about a decade ago where people in the US sued Mainland China because of bonds sold in the US that they bought to help Chiang Kai Shek where they never got their money back plus interest. Well the logic that Hong Kong should've been handed over to Taiwan instead... should'nt all those people suing Mainland China for tens of billions of dollars sue Taiwan instead? Interesting how it always comes down to the geo-political self-serving interests of one party that get to decide over the rule of law. They don't mention that which means the rule of law which sounds better is just a lie to lure people. All a facade like I said.

People can tout how much they care about democracy and human rights all they want for themselves. When it comes to other people, that's the real litmus test on whether one believes in it or not.

Hong Kong's vibrancy came after the British knew they weren't getting an extension of their totalitarian no democracy rule. That tells even more that it all happened in the last six years. Meaning they suppressed Hong Kong's economic potential. Should the British be rewarded for something they supressed in the first place? Before that Hong Kong had no different of a reputation of low wage polluting factories making foreigners' products than right across the border on the mainland today.

solarz said:

If you're going to make up your own definitions of democracy and authoritarianism, then there's no point debating with you.

Click to expand...

No offence, but I don't recall anyone granting you the authority to define either term either.

Do you disagree that China is an authoritarian state?

Click to expand...

China is authoritarian, but not as much as say North Korea.

If you think that the CCP wants as much control as possible, then you have very little understanding of modern China.

Click to expand...

If you think the CCP is comfortable with its control of the country being eroded and there being challenges to its supremacy, I don't think you understanding modern China either.

"Top lawyers can only get you off if there's some possibility that you're innocent"? The only way you can believe in that is if you define "innocent" as "not convicted". A circular argument.

Click to expand...

As I said, if the facts are stacked against you being rich doesn't automatically get you treated better. And no, innocence is not the same as an acquittal.

I guess you go against the express wishes of your boss all the time in your line of work?

Click to expand...

Why would I defy my boss 100% of the time - do you honestly think many bosses are wrong about everything all the time? Strangely enough, sometimes my boss is right. When I'm not sure my boss is right, I challenge their opinion.

Then again, by your definition, no nation other than a stable, industrialized, first-world nation would count as a democracy.

Click to expand...

Depends. Give me an exclusive list of industrialised, first-world nations (it's rather difficult to have elections, let alone democracy, if you don't have stability).

jackliu said:

So, by your definition, only the successful white European nations are democracy right?

Click to expand...

Why the hell would I restrict democracies to Caucasian majority nations? I would include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Chile and Turkey in a list of democracies - and this is far from an exhaustive list.

AssassinsMace said:

If democracy is so wonderful why didn't Great Britian give it to Hong Kong?

Click to expand...

Britain gave Hong Kong an independent judiciary, free media, strong property laws, personal freedoms and other things that are very much part of democracy. It also gave the territory multi-party elections. What it did not do was allow Hong Kong citizens appoint the territory's leader because it was a colony on the other side of the world, and for it to be a colony required there to be some sort of political accountability to the British government. If the governor had been directly elected by the population, Hong Kong would have stopped being a colony.

However, there are very few colonies left in the world now, so I doubt this is entirely relevant as to whether democracies or autocracies are better.

Mr T said:

Britain gave Hong Kong an independent judiciary, free media, strong property laws, personal freedoms and other things that are very much part of democracy. It also gave the territory multi-party elections. What it did not do was allow Hong Kong citizens appoint the territory's leader because it was a colony on the other side of the world, and for it to be a colony required there to be some sort of political accountability to the British government. If the governor had been directly elected by the population, Hong Kong would have stopped being a colony.

However, there are very few colonies left in the world now, so I doubt this is entirely relevant as to whether democracies or autocracies are better.

Click to expand...

But the most important democractic right to elect their own leader was denied.

And Bruce Lee's infamous scene in his movie where he destroys a sign at a park saying "No Chinese or dogs allowed" posted by the Japanese was really historically put up by the British. But the filmmakers didn't want to get thrown into prison by telling the truth.

Hong Kong handover was just a little over a decade ago and the people of Hong Kong could never elect their own leader. How long have the British been hiding behind democracy? Long before and while denying it from Hong Kong. All those people the West accuses Mao of killing were part of the past too. So forget about it. Those supposed rights were given in the last six years after the British knew they were going to lose Hong Kong. Before that the British imprison children for wanting the truth be taught in school. Let's do that for China and only concetrate on the good stuff and tokenism while ignoring all the human rights violations.

Mr T said:

No offence, but I don't recall anyone granting you the authority to define either term either.

China is authoritarian, but not as much as say North Korea.

If you think the CCP is comfortable with its control of the country being eroded and there being challenges to its supremacy, I don't think you understanding modern China either.

As I said, if the facts are stacked against you being rich doesn't automatically get you treated better. And no, innocence is not the same as an acquittal.

Why would I defy my boss 100% of the time - do you honestly think many bosses are wrong about everything all the time? Strangely enough, sometimes my boss is right. When I'm not sure my boss is right, I challenge their opinion.

Depends. Give me an exclusive list of industrialised, first-world nations (it's rather difficult to have elections, let alone democracy, if you don't have stability).

Why the hell would I restrict democracies to Caucasian majority nations? I would include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Chile and Turkey in a list of democracies - and this is far from an exhaustive list.

Britain gave Hong Kong an independent judiciary, free media, strong property laws, personal freedoms and other things that are very much part of democracy. It also gave the territory multi-party elections. What it did not do was allow Hong Kong citizens appoint the territory's leader because it was a colony on the other side of the world, and for it to be a colony required there to be some sort of political accountability to the British government. If the governor had been directly elected by the population, Hong Kong would have stopped being a colony.

However, there are very few colonies left in the world now, so I doubt this is entirely relevant as to whether democracies or autocracies are better.

Click to expand...

First of all, please stop splitting up posts. It's really annoying to read. I'm sure most of us have enough attention span to understand the context you are responding to.

Second, it's obvious that you don't understand China. You claim that the CCP is unhappy with its "control of the country being eroded". Considering the fact that the current state of China was achieved single-handedly by the CCP, your claim is simply preposterous.

Finally, you seem to be saying that a nation must first have stability in order to become a "democracy". What then, is the purpose of democracy?

Mr T said:

Why the hell would I restrict democracies to Caucasian majority nations? I would include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Chile and Turkey in a list of democracies - and this is far from an exhaustive list.

Click to expand...

I'm so not surprised, you picked up on 1st part of what I said which is focused on race, while complete ignored the 2nd part, which is actually my main point. So again, copy and paste here

"So can you explain to me what government system does India, Philippine, Indonesia, Haiti, Mexico, Iraq and Afghanistan have?

I mean they have elections, but by your definition, they lack everything else. And they all have one thing in common, very screw up society. So please explain with your wisdom what is the official government type those nations have?"

Please, explain to us with your infinite wisdom what type of government do you classify them as?

jackliu said:

I'm so not surprised, you picked up on 1st part of what I said which is focused on race, while complete ignored the 2nd part, which is actually my main point. So again, copy and paste here

"So can you explain to me what government system does India, Philippine, Indonesia, Haiti, Mexico, Iraq and Afghanistan have?

I mean they have elections, but by your definition, they lack everything else. And they all have one thing in common, very screw up society. So please explain with your wisdom what is the official government type those nations have?"

Please, explain to us with your infinite wisdom what type of government do you classify them as?

Click to expand...

A quick nitpick, the Mexican Constitution has a system of separations of power and it also guarantees press freedoms.

IronsightSniper said:

A quick nitpick, the Mexican Constitution has a system of separations of power and it also guarantees press freedoms.

Click to expand...

Awesome, and how is that system of separation of power and press freedom working out for them? Is it a land of peace and freedom?