Do they? Is that why they don't take the trouble to be members of political parties? They are happy to accept the policies voted for by the politicians they abhor?
Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Equation
Lieutenant General
There is a big difference between self determination of an individual and a national government one. The national government decision is provide the basic needs for everyone. Those so called "happiest people in the world" don't even measure up to China's size and population therefore less responsibility and burden for their small resources to go around. Therefore it's a poo measurement of how well one system in compares to another. There's no other government in the world that can ever match the CPC uprooting hundreds of millions of its own population out of poverty, even a democracy one.
Democracy is four wolves and a sheep sitting at a table "self determining" what's for dinner.
Engineer
Major
It is funny how democracy advocates fit themselves nicely into a stereotype. Whenever criticism is encountered to their preaching of democracy, they want those voices of criticism to be silenced.
The notion that democracy being inevitable and some sort of pinnacle of social evolution is not a notion based on factual evidence. In many cases, issues that are associated with non-democracy can be found in democracies and vice-versa: corruptions, poverty, social inequalities, etc. The notion is merely a belief based on faith, one that others being told to accept it at face value, making democracy no different than a religion.
I think you would also recognize that the political system of democracy isn't the thing which is a determinant of happiness but rather the successes, fruits, and environment that can be delivered by it.
In that sense, I think conflating democracy with happiness is like conflating democracy with having a successful GDP -- i.e.: it's misconstrued at best and patently false at worst.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to do a t test of two countries that are identical in every regard apart from their political system. No such situation exists.
I do agree that there are certain aspects of democracy which can be incorporated into an autocratic system, but I do not think we can simply say that formal multiparty democracy is the simple cause for why the countries listed are the most happy.
It's like saying they're also the most happy because they are predominantly white, which is obviously untrue given there are many countries with caucasian populations which aren't particularly happy. Funnily enough, there are also many countries which are multiparty democracies which are also not that happy.
I'd say the ends to a happy population, are: potential for upwards mobility, demographics, safe/livable environment, work/life balance, social equality, infrastructure, among others.
I think I would be skeptical to say that democracy is the only means of providing that. For some countries democracy might be the best way of providing those ends, but for others it may not.
solarz
Brigadier
In a study that failed to include the two most populous nations in the world. How is this supposed to be relevant to China?
I could also just as easily conclude that they're all wealthy social welfare states. That would be closer to the truth than your assertion.
Doombreed
Junior Member
It is funny how democracy advocates fit themselves nicely into a stereotype. Whenever criticism is encountered to their preaching of democracy, they want those voices of criticism to be silenced.
I'm just pointing out that calling democracy a religion is intellectually dishonest.
Chinese exceptionalism then? Somehow the Chinese have needs and desires that are different to other people in the world. Somehow when Chinese live and work like any other people in the world, they don't want democracy.
No one is saying give China multi party politics right now. The need for self determination is a universal value. Every people would want it when living in similar situations.
And to bring it back onto topic. This is what the Hong Kong people wants now! They are no different to the Chinese on the mainland. But their social developelemt has achieved a level that is similar to people in New Zealand, or the Nordics, or Europe. That's why they seek self determination.
Who are you to say that they're wrong? Or that they don't deserve it? Or that they can't handle it?
shen
Senior Member
ideally I think most people want to be a bird that lives in a cage but can also get out when he wants. when the sun shinning and the belly is full, the bird want to fly out of the cage, soar in the sky, find a nice female bird to crack some nuts together under a tree. but when a thunderstorm is approaching or an eagle is in the neighborhood, our bird want to fly back to his cage, where he knows there will be food and water, and shut the door to keep out the danger.
notice in the above analogy none of the freedom is political in nature. economic freedom, freedom to travel, freedom to wear what cloth they want or what music they can listen to, those are the type of freedom that matters to most people. for most people in the world, political freedom is fairly low on the list of freedom that matters. unless it is portrayed (arguably falsely) as in HK as an us-vs-them cultural struggle.
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
Kwaigon, building a strong economy is not at all like an owner feeding his bird. It would be more like creating a bountiful nature reserve where the bird can thrive.
Doombreed
Junior Member
Why can't the bird fly back to a nest? A cage implies that a door need to be opened by a master being. At his discretion. I would much prefer to fly back to a nestle and leave at MY discretion. Sure the nestle would be a lot more hard work than living in a gilded cage. But I prefer it. Who are you to decide that I should live in the cage?
The Singaporeans has decided that they prefer gilded cages. That is their preogative. The Hong Kongers has decided that they would want to try out living in nests. If they eventually decided that living in the big wide world is too much hard work and would like to live in cages again. Then that is their preogative too. But you shouldn't deny them the chance to live in nests because somehow you with your superior intellect has decided that they eventually would chose the cage agin.
shen
Senior Member
because when an eagle is coming after you, a nest doesn't offer protection like a cage. a cage also implies a dependable supply of food which is not found in the wild. absolute free live in the wild may sound romantic, but the reality is as Hobbes put it, mean, brutish, and short.
a real world example, after 9/11 attack, most Americans agreed they should give up part of their freedom in order to gain more security. thus you have the Patriot Acts.
- Status