China is watching Western democracy eat itself

[beijingwalker]

China is watching Western democracy eat itself
By Nic Robertson
Updated 9:10 PM ET, Sat April 27, 2019

(CNN)Over the next few months, the world's current and previous superpowers are set to undergo enormous self-harm.

The biggest victim could be democracy itself, and the biggest losers the approximately 4 billion people who live in its imperfect embrace.
As London and Washington convulse, China belches along, gobbling up cultures in a way that should alarm us all.
This week, China's future global dominance was on full display as foreign leaders headed to Beijing in the hope of securing lucrative projects as part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.


It is the flagship policy of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and it seeks to bring the world into China's economic embrace by building infrastructure on a mass scale, ultimately improving transport, ties with and reliance on China across the world.

The promise of increased trade with what will soon be the world's largest economy -- not to mention the immediate prospect of the aforementioned contracts -- are too tempting to ignore.

Xi is doing what all aspiring empires do, threading the world in a web of dependency, slowly creating dominion in other powers' backyards.

His ambitious show in Beijing seems perfectly timed to exploit the self-inflicted political crises the United States and the UK are imposing on themselves.

In the United States, a presidential election campaign pitching President Donald Trump against a crowd of Democratic foes will be firing up in the coming weeks, particularly now that heavyweight contender Joe Biden has officially thrown his hat in the ring.

Meanwhile, the UK will continue a very public evisceration of centuries of democratic process and precedent by executing an excruciatingly painful exit from the European Union. Amusingly, the next deadline falls on Halloween.

These two nations may yet reverse their direction and show that the current political spasms are nothing more than a spike in democracy's growing pains.

But blind faith in the democratic system we've grown up with blinkers us to the realities of how China, the world's superpower-in-waiting, gets stronger through democracy's misadventures.

Lesson here: Your overlords in the new world order won't give a fig for your democratic values or your grandchildren's rights and desires.

China is creating a society without public debate in which unelected officials use artificial intelligence to control everything from promotion at work, to travel, to housing, to welfare.
It holds its population in a grip that no one living in a democracy could ever countenance. Yet our mostly tolerant society, built upon trust in our leaders, seems focused on petty personal attacks that risk throwing out that most valuable commodity in any democracy: trust.

A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth puts its shoes on, so the adage goes. A Trump personal put-down has double the speed and power, often knocking out opponents before they're even ready for a fight. "Crooked Hillary," "Little Marco" -- these are just two of the stinging epithets that have instantly ensnared an opponent.

Who but Trump could really own the argument that Sen. John McCain was not a war hero?
China's Xi and his autocratic Russian ally, Vladimir Putin, must be lapping up this election cycle as Trump lathers faux sympathy on Biden, labeling him "Poor" Joe Biden over allegations of inappropriate conduct with women.

Trump's opening catch-all salvo in this election cycle is to label Democrats "socialists," hoping Republicans can unhinge themselves from democracy's roots and act on his slur.
The President has defined his opponents before one has arisen from the gathering mass of Democratic challengers.

The next year will be ugly for many at the center of the coming political storms. But its effect on democracy's global reach could be far more damaging.

The electorates in the UK and the United States will emerge bitter, divided and likely thoroughly underwhelmed at what has become of social and political discourse in their countries, while leaders and electorates in emerging and wannabe democracies will be questioning their own judgment.

In the UK, Brexit is already shifting voters to the extremes.

Debate is shrill, opinions entrenched, democracy weakened. Some believe politicians have failed to deliver on the will of the people; others are flabbergasted that three years since the referendum, no one represents their values and views.

Brexit is turning the Conservative Party toward the right. Hard-line Brexiters are winning the internal party argument, even if they are failing to win the argument with the public at large. Meanwhile, the opposition Labour Party drifts closer to a softer Brexit, and possibly a second referendum.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has placed jobs at the center of his Brexit message. It could turn out to be a canny move, especially among older Labour voters in poorer parts of the country who voted to leave the EU in 2016.

So Corbyn turns left while the Conservatives turn right.

The result? The UK's politics are being pulled to extreme poles, leaving a vast middle ground where people such as former Prime Ministers Tony Blair (Labour) and John Major (Conservative) once stood.

The erosion of the middle ground and the crash in trust that it engenders is not new. But this year it could be edging toward a tipping point.

It's not just in the United States and the UK. In France, "yellow vest" protesters are testing President Emmanuel Macron's political abilities.

Italy, like many other European nations, is riven by rising nationalism. Only recently, Finland, a historic fault line between democracy and autocracy, narrowly voted in a liberal party that edged out nationalists.

All the same, it will struggle to form a coalition with the other right-wing party.
Europe is not having an easy time. Newer members of the EU, like increasingly autocratic Hungary, challenge the bloc's better social instincts. They seem to be looking for a different version of democracy, one that in reality can quickly become no democracy at all.

The EU always defied a single idea and managed to muddle through with a string of fudges. Indeed, fudges and compromise are what define democracy -- the trust in the other to find a mutually agreeable way forward.

But in the event those time-sweetened bonds ooze away, what will be left is an unpalatable aftertaste of division and weakness, precisely what the world's superpower-in-waiting wants.
It is worth considering that as we embark on democracy's greatest challenge to date, demonstrating this is not some transient experiment but a cherished, albeit imperfect, life choice for more than half the planet.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/27/opin...king-room-for-china-robertson-intl/index.html

 

[AViet]

CNN and Western media in general, continue to make errors intentionally. All Chinese or Vietnamese top leaders are elected, but within a limited circle of the Party, therefore, a limited democratic process.

I believe it is naïve for a company of 100,000 staff to give the equal voting right to every employee to select its President and Chairman, Similarly, a country should never give equal voting right to every citizen. The voice of the people should be heard, but the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid. That's why western style democracy can only work well in a very limited group of highly homogeneous, well-educated countries like Japan.

 

[gambit]

I believe it is naïve for a company of 100,000 staff to give the equal voting right to every employee to select its President and Chairman, Similarly, a country should never give equal voting right to every citizen.

Every analogy has a breaking point, meaning where components of the analogy and their relationships to each other no longer applies to the main object where the analogy is used to explain complex issues.

The difference between a company and a functional democracy is that the company is essentially a dictatorship. I created my company, therefore, I have absolute authority over my company. If a company allows voting rights to every employees, then it is no longer a dictatorship. In other words, the INITIAL operating conditions of the main object and the analogy determines how useful are they to each other.

In your argument -- NOT.

The Western model of what is a 'functional democracy' MUST have an initial operating condition that all citizens -- not subjects -- as equal in terms of relationships to the government.

The difference between a 'citizen' and a 'subject' is politically vast and unfortunately, political education in the West usually fails to separate out the two ideas, but the core difference is that a 'citizen' have rights and freedoms that are independent of the government while a 'subject' have no initial rights and freedoms and must depend on the government to delineate rights and freedoms.

Authoritarian and dictatorship states have 'subjects' no matter how often the word 'citizens' is used. In reality, under authoritarian and dictatorship states, the words 'citizen' and 'citizenship' are used only to indicate who is responsible for a person. No more than that.

Your analogy fails from the beginning. If you want to advocate for an authoritarian state, be intellectually honest enough to say so, but do not beat around the bush, as Americans like to say, and use specious analogies and criticisms on the flaws of democracy.

...but the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.

Fine. Actually, that is a good criticism. But if there is a functional democracy, there must be a functional authoritarian/dictatorship, correct? A country must have standards, laws, and bureaucracies to execute ideas and maintain stability, not just in government but also in governance.

You said it is essentially stupid to see a university professor and a drug addict as equals. Equals in what perspectives? Socially? I will agree with you on that. I would rather admit to my house the prof over the addict. Culturally? Same. The prof is a greater contributor to the cultural life of the community better than the addict will ever be.

But politically speaking, how are you going to execute their relationships to the government based upon their statuses in life? How much -- in percentage or degree -- are you going to allocate to each person in terms of influence in government? How long are you going to maintain that difference? If the prof turns into an addict, and there are people who do make that kind of radical changes in their lives, how quickly can you respond to lowering the former professor in the ladder of political relationships to the government?

A university professor teaches and maybe do some research, but an inventor and aggressive businessman like Elon Musk or Thomas Edison are in a different class. Are you going to place a higher value on Musk, Edison, Gates, over all university professors? What bureaucracy is responsible for grading subjects base upon what criteria?

The Devil lives in the details and he enjoys confounding Man. Critics like you are heavy on whining about the flaws of democracy but vapor-like light on providing PRACTICAL solutions on how to run an authoritarian/dictatorship state. In the end, the details overwhelms you and you end up a 'sheeple', content on mindlessly following the whimsies of an elite class of autocrats. You as a subject are no more 'enlightened' than the citizens you criticize.

 

[Nan Yang]

Every analogy has a breaking point, meaning where components of the analogy and their relationships to each other no longer applies to the main object where the analogy is used to explain complex issues.

The difference between a company and a functional democracy is that the company is essentially a dictatorship. I created my company, therefore, I have absolute authority over my company. If a company allows voting rights to every employees, then it is no longer a dictatorship. In other words, the INITIAL operating conditions of the main object and the analogy determines how useful are they to each other.

In your argument -- NOT.

The Western model of what is a 'functional democracy' MUST have an initial operating condition that all citizens -- not subjects -- as equal in terms of relationships to the government.

The difference between a 'citizen' and a 'subject' is politically vast and unfortunately, political education in the West usually fails to separate out the two ideas, but the core difference is that a 'citizen' have rights and freedoms that are independent of the government while a 'subject' have no initial rights and freedoms and must depend on the government to delineate rights and freedoms.

Authoritarian and dictatorship states have 'subjects' no matter how often the word 'citizens' is used. In reality, under authoritarian and dictatorship states, the words 'citizen' and 'citizenship' are used only to indicate who is responsible for a person. No more than that.

Your analogy fails from the beginning. If you want to advocate for an authoritarian state, be intellectually honest enough to say so, but do not beat around the bush, as Americans like to say, and use specious analogies and criticisms on the flaws of democracy.


Fine. Actually, that is a good criticism. But if there is a functional democracy, there must be a functional authoritarian/dictatorship, correct? A country must have standards, laws, and bureaucracies to execute ideas and maintain stability, not just in government but also in governance.

You said it is essentially stupid to see a university professor and a drug addict as equals. Equals in what perspectives? Socially? I will agree with you on that. I would rather admit to my house the prof over the addict. Culturally? Same. The prof is a greater contributor to the cultural life of the community better than the addict will ever be.

But politically speaking, how are you going to execute their relationships to the government based upon their statuses in life? How much -- in percentage or degree -- are you going to allocate to each person in terms of influence in government? How long are you going to maintain that difference? If the prof turns into an addict, and there are people who do make that kind of radical changes in their lives, how quickly can you respond to lowering the former professor in the ladder of political relationships to the government?

A university professor teaches and maybe do some research, but an inventor and aggressive businessman like Elon Musk or Thomas Edison are in a different class. Are you going to place a higher value on Musk, Edison, Gates, over all university professors? What bureaucracy is responsible for grading subjects base upon what criteria?

The Devil lives in the details and he enjoys confounding Man. Critics like you are heavy on whining about the flaws of democracy but vapor-like light on providing PRACTICAL solutions on how to run an authoritarian/dictatorship state. In the end, the details overwhelms you and you end up a 'sheeple', content on mindlessly following the whimsies of an elite class of autocrats. You as a subject are no more 'enlightened' than the citizens you criticize.

Ultimately what matters are the results. Results speak for itself. A cat that catches the rat is a good cat. Doesn't matter if it's black or white.

 

[Fledgingwings]

Like the Joker once said "when the chips are down,these so called civilized people,they,ll eat each other"

 

[gambit]

Ultimately what matters are the results. Results speak for itself. A cat that catches the rat is a good cat. Doesn't matter if it's black or white.

It looks like my post went over your head.

The issue is: The university professor should politically weight more than the drug addict.

Believe it or not: I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. Not only politically, but socially and culturally as well.

But now the issue boils down to how are you going to grade people?

Income? A monk have next to no income, so are you going to lower him politically? An organized crime boss have plenty of income, so are you going to grade him higher? What about those of us in the middle?

Profession? In my opinion, a college student is nearly worthless while a young man of the same age who enlisted in the military politically weighs 10 times better. How many college students are going to agree to that measure?

Mr. Aviet does not know what he is criticizing about. Looks like neither do you.

 

[beijingwalker]

Simple fact, if every employee can have a say on where a company should go, this company will end up going nowhere.

 

[Army research]

China is watching Western democracy eat itself
By Nic Robertson
Updated 9:10 PM ET, Sat April 27, 2019

(CNN)Over the next few months, the world's current and previous superpowers are set to undergo enormous self-harm.

The biggest victim could be democracy itself, and the biggest losers the approximately 4 billion people who live in its imperfect embrace.
As London and Washington convulse, China belches along, gobbling up cultures in a way that should alarm us all.
This week, China's future global dominance was on full display as foreign leaders headed to Beijing in the hope of securing lucrative projects as part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.


It is the flagship policy of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and it seeks to bring the world into China's economic embrace by building infrastructure on a mass scale, ultimately improving transport, ties with and reliance on China across the world.

The promise of increased trade with what will soon be the world's largest economy -- not to mention the immediate prospect of the aforementioned contracts -- are too tempting to ignore.

Xi is doing what all aspiring empires do, threading the world in a web of dependency, slowly creating dominion in other powers' backyards.

His ambitious show in Beijing seems perfectly timed to exploit the self-inflicted political crises the United States and the UK are imposing on themselves.

In the United States, a presidential election campaign pitching President Donald Trump against a crowd of Democratic foes will be firing up in the coming weeks, particularly now that heavyweight contender Joe Biden has officially thrown his hat in the ring.

Meanwhile, the UK will continue a very public evisceration of centuries of democratic process and precedent by executing an excruciatingly painful exit from the European Union. Amusingly, the next deadline falls on Halloween.

These two nations may yet reverse their direction and show that the current political spasms are nothing more than a spike in democracy's growing pains.

But blind faith in the democratic system we've grown up with blinkers us to the realities of how China, the world's superpower-in-waiting, gets stronger through democracy's misadventures.

Lesson here: Your overlords in the new world order won't give a fig for your democratic values or your grandchildren's rights and desires.

China is creating a society without public debate in which unelected officials use artificial intelligence to control everything from promotion at work, to travel, to housing, to welfare.
It holds its population in a grip that no one living in a democracy could ever countenance. Yet our mostly tolerant society, built upon trust in our leaders, seems focused on petty personal attacks that risk throwing out that most valuable commodity in any democracy: trust.

A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth puts its shoes on, so the adage goes. A Trump personal put-down has double the speed and power, often knocking out opponents before they're even ready for a fight. "Crooked Hillary," "Little Marco" -- these are just two of the stinging epithets that have instantly ensnared an opponent.

Who but Trump could really own the argument that Sen. John McCain was not a war hero?
China's Xi and his autocratic Russian ally, Vladimir Putin, must be lapping up this election cycle as Trump lathers faux sympathy on Biden, labeling him "Poor" Joe Biden over allegations of inappropriate conduct with women.

Trump's opening catch-all salvo in this election cycle is to label Democrats "socialists," hoping Republicans can unhinge themselves from democracy's roots and act on his slur.
The President has defined his opponents before one has arisen from the gathering mass of Democratic challengers.

The next year will be ugly for many at the center of the coming political storms. But its effect on democracy's global reach could be far more damaging.

The electorates in the UK and the United States will emerge bitter, divided and likely thoroughly underwhelmed at what has become of social and political discourse in their countries, while leaders and electorates in emerging and wannabe democracies will be questioning their own judgment.

In the UK, Brexit is already shifting voters to the extremes.

Debate is shrill, opinions entrenched, democracy weakened. Some believe politicians have failed to deliver on the will of the people; others are flabbergasted that three years since the referendum, no one represents their values and views.

Brexit is turning the Conservative Party toward the right. Hard-line Brexiters are winning the internal party argument, even if they are failing to win the argument with the public at large. Meanwhile, the opposition Labour Party drifts closer to a softer Brexit, and possibly a second referendum.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has placed jobs at the center of his Brexit message. It could turn out to be a canny move, especially among older Labour voters in poorer parts of the country who voted to leave the EU in 2016.

So Corbyn turns left while the Conservatives turn right.

The result? The UK's politics are being pulled to extreme poles, leaving a vast middle ground where people such as former Prime Ministers Tony Blair (Labour) and John Major (Conservative) once stood.

The erosion of the middle ground and the crash in trust that it engenders is not new. But this year it could be edging toward a tipping point.

It's not just in the United States and the UK. In France, "yellow vest" protesters are testing President Emmanuel Macron's political abilities.

Italy, like many other European nations, is riven by rising nationalism. Only recently, Finland, a historic fault line between democracy and autocracy, narrowly voted in a liberal party that edged out nationalists.

All the same, it will struggle to form a coalition with the other right-wing party.
Europe is not having an easy time. Newer members of the EU, like increasingly autocratic Hungary, challenge the bloc's better social instincts. They seem to be looking for a different version of democracy, one that in reality can quickly become no democracy at all.

The EU always defied a single idea and managed to muddle through with a string of fudges. Indeed, fudges and compromise are what define democracy -- the trust in the other to find a mutually agreeable way forward.

But in the event those time-sweetened bonds ooze away, what will be left is an unpalatable aftertaste of division and weakness, precisely what the world's superpower-in-waiting wants.
It is worth considering that as we embark on democracy's greatest challenge to date, demonstrating this is not some transient experiment but a cherished, albeit imperfect, life choice for more than half the planet.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/27/opin...king-room-for-china-robertson-intl/index.html

Count times 1 army research in the list as well of watching western democracy eat itself slowly

 

[gambit]

Simple fact, if every employee can have a say on where a company should go, this company will end up going nowhere.

There is a serious flaw in your argument but am not surprised you do not see it.

At the end of the work day, your company have no power over you. On the other hand, if you want your China to have no power over you, you have to leave China. For most Chinese, the latter is not possible or even unthinkable. So that mean the flaw in your argument is magnitude greater than you may realized.

Let us review this criticism of Western style democracy again...

'...the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.'

The implication here is that people based upon some criteria have different political weight in the eyes of the goobermint. The criticism is openly condemning that Western style democracy views a positive (university professor) and a negative (drug user) as equals. It is stupid.

So let us take a look at this guy...

https://www.wnyc.org/story/professor-drug-use-addiction-students/

"It seems like it’s a horrible thing for someone like me, some smart ***, to make fun...of people who have heroin addictions," he admitted. "I’m not, trust me. As someone who uses heroin, I wouldn’t make fun of people who have a heroin addiction."

The professor is a ALSO a drug addict. He may not be a 'thug', but that is irrelevant. The criticism is that hallucinogenics do not contribute to the well being of a society, therefore, any user of such must be politically lower in weight.

But professor and doctorate Carl Hart is BOTH. So how are we to politically weigh him? Being a professor is a job. Being a drug addict is a behavior. You can hide your behavior, but usually not your job. A plumber can be a competent tradesman, a drug addict, a wife beater, an alcoholic, an adulterer, and a tax cheat.

Remember, your PLA generals and admirals enriched themselves on the backs of poor PLA soldiers and sailors. They are esteemed and crooks.

The fact that unless one leave the country, no one can separate himself from his country renders your analogy INVALID FROM THE BEGINNING.

In order for the goobermint to know who is a professor and who is a drug addict, there must be a database containing the identities of every person, what they do for a living, and what they do for fun.

That is what your China is doing -- starting with the 'social credit' program. Imagine a database of one BILLION Chinese subjects containing their names, what they do to make a living, how and where they travel, what they buy, where they live, and how many children they have. You cannot escape this database. Your China is succeeding where the Soviets failed -- control a population.

 

[beijingwalker]

There is a serious flaw in your argument but am not surprised you do not see it.

At the end of the work day, your company have no power over you. On the other hand, if you want your China to have no power over you, you have to leave China. For most Chinese, the latter is not possible or even unthinkable. So that mean the flaw in your argument is magnitude greater than you may realized.

Let us review this criticism of Western style democracy again...

'...the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.'

The implication here is that people based upon some criteria have different political weight in the eyes of the goobermint. The criticism is openly condemning that Western style democracy views a positive (university professor) and a negative (drug user) as equals. It is stupid.

So let us take a look at this guy...

https://www.wnyc.org/story/professor-drug-use-addiction-students/

The professor is a ALSO a drug addict. He may not be a 'thug', but that is irrelevant. The criticism is that hallucinogenics do not contribute to the well being of a society, therefore, any user of such must be politically lower in weight.

But professor and doctorate Carl Hart is BOTH. So how are we to politically weigh him? Being a professor is a job. Being a drug addict is a behavior. You can hide your behavior, but usually not your job. A plumber can be a competent tradesman, a drug addict, a wife beater, an alcoholic, an adulterer, and a tax cheat.

Remember, your PLA generals and admirals enriched themselves on the backs of poor PLA soldiers and sailors. They are esteemed and crooks.

The fact that unless one leave the country, no one can separate himself from his country renders your analogy INVALID FROM THE BEGINNING.

In order for the goobermint to know who is a professor and who is a drug addict, there must be a database containing the identities of every person, what they do for a living, and what they do for fun.

That is what your China is doing -- starting with the 'social credit' program. Imagine a database of one BILLION Chinese subjects containing their names, what they do to make a living, how and where they travel, what they buy, where they live, and how many children they have. You cannot escape this database. Your China is succeeding where the Soviets failed -- control a population.

170 million Chinese travel overseas every year, over half of your whole population, foreign survey show that traveling and studying in US only makes Chinese to appreciate China more, that's why China encourage more people to travel around the world,cause that's the best education to make Chinese love China more.

 

[gambit]

170 million Chinese travel overseas every year, over half of your whole population, foreign survey show that traveling and studying in US only makes Chinese to appreciate China more, that's why China encourage more people to travel around the world,cause that's the best education to make Chinese love China more.

You are avoiding the issue, which is expected and I understand. The difference between the Chinese and the American peoples are fundamental.

1. You see nothing wrong with believing you have no basic inalienable basic rights and freedoms which make you psychologically amenable to be subjugated by the government in the name of order and supposedly 'harmony'.

2. Americans believe that all human beings have inalienable rights and freedoms that no one can take away which make us psychologically rebellious and suspicious of the government.

Politically speaking, your government is smart. Your government realized that item 1 is true to the Chinese nature and is now taking steps to begin to categorize all Chinese subjects via that 'social credit' program.

Let us take what was said again by Mr. Aviet...

'...the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.'

In order to politically weigh the university professor and the drug addict, the government must know who is doing what and where AT ALL TIMES.

YOU, Mr. beijingwalker, whoever you are behind the forum handle, is not a Party member, that mean automatically you are already lower politically in the electronic eyes of the Chinese government. In fact, you are lower than the children of the lowest Party member. In this 'social credit' program, you better believe it that not one Party member and family will be in it.

And here you are -- defending your inferior status for the world to see.

 

[beijingwalker]

You are avoiding the issue, which is expected and I understand. The difference between the Chinese and the American peoples are fundamental.

1. You see nothing wrong with believing you have no basic inalienable basic rights and freedoms which make you psychologically amenable to be subjugated by the government in the name of order and supposedly 'harmony'.

2. Americans believe that all human beings have inalienable rights and freedoms that no one can take away which make us psychologically rebellious and suspicious of the government.

Politically speaking, your government is smart. Your government realized that item 1 is true to the Chinese nature and is now taking steps to begin to categorize all Chinese subjects via that 'social credit' program.

Let us take what was said again by Mr. Aviet...

'...the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.'

In order to politically weigh the university professor and the drug addict, the government must know who is doing what and where AT ALL TIMES.

YOU, Mr. beijingwalker, whoever you are behind the forum handle, is not a Party member, that mean automatically you are already lower politically in the electronic eyes of the Chinese government. In fact, you are lower than the children of the lowest Party member. In this 'social credit' program, you better believe it that not one Party member and family will be in it.

And here you are -- defending your inferior status for the world to see.

That's how people mind changed after spending time in US long enough. WSJ

 

[nang2]

most westerners don't know that liberty and democracy aren't compatible to each other.

 

[nang2]

Let us take what was said again by Mr. Aviet...

'...the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.'

In order to politically weigh the university professor and the drug addict, the government must know who is doing what and where AT ALL TIMES.

It is too often that people talk about "right" without defining what "right" is as if it is self-explanatory. No, it isn't. There are two fundamentally different concepts of "right": negative right and positive right. What Mr. Aviet said makes sense only in the concept of positive right while your practicality argument favors negative right, which is also argued and proven by Schopenhauer.

When American founding fathers created USA, they focused primarily on the concept of negative right and that was probably what made USA great. Unfortunately, what USA is heading to is the land of positive right, led by Democrats and demagogues. So the phrase of "western democracy eat itself" isn't too far off, either.

 

[gambit]

It is too often that people talk about "right" without defining what "right" is as if it is self-explanatory. No, it isn't. There are two fundamentally different concepts of "right": negative right and positive right. What Mr. Aviet said makes sense only in the concept of positive right while your practicality argument favors negative right, which is also argued and proven by Schopenhauer.

When American founding fathers created USA, they focused primarily on the concept of negative right and that was probably what made USA great. Unfortunately, what USA is heading to is the land of positive right, led by Democrats and demagogues. So the phrase of "western democracy eat itself" isn't too far off, either.

Here we go again...

'...the idea to give the equal right to an university professor and a drug-addict thug is merely stupid.'

Do YOU support the idea that we should have different political weight for different people? Mr. AViet, like most critics of Western style democracy on this forum, is heavy on rhetoric but light on details.

Do I want the prof in my house? Yes. But not the drug addict. Am no different than anyone else.

But HOW are we to differentiate out the prof and the drug addict in the eyes of the government? That is fair question to your, or whoever, criticism of my method.

The implication here is that by allowing the prof and the drug addict the same weight politically, that is leading to the destruction of Western style democracy. But if you criticize but offer no alternative, that is call 'whining'.

Right now, your China's method of governance is problematic and you know it. Never mind 'positive' or 'negative' right. Never mind what kind of 'freedom' you have or do not have. YOU are politically lower weight than the children of the lowest Party member. In theory, maybe not, but in practice, you are. Those who make the rules can shield themselves and anyone from those rules. Those who have the power to grant 'rights' and 'freedoms' have the power to take them away whenever convenient.

In the Western model, it is 'God', whatever opinion of 'God' you may have is for a different debate, that grants 'rights' and 'freedoms'. In China, it is the government that grants 'rights' and 'freedoms', and right now, you have a 'social credit' system that is beginning to politically differentiate Chinese from each other. Do YOU approve of that model of governance? Fair question.