> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The reason you see us as "way out there" is because if you limit your vision to a fairly small area, the relatively minor policy changes you mention appear to be far more important than they actually are.
The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consistently running an empire for decades now. Take a look at what the State Dept. does. The financial system is a particularly bad example, as core financial policies have not changed at all.
For whatever reason, you're focusing on flexibility in governance, but are you really suggesting the Chinese government has been less flexible than the US on policy changes in the last 30 years? If there is any giant government that has been making rather sudden and extreme changes in short order, for better or worse, it's China's.
So your argument consists of -- my points don't matter?
That's all you got?
The neat thing about such arguments about systems is: time will tell. When China is at 250 years with the same system, we can compare notes! (grin). But throwing away each others' points is not exactly a good way to continue a conversation. I'm of the opinion that real changes occurred, in all areas of policy. You are not. No amount of my explaining the changes is going to convince you, I'm afraid. You already know what you believe and no amount of discussion is going to persuade you otherwise.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to play advocate of everything the U.S. does, and if you want to play that role for China you would be a fool as well (which I hope not).
Meanwhile I'll work on "expanding my vision." I commented because I thought you might help in this area. It appears not, though.
Please don't be offended. You did start by saying we were "way out there," and I don't think you meant in a good way. I think that does imply that you are "zoomed in" on a smaller range of policy options and that does make small changes look big.
I'm not sure if you thought I was advocating everything that China does, or that I was somehow taking China's side in a US vs. China debate. That wouldn't be the case at all. If you read my other posts in this thread, I criticize both the US and China.
I'm also not sure if I misunderstood what you said about flexibility of governance. Whether or not you support the changes, I don't see how the Chinese government can be seen to have changed policies less in the entire Deng era than the US in the same time period.
You were having a conversation with a lot of hidden assumptions and definitions that were not clear to me -- to me, that's "out there". I was unable to gather anything useful from your stream, and that always interests me. It's a chance to either prove or disprove my own assumptions and definitions.
If you say things are not big, and I provide examples of where they are big, and then you throw away my examples, we're done. I can't well argue with myself, and unless you put forward a working definition of what "big" is we don't have anywhere to go.
I see the change in China as very incremental, done under duress, and done to the least amount possible in order to maintain control. Perhaps that's uncharitable of me but that's my current viewpoint. In the U.S., on the other hand, we seem willing and able to make change on a whim. We get tired of one set of philosophies and switch off to another every so often.
Now you can certainly argue that the underlying drivers of the U.S/, commercialism, haven't changed any, and that this lack of change means an underlying common theme in governance. But I think that begins to dilute the conversation so much as to make it meaningless -- and once again, you have me arguing with myself.
It's true, my views are not mainstream, but I think even mainstream observers would disagree with you here. In the last 50 years China has seen the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the transition to a corporatist economy in the Deng era.
What was the last change in the US approaching this magnitude? Possibly the New Deal, but even that is quite a stretch. It does not really compare to going from the deadly Great Leap Forward (20-43 million dead, 53% poverty rate under Mao) to the current corporatism (around 6% poverty rate) in less than half a century.
That being said, I'm not sure if or why you're using flexibility in governance as a metric for good government. The government having the ability to change policies quickly is not necessarily a good thing all the time. It seems to me the actual policies themselves matter more.
Actually I'm going to have to agree with Johnny here. Not only is the US government designed to be ineffective by giving more factions power, it certainly has manifested it's intentions in reality. Despite democrats controlling congress and the presidency, has Obama been able to pass his progressive healthcare reforms? Anything much? No, and this shows that the US is the one more capable of incremental reform, if anyhing because opposing factions have equal power to counter each other. China, on the other hand is one party, one entity. They want something done, nobody will stop them. The can suggest seedig rain and the next thing you know the skies are clear. Most likely none of the over 1 billion people are consulted. No opposition, no resistance. Things get done faster, but here's more risk since there's less diversity of opinion.
I think you are disregarding johnny's points and assuming he's a brick wall. Take a minute and make sure that you are not doing to Johnny what you think he is doing to you.
It seems to me the actual policies themselves matter more.
Not at all.
Look at it this way: what do you want, to be able to get the answer exactly right the first time, or to have a bunch of iterations optimizing each time?
Societies are complex chaotic systems. There probably is no "right" answer. Instead, it's important for there to be a dance between policy and marketplace. The dance is much more important than the policy itself. [insert long economics discussion here]
> Separation of powers" has been a complete failure.
I don't think this is true. You referring to the fact that the democrats have complete control is not good enough of an example of one faction controlling everything. The idea of separation of the government with three branches is not necessarily to have 3 branches controlled by different parties, but the idea of having three separate entities that do not report to a single point. That's what the separation of powers intends with the three branches of government. That being said the Democratic party is heavily factioned itself. It's not a very unified entity, especially when compared to the Communist party of China, and this is mostly because the representatives report directly to their constituents. If they piss off their constituents, most of them can easily lose their seats. So to say that the government is controlled by one faction right now is misleading since the Democratic party is huge, and represents about 50% of the population.
> This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy.
As I said before, the representatives report directly to the constituents. So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy because a selected few are given the power to govern, but this is actually a republican type of government. It's necessary for this to happen because having every issue directly voted on would be super inefficient. The representatives that have power do not actually have as much power as you think because of their responsibilities to their constituents. In China, I'm pretty sure the communist party officials have final say no matter what.
> 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.
Even if this is true, like I said before, the fundamentals of the US system is freedom of speech and democracy. Therefore you will always have the right to pursue an education independent of the government, even if it means doing it on top of government mandated education. So this makes the issue of the school system moot with respect to the style of government. The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy? Freedom of speech/individualism certainly isn't pushing it that way, right? I think the problem with the school system is actually a whole other issue not related to the American democracy/individual freedom. China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population. Manipulation will always result in something unnatural, such as the restriction of speech and information. That in turn means no freedom to pursue education as one wishes. So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
To summarize my points:
If your issue is the education, the American style of government does not necessarily promote the current system of education we have. It may oppose a radical change to the education system, but that is simply because the government is designed to resist unnecessary radical changes. China on the other hand has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
Separation of powers in the US was designed by the same people who did not even want a party system. So taken as a whole, the system can be seen to have failed almost instantly.
> So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy
If we look at the actual functioning of government (by which I don't mean just the elected representatives), most officials and bureaucrats are not significantly affected by any one election. There is a de facto permanent government, and there are clear patterns in the selection and activity of these officials.
> freedom of speech and democracy
The problem is that freedom/individualism is at odds with democracy. Most Western democracies do not have freedom of speech, again for democratic reasons. The US is an exception here, probably because of the prominent placement and unambiguous language of the First Amendment and the acceptance of freedom of speech as an American tradition.
> The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy?
Because the education system is run and managed by the permanent govt. mentioned above. They admit to wanting increased schooling and increased control. (Universal govt. schooling was a democratic idea in the first place.) Notice they have also come up with "scientific" justifications for this.
> China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population.
So does the US. You can verify this by, for example, looking at the typical state-mandated school curriculum.
> So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
Your description of China's method applies to the US as well. The democratic method does indeed force the bad education system; as I mentioned earlier, it is a democratic (small d) idea to have the government attempt to school everybody.
China...has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
I agree, but again, this applies to the US as well.
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.