"The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation."
I wouldn't call them God-given so much as a result of human nature. That being said, I will "negotiate" for my rights by any means necessary. As the crypto revolution continues, those means become easier and easier, in part because rights are natural.
The author portrays power slipping away from the communists as if they're approaching some intentional harmonious equilibrium, when in reality, both governments are simply being purchased by the same corrupting powers-that-be.
Topic: Why China’s Political Model Is Superior (Read 3384 times)
lol I was being facetious. Forgot my tongue in cheek smiley. US companies owning the land was a jab at the whole Iraq war bullshit around oil.
Forget oil, you've got a more direct example with poppies in Afghanistan. The Taliban had eradicated them, but as soon as we (America, fuck yeah!) show up, heroin and opium flow out of Afghanistan like chocolate from Willy Wonka's factory.
I will risk to say that we should put a bullet on the head of Bush and Obama for being drug trafficking.
After all, it's the Chinese way and it's superior.
It is very simple why China's political model is superior.
...
I'm glad that in the UK political system there are 3 alternatives now.
...
I'm glad that in the UK political system there are 3 alternatives now.
Depending on how you count there are at least 5 in Germany ... let me think ... ouch ... we can easily compete with Greece!
China executes drug traffickers murderers and pedophiles.
+1 china
+1 china
Or the Chinese government gets rid of its enemies by saying they're drug traffickers, murderers and pedophiles and executes them.
It is very simple why China's political model is superior.
The name of the political class in China is "communist party". The name is not important. The most important thing is that there are 3 or 4 political wings within the communist party that have different views on how China must develop in future. They must compete for the votes of ordinary party members. In the US the name of the political class is "political establishment". There are only 2 wings there that name themselves republicans and democrats. There is almost no competition between them because there are only 2 of them. They can always make a deal at the expense of the society! When one of them is on power the general public has no choice but swap them with the only other choice available. Actually, there is no choice! You know from the real life market economy that in order to have genuine competition in a given market segment you have to have at least 3 independent companies competing for market share... I'm glad that in the UK political system there are 3 alternatives now.
The name of the political class in China is "communist party". The name is not important. The most important thing is that there are 3 or 4 political wings within the communist party that have different views on how China must develop in future. They must compete for the votes of ordinary party members. In the US the name of the political class is "political establishment". There are only 2 wings there that name themselves republicans and democrats. There is almost no competition between them because there are only 2 of them. They can always make a deal at the expense of the society! When one of them is on power the general public has no choice but swap them with the only other choice available. Actually, there is no choice! You know from the real life market economy that in order to have genuine competition in a given market segment you have to have at least 3 independent companies competing for market share... I'm glad that in the UK political system there are 3 alternatives now.
This is an interesting point. There are only really two main alternatives in Australia, too...Liberal and Labour. Greens and democrats exist, but aren't really contenders since the system allows them to pick who to move the votes that were sent to them to someone in the liberal/labour parties of their choice. The result, as you point out, is Jack Johnson vs John Jackson.
Why are do we narrow down to only 2 contenders? How can you realistically grow a non-retarded 3rd and 4th alternative?
It is very simple why China's political model is superior.
The name of the political class in China is "communist party". The name is not important. The most important thing is that there are 3 or 4 political wings within the communist party that have different views on how China must develop in future. They must compete for the votes of ordinary party members. In the US the name of the political class is "political establishment". There are only 2 wings there that name themselves republicans and democrats. There is almost no competition between them because there are only 2 of them. They can always make a deal at the expense of the society! When one of them is on power the general public has no choice but swap them with the only other choice available. Actually, there is no choice! You know from the real life market economy that in order to have genuine competition in a given market segment you have to have at least 3 independent companies competing for market share... I'm glad that in the UK political system there are 3 alternatives now.
The name of the political class in China is "communist party". The name is not important. The most important thing is that there are 3 or 4 political wings within the communist party that have different views on how China must develop in future. They must compete for the votes of ordinary party members. In the US the name of the political class is "political establishment". There are only 2 wings there that name themselves republicans and democrats. There is almost no competition between them because there are only 2 of them. They can always make a deal at the expense of the society! When one of them is on power the general public has no choice but swap them with the only other choice available. Actually, there is no choice! You know from the real life market economy that in order to have genuine competition in a given market segment you have to have at least 3 independent companies competing for market share... I'm glad that in the UK political system there are 3 alternatives now.
Forget oil, you've got a more direct example with poppies in Afghanistan. ...
Well that is all just about free economy, I guess. The official explanation around here sound like this:
Devastating the poppy crop would ruin the sprouting local economy thus angering the rural population. (neither joke nor pun intended)
Due to our state secretary of defense I think it was around 2004 we are defending our freedom over there.
Well now I am wondering when the freedom to grow poppy finally comes along.
lol I was being facetious. Forgot my tongue in cheek smiley. US companies owning the land was a jab at the whole Iraq war bullshit around oil.
Forget oil, you've got a more direct example with poppies in Afghanistan. The Taliban had eradicated them, but as soon as we (America, fuck yeah!) show up, heroin and opium flow out of Afghanistan like chocolate from Willy Wonka's factory.
LOL thats funny. There will be crime everywhere no matter what. They still have drastically less crime than the US. A few years ago some big company in china was mass producing baby formula. Infants started dying. The government analyzed the baby formula and discovered there was no nutrients in the formula. The company stopped putting them in to cut costs and maximize profits. They executed the people in charge. Here in the US if you have enough money or power you can get away with shit like that. I like chinas no excuses policies. You fuck up you pay the price. Thats the way it should be.
I still think if we started executing people for serious crimes we wont have as many problems. People will think twice before doing things knowing they will be executed. I stand by my comments......
+1 china.
+1 china.
They used hang pickpockets in public. People watching the hanging often had their pockets picked.
I still think if we started executing people for serious crimes we wont have as many problems. People will think twice before doing things knowing they will be executed. I stand by my comments......
+1 china.
+1 china.
China executes drug traffickers murderers and pedophiles.
+1 china
+1 china
Executing drug traffickers is a good thing ?
Why ?
Because drugs, and everything else, pays for terrorism.
Until US companies own the land. Then whatev's.
Jeez have you been brainwashed but deep and good.
You need to get out from the rock you live under and start to actually
inform/educate yourself from reputable sources.
Hint: avoid Fox news for a couple for months.
lol I was being facetious. Forgot my tongue in cheek smiley. US companies owning the land was a jab at the whole Iraq war bullshit around oil.
Because drugs, and everything else, pays for terrorism.
Well considered you are right, at least some hints provide this view.Plus the war on terrorism needs to be battled by any means shouldn´t it.
Wouldn´t we have to legalise drugs now to dry out terrorism money supply?
For the part that is correct about the statement, I'm sure it would help that. In general though (the "and everything else" part), it depends on who's terror you're talking about. The US population is being terrorized by its own banking system...people are terrified of it; people aren't only terrorized by violence, just the threat of harm is enough. There have been more TV shows and movies about terrorists in the US than there have been actual attacks.
Because drugs, and everything else, pays for terrorism.
Well considered you are right, at least some hints provide this view.Plus the war on terrorism needs to be battled by any means shouldn´t it.
Wouldn´t we have to legalise drugs now to dry out terrorism money supply?
China executes drug traffickers murderers and pedophiles.
+1 china
+1 china
Executing drug traffickers is a good thing ?
Why ?
Because drugs, and everything else, pays for terrorism.
Until US companies own the land. Then whatev's.
China executes drug traffickers murderers and pedophiles.
+1 china
+1 china
Although I think everyone everywhere else wants to do that, too, except others realize there is no "oh shit wait this person was innocent" reset button with execution.
Perhaps the Chinese care less about 1 wrongful death than others do.
Well I think its fair to say that they Chinese care less about several 1000 wrongful deaths than others do.
The Chinese system's flexibility is firmly rooted in the willingness of the Chinese government to shoot people by the 1000, the most recent example being Tienanmen Square in 1989 but there were years where the state killed over a million people. When I made the OP, I knew there was something "missing" in the guys logic and I think that's it. A simple assertion that to run a country "properly" you got to be willing to have occasional educational massacres.
China executes drug traffickers murderers and pedophiles.
+1 china
+1 china
Although I think everyone everywhere else wants to do that, too, except others realize there is no "oh shit wait this person was innocent" reset button with execution.
Perhaps the Chinese care less about 1 wrongful death than others do.
China executes drug traffickers murderers and pedophiles.
+1 china
+1 china
Skimmed over it, then wondered whether the author is one of China's paid bloggers. And that's where the thinking stopped. The superior system paying its supportive bloggers? They're just bigger, not better.
Smart > Libertarian > Democratic Capitalist > Random Socialist/Capitalist hybrids > Communist > Military-based Dictatorships
Where "Smart" would be a system in which the participants are intelligent and well-informed and acting accordingly, which is an utopia. Each of the jumps is huge. I'd give a lot to get a stable Libertarian ecosystem to live in, but they always get killed by jealous zealots before they can play their real strength.
China would be with the "Random Socialist/Capitalist hybrids". As they shifted to capitalism, their power multiplied. But it's still just blind hits, not even close to what a billion-people-country should be able to achieve. I give them credit for acknowledging human reproduction is getting out of hand, this is a topic that is shunned elsewhere. But in terms of economy, they should start learning from Taiwan and Japan... oh, but they hate them to much, it's totally unthinkable. You know, the Japanese and WW2! And Taiwan should belong to China!! Childish.
Smart > Libertarian > Democratic Capitalist > Random Socialist/Capitalist hybrids > Communist > Military-based Dictatorships
Where "Smart" would be a system in which the participants are intelligent and well-informed and acting accordingly, which is an utopia. Each of the jumps is huge. I'd give a lot to get a stable Libertarian ecosystem to live in, but they always get killed by jealous zealots before they can play their real strength.
China would be with the "Random Socialist/Capitalist hybrids". As they shifted to capitalism, their power multiplied. But it's still just blind hits, not even close to what a billion-people-country should be able to achieve. I give them credit for acknowledging human reproduction is getting out of hand, this is a topic that is shunned elsewhere. But in terms of economy, they should start learning from Taiwan and Japan... oh, but they hate them to much, it's totally unthinkable. You know, the Japanese and WW2! And Taiwan should belong to China!! Childish.
... Communism is not superior to ANYpolitical system with the exception of fascism.
Almost true. We (this world with its known history) have no resilient experience with communism.Those so called communists are violating the basic communistic rule: "common ownership of the means of production"
China is just another Oligarchy, so nothing superior to any other regime on this planet. Just its bias is slightly tuned differently.
If you think crushing kids, and making sure they are dead is superior, then there is something wrong with you OP.
You didn't read the article.
Jump to: