Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it proven to be the best system tried? People keep saying that and I fail to comprehend.
The sheer fact that a few democratic western countries are the richest/most prosperous doesn't prove your argument for two reasons
1) you need to show democratic countries collectively grew faster vis-a-vis those which are not (you also need to rule out other factors such as civil wars etc).
2) you need to explain the fact that a lot of countries are democracies yet are stuck in poverty for decades (India, Bangladesh etc).
You need to be logically rigorous before coming to your conclusion. The fact that the majority of rich countries are democracies is not sufficient proof that democracy is the best, because there is not a necessary causation relationship involved.
In social science it is pretty hard to prove a causation relationship, yet people can't wait for jump to conclusions (see, west Europe, America, Japan are democratic and most prosperous, therefore democracy brings prosperity - that's a very unscientific way of thinking).
A liberal democracy has been shown to have by far the best balance of personal freedom and wealth with the most respect for human rights, and being the best guarantee of the rule of law. Everything else that has been tried has either collapsed or restricted the people or institutions excessively.
Democracy isn't a certainty for automatic success, and sure, there are poor democracies and there are rich dictatorships. But to get the best balance, democracies have undoubtedly shown that it is currently the best system there is.
India is still poor in many ways, but if you look at vital statistics like absolute poverty, child mortality, health etc, India is going forward all the time.
A liberal democracy has been shown to have by far the best balance of personal freedom and wealth with the most respect for human rights, and being the best guarantee of the rule of law. Everything else that has been tried has either collapsed or restricted the people or institutions excessively.
Democracy isn't a certainty for automatic success, and sure, there are poor democracies and there are rich dictatorships. But to get the best balance, democracies have undoubtedly shown that it is currently the best system there is.
India is still poor in many ways, but if you look at vital statistics like absolute poverty, child mortality, health etc, India is going forward all the time.
"has been shown" "undoubted shown"... how? no, it is only western media talking every day. Nothing showed nothing. Again Hitler was elected democratically.
Of course India is going forward, but do you care explain why 20 years ago China's per capita GDP is only 200$ more, today it is 5400$ more? And why China has moved forward a lot more in almost all tangible aspects? These are two very comparable countries, similar population, similar colonization history, similar poverty before.
Taiwan is a democracy. However, it was not a democracy during its fast growing period in the 1960-80s as one of the four Asian Tigers. The same applies to South Korea. Their wealth is not a RESULT of democracy. It precedes democracy.
You are right that democracy isn't a certainty for automatic success, nor should people think it is a necessary condition, like western liberal media always tries to preach.
Democracy works great for Finland, fantastic. Works well for France or Switzerland, yay! But we can't assume it is the best for every country, especially large poor non-European countries with completely different social and historical context. As a Chinese, I am very happy that China wasn't converted to a multi-party democracy as a result of the event in June 1989. Yes, a lot of lives lost and a lot freedom sacrificed, but a lot more is gained and it is totally worth it. (trust me, 10 years ago, I was like f*ck China, we can't even select our own leaders.)
Also what's basic human rights? It is up to western interpretation? According to American liberals, apparently even adult men using women's bathroom is a human rights - if they want it, they can keep it. I am sure a lot of countries don't need/want such human rights. Most people think the one-child policy was a violation of human rights, but if you do ask regular Chinese people, most of them think it was necessary.
On the other hand, based on Asian tradition, the seniors consider it a basic right to be taken care of their children (no, they don't want to be cared for by the government or die in retirement homes), in China parents can literally sue their children for not fulfilling their duties - should the west provide this human right? Who gets to decide what is really human rights? I am sure as a western what is preached as human right makes perfect sense to you, but remember, not everyone is a westerner. Actually westerners are a small minority in this world, but they pretend to decide everything on the planet.
Last edited by botticelli; 10-22-2017 at 10:55 AM..
A liberal democracy has been shown to have by far the best balance of personal freedom and wealth with the most respect for human rights, and being the best guarantee of the rule of law. Everything else that has been tried has either collapsed or restricted the people or institutions excessively
Blah blah blah. Personal freedom blah blah blah wealth blah blah blah. Show me a German citizen that can just walk off his job tomorrow because he doesn't want to slave at the factory anymore. Show me an American woman who has a choice of whether she can stay home and be a mom to her kids.
I'm quite sure there are a few people in the world that can do this so you'll throw out some drivel with some statistics that show everyone can do that and yeah you're right. The mother can live with her kids in a freaking car at Walmart and depend on charity and the German factory worker can move to the Mediterranean coast and sleep on the beach.
The truth is the vast majority of people in the west have little if any freedom. Western societies are tread mills with people chained to them. Most people work until the day they die and have little to give to their children when they die.
The democracies of the west are little different from the Feudal societies Eurpeans have known for centuries. Western people's have no more freedom than a person in Russia or China.
Blah blah blah. Personal freedom blah blah blah wealth blah blah blah. Show me a German citizen that can just walk off his job tomorrow because he doesn't want to slave at the factory anymore. Show me an American woman who has a choice of whether she can stay home and be a mom to her kids.
I'm quite sure there are a few people in the world that can do this so you'll throw out some drivel with some statistics that show everyone can do that and yeah you're right. The mother can live with her kids in a freaking car at Walmart and depend on charity and the German factory worker can move to the Mediterranean coast and sleep on the beach.
The truth is the vast majority of people in the west have little if any freedom. Western societies are tread mills with people chained to them. Most people work until the day they die and have little to give to their children when they die.
The democracies of the west are little different from the Feudal societies Eurpeans have known for centuries. Western people's have no more freedom than a person in Russia or China.
Stop trying to bullchit us. We live here.
Yes the US system has many faults. But the only thing I like about their system is the seperation of powers. I think that is very important in terms of preventing tyranny.
On the other hand, based on Asian tradition, the seniors consider it a basic right to be taken care of their children (no, they don't want to be cared for by the government or die in retirement homes), in China parents can literally sue their children for not fulfilling their duties - should the west provide this human right? Who gets to decide what is really human rights? I am sure as a western what is preached as human right makes perfect sense to you, but remember, not everyone is a westerner. Actually westerners are a small minority in this world, but they pretend to decide everything on the planet.
There's a concept in the West that as far as I know has been with humanity since we created civilizations. Might Makes Right. I don't know a lot about Asian cultures so you might be familiar with it. If group A can kick group B into the dirt then they must be superior in some way. Many powers throughout history have used it as a justification for their nefarious ways. Even the American Indians had their version of it. Souix and Mandan, the Black Feet and Crow nation's.
Yes the US system has many faults. But the only thing I like about their system is the seperation of powers. I think that is very important in terms of preventing tyranny.
There is no separation of power in America. There is the power that comes with wealth and it rules everything and everyone. Admitting to faults, pointing out faults may make you feel good and righteous but it doesn't correct the faults that are killing you. Curing cancer requires intervention not just a diagnosis.
There is no separation of power in America. There is the power that comes with wealth and it rules everything and everyone. Admitting to faults, pointing out faults may make you feel good and righteous but it doesn't correct the faults that are killing you. Curing cancer requires intervention not just a diagnosis.
Members of US Supreme court are appointed for life. Even that is a sample of seperation of powers.It may not be completely enough, but it is better than the government being able to threaten the justices.
Tell that to your average Ukrainian trying to put food on the table with a heating or electric bill that just doubled.
Keep stroking it. Just remember it's not the real thing.
Today you bleed for poor freezing Ukrainian people you wanted dead yesterday. How amusing. Before the Russian agression Donbass regional bosses forged a new post soviet identity among their peons on the grounds that Donbass works and feeds Ukraine at the time when lazy western Ukrainians etc. strike and cause trouble. After agression it became clear that Donbass fed regional mafia not Ukraine. Its outdated industry and mines required subsidies and illegal schemes to generate output, to be looted by a few, at substantional costs to environment and people inside and out of Donetsk region. So just remember all things considered American coal can be cheaper just like plastic Chinese junk in your friendly neighbourhood store is cheaper than made in USA junk.
in the 1990s, Ukraine was actually richer than Belarus.
Great job, Ukraine. This is what you get for taking the wrong medicine which you think is the panacea.
If you read up on the Ukrainian oligarchs who have been and still are milking Ukraine of its wealth you're going to find that the west has not sanctioned a single individual. The FBI tried to arrest Firtash because of his Russian connections but didn't succeed. All of them still continue to loot the country while whining for handouts from the west even further indepting the people.
It's freaking twisted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
