Sticks and stones my brutha. :loco:
You’re asking me the wrong question. I, frankly, believe in the professionalism and independence of the American legal system. I do not have the same opinion of the Chinese legal system. I absolutely would prefer to have the above trial in an American court. Does that answer surprise you?
Let’s talk about the real question, instead:
[quote]Modern democracies have to have checks and balances. No they are not perfect but they are so far in advance of authoritarian governments as you have in China that there can be no comparison. America, or Canada, or britain, differ not in degree but in kind with what you have.
[/quote]
I don’t consider the United States and China to be in the same class from an economic, social, or political point of view. Correspondingly, there are very few lessons that can directly translate across the two. Why are you only listing the United States, Canada, or Britain the “modern democracies”? Do Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, or India… all of which are multi-party democracies, also hold up to your standard?
Let’s ask a different question. Would I prefer to rely on the governments of Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, India, or China to enact policies that reflect the best interests of the people as a whole? Those nations have a general level of “development” comparable to that of China.
v,
The difference between us isn’t just that I’m better read. It’s also that I analyze, interpret, and challenge all that I read and hear. You, on the other hand, regurgitate and parrot.
The point isn’t to compare “CCP appointed bureaucrats” with the United States Supreme Court. There’s no doubt in my mind that the US Supreme Court is better managed, more professional, better informed, better regulated than the Chinese equivalent. If the US Supreme Court justices were sent, en masse, to interpret the Chinese Constitution for the benefit of the People’s Republic of China… I for one would absolutely welcome that.
Are you confused again? Let me write this in more straight-forward terms, rather than leaving you to twist in the wind, unable to point the twist of logic yet again.
The point of comparison here is between the current United States, and a hypothetical United States which is even more democratic. In this hypothetical United States, the Supreme Court doesn’t exist: instead, Roe v. Wade and Civil Rights are determined by democratic vode. In this hypothetical United States, the “people” as a whole vote on fiscal and monetary policy. Why isn’t the United States more democratic? Why does it leave these absolutely key, essential decisions within the hands of legal proessionals who have zero charisma, and zero ability to win any public political campaign?
I’ll repeat myself yet again, since I suspect that’s the only way to force comprehension upon you. I doubt that multi-party democracy in this point in time would work successfully: it hasn’t worked for any other nation at a comparable level of development in the post-WW2 era. I don’t know what system China should, or will, adopt 10-20 years down the road… but I am very inclined to believe that a system tasked by professionals can do an excellent job, as they have already proven in China (and the United States) over the past few decades.
You must really be bored if you have to reply to my posts. Aren’t you coming here to be challenged by informed people? If I’m a regurgitating parrot, which could be a statement of fact and which some would take as a compliment, why are you wasting your time? I’m sure there are other posters here on forumosa that you could gain much more from- why don’t you seek those posters out- address them directly- and leave me out of it? Did I make that straighforward enough for ya Mr. CCP?
[quote=“cctang”][quote=“Muzha Man”]
Both CCT and AC ask yourselves this? In which country would you like to go up against a person wealthier and better connected than you, a corrupt official, a powerful company that had cheated you, a company that wanted to destroy a pristine area of nature? Hell, which country would you rather be an accused terrorist? In Hamdan v Rumsfeld the courts overturned the ruling on a terrorist because the tribunals set up by the president did not satisfy the requirements of a just court. Would that happen in China? To even ask the question is to answer it. NO!
[/quote]
You’re asking me the wrong question. I, frankly, believe in the professionalism and independence of the American legal system. I do not have the same opinion of the Chinese legal system. I absolutely would prefer to have the above trial in an American court. Does that answer surprise you?[/quote]
Not really. It’s fairly consistent with other points you’ve made on this thread which have been very enlightening. My rhetoric was a little forceful because of the nonsense AC was saying (he should know better but seems never to have met an opportuntity to debase himself he didn’t take).
I don’t consider the United States and China to be in the same class from an economic, social, or political point of view. Correspondingly, there are very few lessons that can directly translate across the two. Why are you only listing the United States, Canada, or Britain the “modern democracies”? Do Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, or India… all of which are multi-party democracies, also hold up to your standard?
Let’s ask a different question. Would I prefer to rely on the governments of Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, India, or China to enact policies that reflect the best interests of the people as a whole? Those nations have a general level of “development” comparable to that of China.[/quote]
Your point is fair. Bringing the vote to China at this point would likely result in it becoming more like Mexico than Canada, or even India. What is needed is the building of democratic institutions, such as an independent judiciary. I think we have no disagreement on this.
But I think you don’t quite see how building instistutions that actually serve the people is not in the true interests of an authoritarian government and while they will make nice speeches, ultimately it will take a tue reformer to shake things up. Will this person come? Who knows. If China continues to modernize and prosper it will almost certainly happen but it is not inevitable. True reform means losing power, and no government accepts that without a struggle.
As for making America more democratic, again, the courts are designed to prevent mob rule which would happen at times if citizens were allowed to vote on matters of civil rights. The contitution is meant to be the touchstone for a nation. From it springs the general moral and civil tone. Letting citizens vote on civil rights would have the nation going from one extreme to the other especially during times of crisis.
As for voting on monetary policy, please. When we vote for people we do so knowing that they will have certain rights and obligations, among which are granting appointments. Do you think we are being hoodwinked here? No. It’s part of the system.
Mucha Man, aren’t you really asking a bit much in too short a time? As an ideal, a parliamentary democracy or presidential system like the US is a good idea, but isn’t it more important to lift the millions out of abject poverty first, if that’s possible? And I think it is. I think China has changed utterly since the famines of the late 1950s early 1960s. if you destroy the system that sort of kinda works now, the corrupt system of arbitrary patronage, won’t things get worse? Won’t people die in greater numbers? Isn’t political change in China going to take 100 years and involve the CCP reforming from within? Aren’t calls for instant change just unrealistic?
I dunno. I do know that in terms of judicial independence and transparency and fairness in the legal system China is making almost no progress. But what would Mao have said about Deng’s reforms and the huge amount of capital being generated in China now? What would he have said about Chinese and American interdependence? Surely there has been some improvement?