Would the world be a better places if China is a demoracy country?

[visser300]

Everyday, I read the news that China mess around with neigbour countries. Would they stop the policy and be nice with everyone if their leaders want to follow the demoracy path? Or they would become a second 'Japan Empire' before 1945. Japan before WW2 was also a semi-demoratic country but she almost declared war to everyone else.

[Heinz Guderian]

I dont think being a democracy will stop you messing in other countries' affairs or even invading them. Or assassinating people. Or torturing them. Or overthrowing governments and installing client states. Or lying. Foreign policy is about national interests, not representation.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Chinese people might be very interested, but their priorities were up to this point economic development which is easier under an authoritarian regime that derives it's legitimacy from what were definitely previous authoritarian regimes operating under the mandate of Heaven, which loosely means that the rule is just and that the majority doesn't starve.

But one thing is certain, like Islam, the Chinese do not like to give up the lands that they claim were once theirs; unlike Islam, they don't have plans to extend their empire beyond those boundaries.

[Heinz Guderian]

But one thing is certain, like Islam, the Chinese do not like to give up the lands that they claim were once theirs; unlike Islam, they don't have plans to extend their empire beyond those boundaries.

who is Islam in this case?

[ivan_the_terrible]

who is Islam in this case?

If you have to ask, you're not supposed to know...

Well as long as you buy into fallacies that's how you will look at it. In the real world political candidates are not really better educated than the general population.

Very true. For example, the only American president to have had a (non-honourary) Doctorate was Woodrow Wilson. And he was not an especially great one.

[lemondude]

You do realize that democracy is just the way of choosing leaders, but their policy will reflect their people's wants whether they want to or not. Though sometimes they get it wrong.

I just find it funny the philipines is asking for stuff, i can understand vietnam, cause that's an ok country, militarily they can be good enough.

This is like mexico asking for california back, negotiations are for equals.

[Aymer de Valence]

The world would be a better place still if The West was also fully democratic. At the moment, democracy in the USA/ Europe is like two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch....(Benjamin Franklin). What's even worse, is that the American sheep have guns, yet they still let themselves be exploited.

[Aanker]

The world would be a better place still if The West was also fully democratic. At the moment, democracy in the USA/ Europe is like two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch....(Benjamin Franklin). What's even worse, is that the American sheep have guns, yet they still let themselves be exploited.

Please elaborate, because this sounds like an unsupported statement.

[Aymer de Valence]

Please elaborate, because this sounds like an unsupported statement.

You think we live in a true democracy? You think U-Turns, going back on pre-election pledges and politicians/bankers not being given the same equality before the law as the general public is truly democratic? The only thing that sets us apart from the Chinese is the freedom for most of society to vote, but our political corruption is right up there beside them.

[Elfdude]

You think we live in a true democracy? You think U-Turns, going back on pre-election pledges and politicians/bankers not being given the same equality before the law as the general public is truly democratic? The only thing that sets us apart from the Chinese is the freedom for most of society to vote, but our political corruption is right up there beside them.

Well that's not necessarily something easy to source much less prove. I would recommend against making sweeping generalizations less you mistakenly imply something you don't mean.

I do believe china as a democracy would solve a lot of problems. I believe the US as a direct democracy would solve a lot of problems. But the issue with US democracy is the party system. The issue with Chinese government is the lack of individual freedom. Both have the potential IMO to set up a near perfect society but I doubt either will go that direction due to simple greed and plutocracy which both countries are honestly controlled by.

[Vanoi]

The world would be a better place still if The West was also fully democratic. At the moment, democracy in the USA/ Europe is like two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch....(Benjamin Franklin).

With the liberty being the well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

What's even worse, is that the American sheep have guns, yet they still let themselves be exploited.

Please. Explain how we are being "exploited." y6our starting to sound like a Communist there.

[Aymer de Valence]

US as a direct democracy would solve a lot of problems.

You would be happy with the American public making decisions that would have a huge influence on the rest of the world? No thanks. Obama is a sly man, but at least he is educated and dexterous enough to lead a nation like the USA, even if the decisions he makes aren't always the correct ones.

An uneducated populace, like those of Europe and the USA, should always live under a representative democracy (that's if we assume that democracy will always hold a place in these regions). Only when public intelligence improves, should we even consider direct democracy. A meritocratic-style authoritarian administration is the best system, but of course, logic tends to devoid in most people.

[Admiral Piett]

You would be happy with the American public making decisions that would have a huge influence on the rest of the world? No thanks. Obama is a sly man, but at least he is educated and dexterous enough to lead a nation like the USA, even if the decisions he makes aren't always the correct ones.

An uneducated populace, like those of Europe and the USA, should always live under a representative democracy (that's if we assume that democracy will always hold a place in these regions). Only when public intelligence improves, should we even consider direct democracy. A meritocratic-style authoritarian administration is the best system, but of course, logic tends to devoid in most people.

We don't support fascism.

[Aymer de Valence]

We don't support fascism.

Who is 'we'? Do you see yourself as godly enough to speak for other people?

[Admiral Piett]

Who is 'we'? Do you see yourself as godly enough to speak for other people?

Your sarcasm fails here. If you see many supporters of despotism in the US, let me know. Otherwise, my statements for most other Americans are correct.

[King Gambrinus]

Your sarcasm fails here. If you see many supporters of despotism in the US, let me know. Otherwise, my statements for most other Americans are correct.

Only a misguided individual would fail to see that one of America's top 2 parties has remarkable similarities to fascist doctrine. Which is why people calling Democrats Communists is ironic when they are the ones who are more centrist than their opposition.

[Elfdude]

You would be happy with the American public making decisions that would have a huge influence on the rest of the world? No thanks. Obama is a sly man, but at least he is educated and dexterous enough to lead a nation like the USA, even if the decisions he makes aren't always the correct ones.

Well as long as you buy into fallacies that's how you will look at it. In the real world political candidates are not really better educated than the general population. As one candidate infamously stated you don't need to pass an IQ test to be elected to congress. In fact only a few candidates have useful degrees at all most have either business (utterly useless in terms of understanding the economy) or law (utterly useless in terms of solving problems). IIRC only a handful of candidates possess the knowledge to understand basic physics much less decide if global warming is a real concern. Hell upwards of 50% believe in creationism. While I do agree Obama himself is smarter than the average man I do not think that he would come to a better decision than crowd sourcing would.

What I would really love to see is crowd sourcing of policies followed by a direct democracy to decide which policy to go with rather than political idealogy driving policies and only sometimes overlapping with what in reality would honestly help X, Y or Z. For example the scared straight program was a politically driven idealogy. Any psychologist could've told you that it wouldn't have worked and would cause the opposite effect but politicians aren't scientists.

Then again we might still have the same people lobbying for stupidity that we do now confusing the public in general. Politics have grown so convoluted in the US that most people couldn't keep track even if they wanted to leading to majorities voting for what essentially amounts to a slick sales-pitch.

An uneducated populace, like those of Europe and the USA, should always live under a representative democracy (that's if we assume that democracy will always hold a place in these regions).

I agree with you even that the general population is stupidlt ignorant (though not in comparison to our elected candidates, in many cases they're equally or even more stupid) however I find it hard to believe that crowd sourcing policy would not generate much better policies. If we could figure out how to apply the scientific method to politics too all the better. On the other hand it would be interesting to see a move to a sort of 'limited' direct democracy which appeals only to a certain segment of the population. Things such as asking doctors if pot should be legalized, asking teachers if no child left behind is a good idea, asking psychologists if scared straight might have unintended consequences. But I hesitate at that because I find that most experts I've met in the world are experts in only their chosen fields unable to put together any semblance of a complete picture which would allow them to apply their expertise to their day-to-day life.

Only when public intelligence improves, should we even consider direct democracy. A meritocratic-style authoritarian administration is the best system, but of course, logic tends to devoid in most people.

The problem with meritocracy is who decides what has merit and is worth-while. Seeing as we don't have a standard idea of this that would be very difficult. On the other hand though it does provide an interesting starting point towards improving society. We do not teach our children what morality is and instead leave it to rather irritatingly biased religions to teach our children. We do not teach our children how to choose between two different options of similar stock or even how to discern the credibility of said options. We do not teach our children what logic is or why different ideas are fallacious. We still somehow expect all children to acquire these skills by adulthood. Personally I think we should stop relying upon the random happenstance of the environment to provide them with these attributes and simply start imbuing every child we can with a secular objective starting point.

[DimeBagHo]

Moved from the Mudpit to the Academy.

[Aymer de Valence]

With the liberty being the well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

You might aswell restart the civil war with that attitude.

Please. Explain how we are being "exploited." y6our starting to sound like a Communist there.

Me? A dirty Commie?? Preposterous, and you know it. If Americans would prefer to live in a steadily-fragmenting society, with no compassion for healthcare or the well-being of others, all while living under the yoke of Wall Street fatcats, then so be it. As I've always said, America died in the 1950s

[Vanoi]

You might aswell restart the civil war with that attitude.

Thats the rest of the quote you posted....

Me? A dirty Commie?? Preposterous, and you know it.

I don't' know man, saying the people are exploited is like a key phrase of Communism.

If Americans would prefer to live in a steadily-fragmenting society,

And we are fragmenting how?

with no compassion for healthcare or the well-being of others,

The US did just pass Obama Care.

all while living under the yoke of Wall Street fatcats, then so be it.

I agree that Wall Street has too much influence, but living under the yoke? I'm still in control. As long as politicians need me to get up off my ass and vote for them, i'm still in control.

As I've always said, America died in the 1950s

LOL. I love it when people say the 1950s were so great. Just shows how much they don't know about the 1950s.

Good old 1950s. Segregation everywhere, Red Scare, minorities denied their basic rights, J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI violating my rights, and of course the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Great times.