Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012
I'm not saying China is an example of one, but it's a sad irony that an enlightened monarchy can be a better govt. than a democracy.
The drawback is that enlightened people don't always ascend to the throne - more often than not, I would guess, semi-tyrants do.
However, it is interesting that after decades of fearing and loathing Red China, the new China, with its blend of capitalism and communism, is looking more and more likely to one day eat our lunch and dinner.
|
That is all dependent on how you define "better". In many ways, the Singapore govt is way more efficient at getting what it wants done. I will concede that it is much easier to do something then have a public referendum about whether to do it or not AFTER the decision is made. It gives you the illusion that you have some input when the policy is already signed, sealed and delivered. We can solve a lot of crime by imposing martial law too. So no, it is not a sad irony or anything like that. The question is what you are willing to give up. When we train dogs, we teach them using the "NILIF" method. Nothing In Life Is Free. We can make things very efficient if you are willing to be a ward of the state and surrender all your freedom and let whomever or whatever manage you.
Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Are you willing to risk having Hitler II run the show? You can't have it both ways.
Well, that is just it. They are emerging from communism because it didn't work. Their "blend" is not permanent. They are in a constant state of evolution. I assume that someday, they too will be toppled by someone else who is more hungry. Sooner or later, they will start to get the same egalitarian ideas that we have and they will get tipped by someone else who doesn't have those ideas. The sad irony here is that while they are moving AWAY from communism, we are trying to move TOWARDS it.