Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy...
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.
Aristotle, in Politics, identified 6 general forms of government: 2 forms of one-man rule, 2 forms of few-men rule, and 2 forms of all men rule. My recollection was that each of the two forms were discriminated by whether the ruler(s) ruled for the good of the citizens of the state or for the good of the ruler(s). The best state, according to Aristotle, was the one-man rule (kingship) where the one-man ruled for the good of the citizens of the state. Second best was few-men rule (oligarchy) where the few men ruled for the good of the citizens of the state. This is what your post is suggesting is the case in China.
The question of interest, of course, is whether the ruler(s) are governing for the good of the citizens or for their own good and merely dressing it up like serving the interests of the citizens. Determining what the "good" is happens to be a difficult question in its own right -- see other numerous volumes of philosophy and thought for discussions of "the good."
The Chinese government seems to govern for the good of the state, not necessarily for the good of particular individuals or even classes of individuals. They do seem to be on a mission to improve China, according to their best ideas of what that means. Perhaps I am selfish, but I would not want to live there in this state. I prefer our state which emphasizes freedom of the individual ( . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) rather than subordinating the individual to the health and project of the state.
I was going to say what Alsatian said but it wouldn't have been so eloquently put, or intellegently put for that matter. From me it would have been more like:
China sucks.. Give me liberty or give me death.
__________________
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." G.K. Chesterton
Age old question. A good One man rule would of course depend on the beliefs of that one man and what he considered the good of the people.
We are pretty much there now. When the parties march in lock step with their leader and vote on things strictly down party lines regardless of what it does for the good of the people, then whats the difference between what we have and a kingship.
Our two party system is killing us and will until we have the exact same number of representatives from each party so that they have to work together. Or a strong third party.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsatian
Aristotle, in Politics, identified 6 general forms of government: 2 forms of one-man rule, 2 forms of few-men rule, and 2 forms of all men rule. My recollection was that each of the two forms were discriminated by whether the ruler(s) ruled for the good of the citizens of the state or for the good of the ruler(s). The best state, according to Aristotle, was the one-man rule (kingship) where the one-man ruled for the good of the citizens of the state. Second best was few-men rule (oligarchy) where the few men ruled for the good of the citizens of the state. This is what your post is suggesting is the case in China.
The question of interest, of course, is whether the ruler(s) are governing for the good of the citizens or for their own good and merely dressing it up like serving the interests of the citizens. Determining what the "good" is happens to be a difficult question in its own right -- see other numerous volumes of philosophy and thought for discussions of "the good."
The Chinese government seems to govern for the good of the state, not necessarily for the good of particular individuals or even classes of individuals. They do seem to be on a mission to improve China, according to their best ideas of what that means. Perhaps I am selfish, but I would not want to live there in this state. I prefer our state which emphasizes freedom of the individual ( . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) rather than subordinating the individual to the health and project of the state.
I agree. China is not known for its human rights appreciation. They run sweat shops, run down its own infrastructure, all while singing praises to the almighty dollar. I too would appear to be selfish.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Our two party system is killing us and will until we have the exact same number of representatives from each party so that they have to work together. Or a strong third party.
I disagree. What we have are voters who give power to different parties every few years. It's like a singer using vibrato. The theory is, alternate between sharp and flat so that the correct note is heard throughout the vocal. Should work in theory, and maybe it does in practice, somewhat. But the system is still pretty bad, I agree.
I'd love to see a new paradigm with three strong parties.
I disagree. What we have are voters who give power to different parties every few years. It's like a singer using vibrato. The theory is, alternate between sharp and flat so that the correct note is heard throughout the vocal. Should work in theory, and maybe it does in practice, somewhat. But the system is still pretty bad, I agree.
I'd love to see a new paradigm with three strong parties.
Don't know about you folks, but I don't think I've seen the republican party in a long time.
__________________
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." G.K. Chesterton
What we have not seen in a long time is a real honest to God conservative who lives to pay honor instead if lip service to the constitution of this country. I am sure I won't see it in my life time.
One-Party Democracy
