The Future of China

[Jedi Council]

No, but in order for one to be malevolent, one needs intent. I do not think he is intentionally incompetent. I just think he is incompetent.

insofar as he installs lackeys and leaves important offices to go to seed if not abolish altogether? the intent is there, even if seldom for other than personal reasons -- money, power, and dick

Well those are examples of him being malicious, but not incompetent.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Isn't incompetence a crime in itself?Why can the incompetent be in power?

If incompetence were a crime a vast majority of people would be in prison.

And besides, incompetence has often saved countries from the worst excesses of terrible leaders. Look at the current state of the US; if Trump's political agenda and style were coupled with efficiency and competence, he would be even more dangerous than he already is.

In any case, I would take an incompetent government over a dictatorial one any day of the week. At least, in my country, if a government is incompetent we can remove them from office.

Yes,of course.They should be put in prison.Don't be the representative of the people without ability. An incompetent guy on your behalf, do you still count on your voice?
It's called dereliction of duty in China.For example, in this covid-19 pandemic, the government has deprived more than 3000 underperforming officials of their posts.
Trump not very brilliant talent,this may be a good thing.But I think that's why there are more and more problems in the US.You can't solve the problem by changing your leader. Fortunately, a competent leader was chosen to solve some problems. With bad luck, the problem will get worse. All the problems will accumulate until, in the end, they will explode together and kill everyone.
I'm going to repeat, if it doesn't solve the problem, it will blow up everyone.Like the tulip bubble, the great depression, the oil crisis, the subprime mortgage crisis.

[Diahon]

insofar as he installs lackeys and leaves important offices to go to seed if not abolish altogether? the intent is there, even if seldom for other than personal reasons -- money, power, and dick

Well those are examples of him being malicious, but not incompetent.

they're good at headpats, petty politicking, and corruption, not for actual administration

given the gop ethos of "government is bad, let's give it a bath", it could hardly be otherwise

that that fits with trump's own abysmal chaos like tiny hand to bloody glove need not be said

[Jedi Council]

If incompetence were a crime a vast majority of people would be in prison.

And besides, incompetence has often saved countries from the worst excesses of terrible leaders. Look at the current state of the US; if Trump's political agenda and style were coupled with efficiency and competence, he would be even more dangerous than he already is.

In any case, I would take an incompetent government over a dictatorial one any day of the week. At least, in my country, if a government is incompetent we can remove them from office.

Yes,of course.They should be put in prison.Don't be the representative of the people without ability. An incompetent guy on your behalf, do you still count on your voice?
It's called dereliction of duty in China.For example, in this covid-19 pandemic, the government has deprived more than 3000 underperforming officials of their posts.
Trump not very brilliant talent,this may be a good thing.But I think that's why there are more and more problems in the US.You can't solve the problem by changing your leader. Fortunately, a competent leader was chosen to solve some problems. With bad luck, the problem will get worse. All the problems will accumulate until, in the end, they will explode together and kill everyone.
I'm going to repeat, if it doesn't solve the problem, it will blow up everyone.Like the tulip bubble, the great depression, the oil crisis, the subprime mortgage crisis.

I believe we value different things in our governments, so I doubt we will see eye to eye on this issue.

[Albrenia]

I'd rather live under Trump in the US than Xi in China. Xi is probably the more competent, smarter and more savvy leader, but he's also one with both the will and ability to kill me or imprison me as a citizen for opposing him.

Trump may well wish his opposition harm, I don't know, but he can't imprison people or have them killed for being Democrat voters no matter how much he wants to. Even inside the US as a foreigner, I would be able to speak my mind without fear of being carried off by state officals. Generally anyway, the recent Bush era was pretty bad on that last part.

[Arzt0zka]

I'd rather live under Trump in the US than Xi in China. Xi is probably the more competent, smarter and more savvy leader, but he's also one with both the will and ability to kill me or imprison me as a citizen for opposing him.

Trump may well wish his opposition harm, I don't know, but he can't imprison people or have them killed for being Democrat voters no matter how much he wants to. Even inside the US as a foreigner, I would be able to speak my mind without fear of being carried off by state officals. Generally anyway, the recent Bush era was pretty bad on that last part.

"I would rather live under a democratically elected, though flawed leader then a despotic tyrant who murders his political opponents and slaughters ethnic minoritys"
Who would've guessed?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The part about China not deserving to continue as a nation does sound a little bit sinophobic

How does someone mentioning China slaughtering Tibetans and Uyghers make you immediately think of "sinophobia"? It's a proven fact that they have been oppressing and replacing minorities for 60+ years and crying "sinophobe" won't change that.

These two places are great places to visit.More than 100 million people come here every year. You can buy a ticket to see the snow mountain, and then listen to the local ethnic minorities about how they were slaughtered.
Independent? It's better not to mention it to the ethnic minorities living in Tibet.They used to be Lama slaves before 1959.

[Albrenia]

I'd rather live under Trump in the US than Xi in China. Xi is probably the more competent, smarter and more savvy leader, but he's also one with both the will and ability to kill me or imprison me as a citizen for opposing him.

Trump may well wish his opposition harm, I don't know, but he can't imprison people or have them killed for being Democrat voters no matter how much he wants to. Even inside the US as a foreigner, I would be able to speak my mind without fear of being carried off by state officals. Generally anyway, the recent Bush era was pretty bad on that last part.

"I would rather live under a democratically elected, though flawed leader then a despotic tyrant who murders his political opponents and slaughters ethnic minoritys"
Who would've guessed?

I know right?

[Arzt0zka]

How does someone mentioning China slaughtering Tibetans and Uyghers make you immediately think of "sinophobia"? It's a proven fact that they have been oppressing and replacing minorities for 60+ years and crying "sinophobe" won't change that.

These two places are great places to visit.More than 100 million people come here every year. You can buy a ticket to see the snow mountain, and then listen to the local ethnic minorities about how they were slaughtered.
Independent? It's better not to mention it to the ethnic minorities living in Tibet.They used to be Lama slaves before 1959.

Ah yes, calling the people under a leader who didn't slaughter them and replace them with chinese settlers a owner of slaves while completely glossing over the fact that Mao killed 1.2 million tibetans and the fact that the ethnicity is being wiped out in western parts of Tibet. Praise Xi Jing Ping my fellow shill!

[Diahon]

I'd rather live under Trump in the US than Xi in China. Xi is probably the more competent, smarter and more savvy leader, but he's also one with both the will and ability to kill me or imprison me as a citizen for opposing him.

Trump may well wish his opposition harm, I don't know, but he can't imprison people or have them killed for being Democrat voters no matter how much he wants to. Even inside the US as a foreigner, I would be able to speak my mind without fear of being carried off by state officals. Generally anyway, the recent Bush era was pretty bad on that last part.

ew

[Arzt0zka]

I'd rather live under Trump in the US than Xi in China. Xi is probably the more competent, smarter and more savvy leader, but he's also one with both the will and ability to kill me or imprison me as a citizen for opposing him.

Trump may well wish his opposition harm, I don't know, but he can't imprison people or have them killed for being Democrat voters no matter how much he wants to. Even inside the US as a foreigner, I would be able to speak my mind without fear of being carried off by state officals. Generally anyway, the recent Bush era was pretty bad on that last part.

ew

Move to china and talk about gay rights and how evil their leader is, please do tell how it went in 20 years.

[Albrenia]

I'd rather live under Trump in the US than Xi in China. Xi is probably the more competent, smarter and more savvy leader, but he's also one with both the will and ability to kill me or imprison me as a citizen for opposing him.

Trump may well wish his opposition harm, I don't know, but he can't imprison people or have them killed for being Democrat voters no matter how much he wants to. Even inside the US as a foreigner, I would be able to speak my mind without fear of being carried off by state officals. Generally anyway, the recent Bush era was pretty bad on that last part.

ew

Hey, I hate Trump but at least the system he's in restricts him in some ways, despite the best efforts of Republicans.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

These two places are great places to visit.More than 100 million people come here every year. You can buy a ticket to see the snow mountain, and then listen to the local ethnic minorities about how they were slaughtered.
Independent? It's better not to mention it to the ethnic minorities living in Tibet.They used to be Lama slaves before 1959.

Ah yes, calling the people under a leader who didn't slaughter them and replace them with chinese settlers a owner of slaves while completely glossing over the fact that Mao killed 1.2 million tibetans and the fact that the ethnicity is being wiped out in western parts of Tibet. Praise Xi Jing Ping my fellow shill!

？？？How did the numbers change again?In Mao Zedong's time, there were no 1.2 million people in Tibet even include Han any time.

[Diahon]

ew

Hey, I hate Trump but at least the system he's in restricts him in some ways, despite the best efforts of Republicans.

all the more reason to back off both

also still ew

[Tuthina]

I guess it could be read that way. I took it more to mean the nation as ruled by the CCP, rather than an attack on the people itself. Much like Nazi Germany didn't deserve to exist as a nation, but not because it was made up of Germans.

If you use that meaning,that's fine.

I did word it specifically so that I don't mean China does not deserve to exist as a nation by itself, but rather that if the (hypothetical) idea that China can only exist as a nation if it is ruled by a despotic regime that, at best, sought to erase the identity of its minority by imposing the super-national identity of the Chinese people, prosecuting political dissidents and having sporadic outbursts of jingoism, then maybe the world would be a better place without China as a nation. I do found that idea to be questionable at best, though, considering people ruled by worse regimes have managed to eventually break the shackles of their terrible government, and there are no signs suggesting that the Chinese people are somehow fundamentally different from other people.

[Albrenia]

Hey, I hate Trump but at least the system he's in restricts him in some ways, despite the best efforts of Republicans.

all the more reason to back off both

also still ew

Both are bad, but one is much worse than the other.

[Arzt0zka]

Ah yes, calling the people under a leader who didn't slaughter them and replace them with chinese settlers a owner of slaves while completely glossing over the fact that Mao killed 1.2 million tibetans and the fact that the ethnicity is being wiped out in western parts of Tibet. Praise Xi Jing Ping my fellow shill!

？？？How did the numbers change again?In Mao Zedong's time, there were no 1.2 million people in Tibet even include Han any time.

" In 1951, Tibetan population was 2.776 million. Tibetan population is concentrated in Tibet with 2.096 million persons." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12321527/

Try harder.

[Mantesa]

I’m not saying that our current democracies are the best system of the world but I prefer our petty politicians instead of some dark bureaucrats with no legitimacy. I recommend you to take a look at “The Spirit of Law”, by Montesquieu. He proposes very interesting ideas.

I've read it roughly.But from his book, I can see his fear of the state machine everywhere.He put forward the theory of decentralization, which was obviously naive.His insistence that power would corrupt reminded me of his pessimism.
Can only emphasizing procedural justice solve the problem?In theory, people will choose the politicians they support most.In fact, people will choose the political clown who is the best at public relations

But after all, he believes that the rule principle of autocracy is fear.But in China, there is no reign of terror. That only exists in your fantasy brain.

First, he says that the perfect despotism is based on terror, but he also states that in a despotism everyone is a ”slave” of the rulers. You can claim that there’s no reign of terror in China, but for sure there’s neither virtue nor honor moving the political machine. And if there’s any illusion of “equality”, that’s because everyone is a slave of the CCP, everyone is equally worthless.

Second, Montesquieu says that a democracy should elect its officials through a raffle with complex judicial checks and balances instead of a vote, which is corruptible and is more useful for aristocracies.

Third, a fear of the state is absolutely logical, because a whole nation could become rich thanks to a benevolent despot, like Louis XIV or Augustus, but it could also get a horrible tyrant like Caligula or Mao. And the people would not have any say on that. The only possible opposition for the tyrant would be the elite, which could be easily purged by said despot. Ask Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Caligula, Sulla, Domitian, Nero, and so on

The only way to avoid a state becoming oppressive is to have its power checked by free organisms, to avoid abuses, nepotism, corruption and all the other problems of modern political systems. If all power is concentrated in the hands of a single entity, be it a Dictator or a Party, then no evil shall be purged from the state machine unless said evil directly affects the very despots.

[Diahon]

ew

Move to china and talk about gay rights and how evil their leader is, please do tell how it went in 20 years.

i'd rather call for my trusty black hole than live in either
it's quick and everyone dies, not just a few, leaving the rest to suffer

[Nakena]

If you use that meaning,that's fine.

I did word it specifically so that I don't mean China does not deserve to exist as a nation by itself, but rather that if the (hypothetical) idea that China can only exist as a nation if it is ruled by a despotic regime that, at best, sought to erase the identity of its minority by imposing the super-national identity of the Chinese people, prosecuting political dissidents and having sporadic outbursts of jingoism and racism, then maybe the world would be a better place without China as a nation. I do found that idea to be questionable at best, though, considering people ruled by worse regimes have managed to eventually break the shackles of their terrible government, and there are no signs suggesting that the Chinese people are somehow fundamentally different from other people.

Isn't Liu Zhongjing and his auntologism advocating something like that?

[Diahon]

all the more reason to back off both

also still ew

Both are bad, but one is much worse than the other.

both are still bad

i'm not required to choose which way to break my neck and so should you

[Arzt0zka]

I did word it specifically so that I don't mean China does not deserve to exist as a nation by itself, but rather that if the (hypothetical) idea that China can only exist as a nation if it is ruled by a despotic regime that, at best, sought to erase the identity of its minority by imposing the super-national identity of the Chinese people, prosecuting political dissidents and having sporadic outbursts of jingoism and racism, then maybe the world would be a better place without China as a nation. I do found that idea to be questionable at best, though, considering people ruled by worse regimes have managed to eventually break the shackles of their terrible government, and there are no signs suggesting that the Chinese people are somehow fundamentally different from other people.

Isn't Liu Zhongjing and his auntologism advocating something like that?

Yes, because china isn't chinese for the majority of their territory. You have the mongols within inner mongolia, the manchus / "jurchens" in manchuria along with older siberian peoples, you have the Uyghers in East Turkestan / Xinjiang and you have the Tibetans in Tibet, not to even mention that many of the southern most areas are vietnamese in origin along with the hui muslims and even the regional differences in ethnicity in the "han chinese" regions.

[Diahon]

I've read it roughly.But from his book, I can see his fear of the state machine everywhere.He put forward the theory of decentralization, which was obviously naive.His insistence that power would corrupt reminded me of his pessimism.
Can only emphasizing procedural justice solve the problem?In theory, people will choose the politicians they support most.In fact, people will choose the political clown who is the best at public relations

But after all, he believes that the rule principle of autocracy is fear.But in China, there is no reign of terror. That only exists in your fantasy brain.

First, he says that the perfect despotism is based on terror, but he also states that in a despotism everyone is a ”slave” of the rulers. You can claim that there’s no reign of terror in China, but for sure there’s neither virtue nor honor moving the political machine. And if there’s any illusion of “equality”, that’s because everyone is a slave of the CCP, everyone is equally worthless.

Second, Montesquieu says that a democracy should elect its officials through a raffle with complex judicial checks and balances instead of a vote, which is corruptible and is more useful for aristocracies.

Third, a fear of the state is absolutely logical, because a whole nation could become rich thanks to a benevolent despot, like Louis XIV or Augustus, but it could also get a horrible tyrant like Caligula or Mao. And the people would not have any say on that. The only possible opposition for the tyrant would be the elite, which could be easily purged by said despot. Ask Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Caligula, Sulla, Domitian, Nero, and so on

The only way to avoid a state becoming oppressive is to have its power checked by free organisms, to avoid abuses, nepotism, corruption and all the other problems of modern political systems. If all power is concentrated in the hands of a single entity, be it a Dictator or a Party, then no evil shall be purged from the state machine unless said evil directly affects the very despots.

not even then -- see monarchies throughout history

any evil that affects the populace cannot be peacefully checked through any of the safety valves featured in a functioning democracy

the only way the populace can air its grievances, then, is through violence

[Albrenia]

Both are bad, but one is much worse than the other.

both are still bad

i'm not required to choose which way to break my neck and so should you

I plan on staying in a Land Down Under. Where women glow and men plunder.

[Diahon]

both are still bad

i'm not required to choose which way to break my neck and so should you

I plan on staying in a Land Down Under. Where women glow and men plunder.

nah, move to the antipodes

i sense something wrong down under, of which scomo is but an indicator