"
Why is China so obsessed to 'persuade, manage and control' its population?
Revolution. China is always ripe for revolution. It is as much of the historical and cultural mindset as the right to own guns is in the USA. It isn't the idea that the government needs to be overthrown, or that anyone wants a revolution, so much as the idea that an evil corrupt government must be overthrown and replaced with one that has the proper virtue to rule. Communism has muffled some of this cultural sense, and the government does a good job of suppressing any potential flare ups.
It is easy to make a snap judgement from the outside, but when you look at the internal dynamics and the sheer length of time and impetus that China has been around for, then what they have managed is amazing in many ways.
All potential critiques aside - look at the violence that ensued when multiple nations were destabilized over the last several years in the Middle East. Now imagine the tragedy that might ensue if China became internally unstable.
Just about every nation struggles with what and how it should change, and China is no exception. Judging them by our standards makes zero sense, because what we would try to do would completely fail there. Encouraging China to improve and nudging them is about all we can do.
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
|
Posted byDalaiLamaon Apr 21, 2018, 2:07:17 AM
|
"
"
I would not be surprised if Russia controlled most of Europe in another 50 years.
I don't know which bothers me more about that statement: The fact that it may come true, or the fact that, in light of the alternative, it may be the best future Europe can hope for, at this point. ='[.]'=
From the limited news I have seen, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic seem to be charting more of their own path as well, which is encouraging. (I might be mistaken on this assessment based on exposure)
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
|
Posted byDalaiLamaon Apr 21, 2018, 2:10:57 AM
|
|
Personally, I find that pure democracy when electing people that are gonna be handling municipalities/states/countries is just bad. It becomes a popularity contest instead of a matter of competence.
Personally, I think that only adequate candidate should be able to run for an elected position and that only informed people should be able to vote.
As for the procedure on how to accept candidate as adequate, the system would require to blur all names, photos and other means of identification and only show credentials. A different level would do the research on the candidate (with identification) so that they can verify his integrity and all but when it comes to passing the "can you present yourself or not", those that would give the ok wouldn't have the slightest idea who they are reviewing. This would (almost entirely) remove potential bias and make sure the elected person has a clue on what they are doing.
Similar feeling for the voters. They shouldn't be able to see who they are voting for. They would be allowed to read/hear what their plans are and read about their relevant background too but they wouldn't be able to know the age of the person, skin color, sex, religious belief, ethnicity background, wealth background, sexual orientation, birthplace/residential area or marital status.
Doing so would mean that the voter base HAS to get informed on the people that they want elected. The population wouldn't be able to vote for someone due to superfluous reasons such as (he looks good, he's white, he's christian, he's male, etc).
This would also drastically reduce the duration for an electoral campaign and drastically reduce the money spent for elections.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwinon Apr 21, 2018, 2:20:56 AMAlpha Member
|
"
You can have balance in a single government if there's multiple representatives that share the top level of decision making.
Right, so you’re saying that you can have balance if you have the United States Constitution.
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
|
Posted byCanHasPantson Apr 21, 2018, 2:23:41 AM
|
"
"
You can have balance in a single government if there's multiple representatives that share the top level of decision making.
Right, so you’re saying that you can have balance if you have the United States Constitution.
not at all.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwinon Apr 21, 2018, 2:27:02 AMAlpha Member
|
"
Personally, I find that pure democracy when electing people that are gonna be handling municipalities/states/countries is just bad. It becomes a popularity contest instead of a matter of competence.
Personally, I think that only adequate candidate should be able to run for an elected position and that only informed people should be able to vote.
As for the procedure on how to accept candidate as adequate, the system would require to blur all names, photos and other means of identification and only show credentials. A different level would do the research on the candidate (with identification) so that they can verify his integrity and all but when it comes to passing the "can you present yourself or not", those that would give the ok wouldn't have the slightest idea who they are reviewing. This would (almost entirely) remove potential bias and make sure the elected person has a clue on what they are doing.
Similar feeling for the voters. They shouldn't be able to see who they are voting for. They would be allowed to read/hear what their plans are and read about their relevant background too but they wouldn't be able to know the age of the person, skin color, sex, religious belief, ethnicity background, wealth background, sexual orientation, birthplace/residential area or marital status.
Doing so would mean that the voter base HAS to get informed on the people that they want elected. The population wouldn't be able to vote for someone due to superfluous reasons such as (he looks good, he's white, he's christian, he's male, etc).
This would also drastically reduce the duration for an electoral campaign and drastically reduce the money spent for elections.
Well good luck with this elsewhere. If you tried anything like this on the USA the crazy liberals would accuse you of racism.
If you worked in the the USA, and posted this publicly, under your real name, you would probably get fired cause of crazy liberals protesting.
It's a good idea, never gonna happen in the USA though.
|
Posted byKhoranthon Apr 21, 2018, 5:26:25 AM
|
|
how could it be racist? I'm explicitly suggesting a way for minorities/woman/handicapped to be able to run a campaign without the possibility of discrimination being used against them (or anyone, really).
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwinon Apr 21, 2018, 5:32:51 AMAlpha Member
|
"
Personally, I find that pure democracy when electing people that are gonna be handling municipalities/states/countries is just bad. It becomes a popularity contest instead of a matter of competence.
Personally, I think that only adequate candidate should be able to run for an elected position and that only informed people should be able to vote.
As for the procedure on how to accept candidate as adequate, the system would require to blur all names, photos and other means of identification and only show credentials. A different level would do the research on the candidate (with identification) so that they can verify his integrity and all but when it comes to passing the "can you present yourself or not", those that would give the ok wouldn't have the slightest idea who they are reviewing. This would (almost entirely) remove potential bias and make sure the elected person has a clue on what they are doing.
Similar feeling for the voters. They shouldn't be able to see who they are voting for. They would be allowed to read/hear what their plans are and read about their relevant background too but they wouldn't be able to know the age of the person, skin color, sex, religious belief, ethnicity background, wealth background, sexual orientation, birthplace/residential area or marital status.
Doing so would mean that the voter base HAS to get informed on the people that they want elected. The population wouldn't be able to vote for someone due to superfluous reasons such as (he looks good, he's white, he's christian, he's male, etc).
This would also drastically reduce the duration for an electoral campaign and drastically reduce the money spent for elections.
I would disagree. If you are selective about who get to vote and who doesn't, Democracy would lose its legitimacy. Democracy always have the potential to pick bad candidates. The best merits of Democracy isn't that it would pick the best candidate, it doesn't, but its tendency to self correct. Hopefully anyway...
|
Posted bydeathfloweron Apr 21, 2018, 6:13:55 AM
|
|
Democracy is a load of crap. It's just the same families from before using puppets and the media to rule from the shadows instead. You're all sheeple.
|
Posted byIMSilveron Apr 21, 2018, 6:18:33 AM
|
"
"
Personally, I find that pure democracy when electing people that are gonna be handling municipalities/states/countries is just bad. It becomes a popularity contest instead of a matter of competence.
Personally, I think that only adequate candidate should be able to run for an elected position and that only informed people should be able to vote.
As for the procedure on how to accept candidate as adequate, the system would require to blur all names, photos and other means of identification and only show credentials. A different level would do the research on the candidate (with identification) so that they can verify his integrity and all but when it comes to passing the "can you present yourself or not", those that would give the ok wouldn't have the slightest idea who they are reviewing. This would (almost entirely) remove potential bias and make sure the elected person has a clue on what they are doing.
Similar feeling for the voters. They shouldn't be able to see who they are voting for. They would be allowed to read/hear what their plans are and read about their relevant background too but they wouldn't be able to know the age of the person, skin color, sex, religious belief, ethnicity background, wealth background, sexual orientation, birthplace/residential area or marital status.
Doing so would mean that the voter base HAS to get informed on the people that they want elected. The population wouldn't be able to vote for someone due to superfluous reasons such as (he looks good, he's white, he's christian, he's male, etc).
This would also drastically reduce the duration for an electoral campaign and drastically reduce the money spent for elections.
I would disagree. If you are selective about who get to vote and who doesn't, Democracy would lose its legitimacy. Democracy always have the potential to pick bad candidates. The best merits of Democracy isn't that it would pick the best candidate, it doesn't, but its tendency to self correct. Hopefully anyway...
Everyone that make a bit of research and understand the positions of the candidates would be allowed to vote. It's not like there would be dozens of hours of research on each candidates would be needed, maybe 2-3 hours to make a legit opinion of each candidates. If someone isn't willing to do that much, how can you say they are qualified to vote? Otherwise, why not let childrens vote?
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwinon Apr 21, 2018, 6:26:23 AMAlpha Member
|
