Politics 2020

[Elok]

I'm kind of puzzled by your criticizing democracy for restricting the franchise when you favor authoritarian regimes where the franchise is effectively restricted to a handful of guys in a room, some of whom may be plotting to liquidate the others.  Democracies can become more fair and open; authoritarian societies can too, by ceasing to be authoritarian.

[Bearu]

If you'll notice, my argument in favor of democracy was that it allowed for peaceful transitions of power. There are other benefits, but that might be the largest one.

But there is another very big one...

We should embrace the resurgence of authoritarianism because competent leaders in authoritarian governments have achieved spectacular results for society.

...again, spoken like someone who is veeeery certain they'll be on the side of the "competent leaders."

No problem on the remark. I did not take the response as a snide comment.

Basically my major points on the time line of history remain the class interests of the elite members of "democratic" societies precluded most people from either voting or influencing the outcome of voting in the transitions of power.

Why would your modern democratic society enable your vote significant influence on the transition of power from an election? The majority of the elections remain publicity stunts focused on the construction of an candidate's image.

Democratic voting serves as a distraction for the population from the remediation of more pressing issues in modern American society like corporations' prevalent and persistent violation of worker rights, inability for the passage of land reform, inadequate protection of worker rights from the government, absence of food guarantees, absence of guaranteed housing, absence of universal medical care, inadequate support for education, and unstable employment.

These achievements all appear in Cuba today under Cuba's international medical system and nationalized housing. China possesses better systems for uplifting impoverished citizens than the United States of America. The Soviet Union possessed propiska for the guarantee of housing for all citizens without the possibility of eviction except for willful negligence of upkeep and/or criminal activity. The rental rates I quoted for my speeches remained the average citizen of the USSR spent between 4%-12% of their net income on housing compared to the United States citizen's average of around 20-45% of net income depending on the area. The USSR

Edit: Lorizael remained correct on my desire for the authoritarian governments' ability to achieve more rapid results using different methods from democratic governments.

[Bearu]

I'm kind of puzzled by your criticizing democracy for restricting the franchise when you favor authoritarian regimes where the franchise is effectively restricted to a handful of guys in a room, some of whom may be plotting to liquidate the others.  Democracies can become more fair and open; authoritarian societies can too, by ceasing to be authoritarian.

1, What difference does an authoritarian society or democratic society make if both restrict transitions of power through voting? Democracies indirectly manipulate people's votes under the influence of government systems like the Electoral College, gerrymandering, or advertising while the authoritarian societies rig elections for specific candidates and enable a small pool of possible candidates.
2. Democracies never possess the power for the rapid introduction of necessary changes for the resolution of society's problems, and authoritarian governments possess that power.

I don't mean that as a snide remark. I mean that as an important criticism of authoritarianism. When people favor dictatorship/autocracy/whatever, they're mostly favoring the ability to get things done. Like episode 2 Anakin flirting with Padme/tyranny.

But the thing is, when you empower the state to control people's lives absolutely, your good intentions and competency don't mean squat if you lose power and someone less good and less competent gains it. Then you've just given terrible people the power to do terrible things and say every bit of it was "legal." And if you decide the solution is to just do whatever it takes to maintain power, then, well... you end up being the terrible person doing terrible things, because you're no longer trying to use your power to help people.

The same process occurs inside the United States of America where a small number of groups control the passage of legislation and enter into Congress with minimal representation of the people's actual interests. The political scientists call it the Iron Triangle.
The current American Congress possesses only a small handful of non millionaires and elite people. I would take the risk of a horrible leader gaining power after a great leader over a lifetime of mediocre leadership from a democratically elected system.

edit: We already have horrible people in power, so the horrible people maintain control in Congress through political manipulation under the name of legal technicalities. Only egregious cases of corruption receive prosecution.

[E_T]

I'm guessing that you didn't even watch the program (and if you did, not with an open mind to the possibility that it could even be close to factually correct, requiring you to rethink some of your positions..).

[Lorizael]

To be fair the prequels are bad.

[Bearu]

I'm guessing that you didn't even watch the program (and if you did, not with an open mind to the possibility that it could even be close to factually correct, requiring you to rethink some of your positions..).

I will admit I did not watch the videos until now. I have now watched both videos. I admit the similarities between my position and man in the first video. I had to think how to phrase a response.
I have said I would not want to work as the figurehead of a new movement because my personality clashes with the demands of such a position. I would want to remain below the main figures if possible. I still support discussion of issues because the collection of new information remains an essential tool for effective leadership. American democracy fails in those metrics.
The process also reminds me of mass line. Mass line remains another tool where the leadership requires discussion of an issue until the group majority votes on an issue and reaches a majority consensus. After that point, everyone follows the agreed consensus.
The second video implies violence results from negative emotions towards others. I cannot agree with the sentiment of the second video. I still stand by original stance in the previous post. Often times the videos portray issues in bipolar oppositions. These bipolar opposition hinders the gray area of character motivations.

edit: Clarity and decency.

[E_T]

So, in less than a 1/2 hour, you watched one program that is 54 minutes, 22 seconds of run time and something else as well, then composed your reply and then edited it for "Clarity and decency".  Dang, I wish I could compress time as effectively as you do, I could play much more Factorial than I currently have been doing of late AND do everything else I would like to do with all of that additional time...

[Lorizael]

This is just beautiful. I am so glad to have been a part of it.

[Bearu]

So, in less than a 1/2 hour, you watched one program that is 54 minutes, 22 seconds of run time and something else as well, then composed your reply and then edited it for "Clarity and decency".  Dang, I wish I could compress time as effectively as you do, I could play much more Factorial than I currently have been doing of late AND do everything else I would like to do with all of that additional time...

Do you mean the PBS Front line series on the Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang? If you do mean the PBS series, I sincerely apologize for the inconsistency. I thought you referred to the star wars videos.
I have seen, read, and heard the footage and allegations on China Daily news, a vlogger from China, and other sources before now. The media started reporting on this issue almost 2 years ago. I will need more time to take in the specifics of PBS.

[Elok]

Just a note that it is possible to play YouTube videos at accelerated speeds; I often do, when it's a video of somebody long-winded lecturing.

Anyway, Bearu is correct that communist and otherwise authoritarian governments are better at getting dramatic things done quickly, because there are fewer checks and balances in the way of one or two guys saying, "hey, let's do this."  The only problem being that, in the absence of those checks and balances--in combination with a culture where administrators are terrified of admitting failure or criticizing leadership--a lot of those dramatic things wind up being dramatically stupid.  Such as "let's kill all the sparrows" or "we'll have a new industrial revolution by having peasants operate backyard smelters" or "this one guy says Darwin is wrong and that sounds anti-capitalist so let's overthrow all accepted agricultural practice" or "people with glasses are necessarily corrupt and Western so let's kill them."  If need be, democratic and capitalist societies are capable of rapid performance; the US barely had an army when we entered WWII, and by the end we were basically drowning Hitler in tanks.  Also, race to the moon.

[E_T]

Or using Light internally or injecting bleach to help with the virus...

[Bearu]

Just a note that it is possible to play YouTube videos at accelerated speeds; I often do, when it's a video of somebody long-winded lecturing.

Anyway, Bearu is correct that communist and otherwise authoritarian governments are better at getting dramatic things done quickly, because there are fewer checks and balances in the way of one or two guys saying, "hey, let's do this."  The only problem being that, in the absence of those checks and balances--in combination with a culture where administrators are terrified of admitting failure or criticizing leadership--a lot of those dramatic things wind up being dramatically stupid.  Such as "let's kill all the sparrows" or "we'll have a new industrial revolution by having peasants operate backyard smelters" or "this one guy says Darwin is wrong and that sounds anti-capitalist so let's overthrow all accepted agricultural practice" or "people with glasses are necessarily corrupt and Western so let's kill them."  If need be, democratic and capitalist societies are capable of rapid performance; the US barely had an army when we entered WWII, and by the end we were basically drowning Hitler in tanks.  Also, race to the moon.

I agree with your analysis on the stupidity of Chairman Mao's promotion of backyard furnaces and killing sparrows in the Great Leap Forward of 1956-1958. I also agree on the foolishness of the Soviet Union's advocacy of the Lysenkoism in the USSR and refusal for the adoption of cybernetics until later than the United States of America. Hitler lost World War II partially from a lack of coordination between Japan and Germany on military efforts. If Japan and Germany coordinated military production and military movement, then Japan and Germany might have won the war.

The United States of Franklin Roosevelt implemented authoritarian planning measures under the War Planning Office, War Production Board, and other relief measures. These programs expanded the American central government more than any other president. Presently, I suspect certain American Republicans desire a removal of FDR's expansion of policy positions on Social Security and Medicare. The only reason these people refrain from enacting those policies remains the outrage from their  older constituents.

However, Mao also implemented some interesting and effective policies like the Bare Foot Doctor policies from the 1940s to the end of Mao's life for the removal of the discrepancy in quality and access to the medical care between rural and urban areas of China for a mere fraction of the cost of the medical systems seen in the United States of America or Europe. Cuba's equivalent of Maoist China's medical system provides better access to medical care today per unit of cost for the citizens than the United States of America. China, the USSR, and other socialist countries provided guaranteed housing for workers under the resident permit systems with lower rates of consumption at around 4-11% of net income. Stalin in the 1920s and 1930s industrialized Russia in about 15 years for World War II through the multiple factors of increase in steel production and output of coal energy production.

Conservative authoritarian governments like Prussia and Germany under Otto Von Bismarck expanded universal education, universal health care for the German population, and worker protections in the 1870s through the 1890s before healthcare and worker protections existed in most countries.

My point remains the potential changes for positive from an authoritarian government brings about innovations unseen in democratic societies. The variability of policy shifts from extremely positive to extremely negative in authoritarian governments versus the more reformist policies seen in democracies where the reform policies never completely address the underlying issues.

[Lorizael]

To return somewhat to the thread topic...

I view [Sleezebag] as basically a prank caller in the oval office, little different than leaving it vacant.

I think our present crisis should be evidence enough that nobody home at the White House is dangerous and unacceptable. There's plenty of blame to go around in the bureaucratic morass of the FDA and CDC, but a president who hadn't ignored the dire warnings in his daily briefings for months could have provided critical leadership at the beginning. Instead, we have ~70,000 dead and 2,000 more dying each day and no clear plan of how to get through this, because [Sleezebag]'s thorough incompetence squandered the extra time we bought by quarantining. However unenthusiastic I am about Biden, I am very confident he (and the people he appointed) would have done better, where better means a lot fewer dead people.

[Bearu]

I think our present crisis should be evidence enough that nobody home at the White House is dangerous and unacceptable. There's plenty of blame to go around in the bureaucratic morass of the FDA and CDC, but a president who hadn't ignored the dire warnings in his daily briefings for months could have provided critical leadership at the beginning. Instead, we have ~70,000 dead and 2,000 more dying each day and no clear plan of how to get through this, because [Sleezebag]'s thorough incompetence squandered the extra time we bought by quarantining. However unenthusiastic I am about Biden, I am very confident he (and the people he appointed) would have done better, where better means a lot fewer dead people.

I think this defines a dangerous person because the gross incompetence of Donald [Sleezebag] directly resulted in the death of people. In most other positions, someone might have charged Donald [Sleezebag] for gross negligence resulting in death.
I suspect American historians in the next thirty years will rate Donald [Sleezebag] with other poor presidents like Herbert Hoover.

[Elok]

To return somewhat to the thread topic...

I view [Sleezebag] as basically a prank caller in the oval office, little different than leaving it vacant.

I think our present crisis should be evidence enough that nobody home at the White House is dangerous and unacceptable. There's plenty of blame to go around in the bureaucratic morass of the FDA and CDC, but a president who hadn't ignored the dire warnings in his daily briefings for months could have provided critical leadership at the beginning. Instead, we have ~70,000 dead and 2,000 more dying each day and no clear plan of how to get through this, because [Sleezebag]'s thorough incompetence squandered the extra time we bought by quarantining. However unenthusiastic I am about Biden, I am very confident he (and the people he appointed) would have done better, where better means a lot fewer dead people.

I suspect the final result would not be much better with Biden in charge, for the simple reason that Trumpists will outlast [Sleezebag], and any attempt at discipline imposed by a Blue president will be met with enormous and irrational hostility, and broad refusal to comply.  They certainly wouldn't have gone along with anything Hillary said to do, after three years butting heads with her.  I'm also unsure how much good a different president could have done given how prolific this little bugger is, and how hard a time we're having learning about it.  The main benefit of delay, that I can see, is that we're starting to get a better handle on how to treat it--but we only got there by massive trial and error on a huge group of patients, so ...
In the abstract, yes, it's better to have a president whose head is not entirely up his own rectum in a crisis.  I only question how big a difference we would see in practice.