Conquer Club

Resistance (and yes there will be) is futile. Too bad. So sad. China rules out democracy for the former British territory

The Chinese government rejected calls from democracy activists aimed at allowing Hong Kong residents to directly elect their own leadership. Beijing would be vetting any prospective candidate to first determine their suitability for office.

“The nominating committee shall nominate two to three candidates for the office of Chief Executive in accordance with democratic procedure. Each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee,” read the decision from China’s National People’s Congress.

This was, of course, to be expected. The government of total central control would never let the cancer of local democracy exist in its land. The people cannot be trusted and certainly cannot be expected to make superior decisions than that of central planning. They will be given the illusion of free will, they can choose among two or three identical puppets.

tzor wrote:They will be given the illusion of free will, they can choose among two or three identical puppets.

Are you still talking about Hong Kong here?

2dimes wrote:

tzor wrote:They will be given the illusion of free will, they can choose among two or three identical puppets.

Are you still talking about Hong Kong here?

Yes, I'm pretty sure I still am. We have a pretty good "primary" system in the Untied States, even the Democratic governor of New York has to go through a primary. People choose all the time to run for office without having to be "selected" by the central nominating committee.

Nice selective quoting. Also from the same article:

polls indicated that a majority of the city’s residents did not agree with the [pro-democracy] movement’s grievances or goals

Just like the majority of mainlanders, the majority of Hong Kongers do not want the system that Western hippies are desperate to force on them.

HK democracy is a joke in the Canadian style. All they do is bs about which rep got better insurance than they should have.

A few years back the finance minister, who left his exceedingly well paying job was ousted for buying a car before a luxury tax increase came to pass.

They spend millions arguing over pennies. One of the famous protesters was elected to office. Didn't do much of anything, instead of barging into the meetings, he walked in.

mrswdk wrote:Just like the majority of mainlanders, the majority of Hong Kongers do not want the system that Western hippies are desperate to force on them.

No I think a better lesson is that there are many times when some people do not like the goals of either side of an issue.

shickingbrits wrote:HK democracy is a joke in the Canadian style. All they do is bs about which rep got better insurance than they should have.

A few years back the finance minister, who left his exceedingly well paying job was ousted for buying a car before a luxury tax increase came to pass.

They spend millions arguing over pennies. One of the famous protesters was elected to office. Didn't do much of anything, instead of barging into the meetings, he walked in.

Is anything good in this world SB?

I'm going to save you some time and money. Blaming the world and others is usually a sign of being afraid of trying. The belief being some variation of "the world/ people in it is bad/evil so thats why i dont have what i want/ not going to try."

And energy level or attitude that constantly looks for "self-fulfilling evidence" instead of creating the opportunities to enjoy life.

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Just like the majority of mainlanders, the majority of Hong Kongers do not want the system that Western hippies are desperate to force on them.

No I think a better lesson is that there are many times when some people do not like the goals of either side of an issue.

Whatever problems you think Hong Kong and China have, they are unlikely to be solved by aping the political system of a country where elected representatives had an approval rating of 9% at the end of last year.

'There are many times when some people do not like the goals of either side' indeed!

I think we have lost mrs. Wdk to rice qnd noodles.

Go eat a piñata, 'nietzsche'.

There are many good things in the world. HK being less democratic is good, if that's what the people want.

Not many threads about the good things in the world. But I can give a few examples of good. India's thorium plant is very good. Industrial hemp being legalized is good. The expansion of 3D printing is good. The ability to freely communicate and share information is good. Permaculture is good. Passive energy is good.

Except for thorium, I am involved in these good things. On the other hand, all these things can be very bad. It depends on the platform in which these things are applied. Entire industries will disappear or be significantly diminished through the development and propagation of these technologies. The concept of scarcity will fade, wealth will take on a new meaning, punishment and reward will be redefined and the concept of community will be challenged.

The average person will have more access to resources, tools and information than ever before, and less access to the traditional idea of a job. The ability to hoard and bottleneck resources will vanish.

BBS will be forced to abandon his limited resources screed, PS will have to rethink his concept of handouts, Player will have to find new authorities to praise, Mets will have to give up on climate change, Chang won't be able to say why is God allowing this, and you will have to give up on being a pimp.

I don't expect people to embrace change of this nature though. Industrial hemp was made illegal at the time certain folks understood its potential, thorium was buried when the US and certain individuals realized the threat it posed to power, sharing information has been antithetical to democracy and capitalism. Unfortunately, I don't think people will give up their individual desires for the whole any time soon. I would hope they do.

Greed, power, oppression will all come to an end. The question is if the end will be fought against tooth and nail, or embraced and advanced.

As many have pointed out, I don't pay much attention to counter arguments. They will shortly all be invalidated. As for creating opportunities to enjoy life, it really depends on your perspective.

shickingbrits for worst new poster 2014 #greekies

That's an honor coming from you.

mrswdk wrote:Whatever problems you think Hong Kong and China have, they are unlikely to be solved by aping the political system of a country where elected representatives had an approval rating of 9% at the end of last year.

I'd never recommend anyone to adopt the current system that is in use in the United States. It needs as much reform as that of China. You also have a situation where people will not approve of their representatives and yet will either elect them back into office or not bother to go to the polls. Ironically, in a true democratic system, that is to be expected; if you won't get off your ass to vote you will be disappointed at the results.

But neither despotism or central planning work; we have plenty of history in the United States to prove this; there is plenty of history in the old Soviet Union to prove this; there is, in fact plenty of history to prove this.

shittingbricks wrote:The world is ok, I mean I would've done better but its fine. The problem lies in the evil ones. They are what's stopping the utopia from happening. If they all died, utopia will create itself, it's like entropy, you leave it alone and it happens. No, this is not reductionist. So, anyway, that's why I am not happy, I'm waiting for all this to happen so I can be happy. Why try while these people are in power? Nah. Imagine I fail, the whole story I tell myself of why I'm not good enough would fall apart. f*ck that, will cost me thousands in meds and doctors.

Fair enough.

--------

shickingbrits wrote:As many have pointed out, I don't pay much attention to counter arguments. They will shortly all be invalidated. As for creating opportunities to enjoy life, it really depends on your perspective.

I see, so you're not here for the exchange of ideas, you're here to enlighten us. Thank you.

I'm here so that you can enlighten yourselves.

shickingbrits wrote:I'm here so that you can enlighten yourselves.

Weren't you here before with a dolly the sheep avatar?

notyou2 wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:I'm here so that you can enlighten yourselves.

Weren't you here before with a dolly the sheep avatar?

Bingo.

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Whatever problems you think Hong Kong and China have, they are unlikely to be solved by aping the political system of a country where elected representatives had an approval rating of 9% at the end of last year.

I'd never recommend anyone to adopt the current system that is in use in the United States. It needs as much reform as that of China. You also have a situation where people will not approve of their representatives and yet will either elect them back into office or not bother to go to the polls. Ironically, in a true democratic system, that is to be expected; if you won't get off your ass to vote you will be disappointed at the results.

But neither despotism or central planning work; we have plenty of history in the United States to prove this; there is plenty of history in the old Soviet Union to prove this; there is, in fact plenty of history to prove this.

It depends, right? 'History' has demonstrated that socialism (state control over the means of production) is an inefficient means for creating greater prosperity, but the "mixed economies" is still being used. Much of the economic sector of the US is not owned by the state (socialist) but instead controlled by the state (very similar to fascism, which is very similar to basic progressivism). The "mixed economies" approach 'works', but then again it could ultimately result in dampening the outcomes of mutual gains from trade and innovation.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It depends, right? 'History' has demonstrated that socialism (state control over the means of production) is an inefficient means for creating greater prosperity, but the "mixed economies" is still being used. Much of the economic sector of the US is not owned by the state (socialist) but instead controlled by the state (very similar to fascism, which is very similar to basic progressivism). The "mixed economies" approach 'works', but then again it could ultimately result in dampening the outcomes of mutual gains from trade and innovation.

"Mixed" economies continue to be used, but the question should be "why?" I would argue that socialism / progressivism is like a virus (or worse a cancer) and a pretty nasty one at that, and thus cannot be completely removed from the political body. Thus all systems will become infected with it to some extent. We also need to understand the meaning of "works" because things can often work in spite of other things. Consider a 100 car freight train. If one of the wheels has the brakes on the train is not going to come to a stop because the engine can easily overcome the one pair of wheels causing friction.

tzor wrote:neither despotism or central planning work

Well I rather imagine that's why recent Chinese administrations have undertaken extensive decentralization and privatized off a lot of industry that used to be publically owned.

Just because 'they don't have the vote sob sob' doesn't mean China is the Soviet Union.

mrswdk wrote:Well I rather imagine that's why recent Chinese administrations have undertaken extensive decentralization and privatized off a lot of industry that used to be publically owned.

I will admit I have not kept track of China's transfer of public industry, so I don't know if it is more "free Market" than "crony" as was the case when the Soviet Union fell and the Oligarchs became stinking rich.

mrswdk wrote:Just because 'they don't have the vote sob sob' doesn't mean China is the Soviet Union.

No, because top/down committee approval is inferior to that "free market" of people wanting to take responsibility enough to sell themselves to the people at whole as opposed to ass-kiss a small group of power seeking bureaucrats who just want the status quo to go on forever.

No, in Russia, there isn't even the illusion of a vote. Putin directly appoints all lesser offices.

Here in this case, China is clearly better.

But it's not best.

tzor wrote:top/down committee approval is inferior to that "free market" of people wanting to take responsibility enough to sell themselves to the people at whole

So just because there's no direct voting, Chinese leaders do not have to sell themselves or their policies to 'the people'? What do you think happens when leaders are roundly rejected by the public or have serious wrongdoings of theirs exposed?

tzor wrote:a small group of power seeking bureaucrats who just want the status quo to go on forever.

The reason China has changed so much in recent years is precisely because its leaders don't want things to stay the same forever.

mrswdk wrote:

tzor wrote:neither despotism or central planning work

Well I rather imagine that's why recent Chinese administrations have undertaken extensive decentralization and privatized off a lot of industry that used to be publically owned.

Just because 'they don't have the vote sob sob' doesn't mean China is the Soviet Union.

Yeah, what's interesting is the possibility of how corruption greases the wheels of what would otherwise be more incompetent system. Corruption per se isn't a bad thing.

China's weird. It's not at all "state capitalism" because its SOEs don't dominate and are on their way out (or so it seems). The central government leaves much discretion to the provincial governments which compete with each other, using 'economic growth' as one criterion. It's an interesting system, and it seems to be working for China (excluding the 1950s to 1970s f*ck ups).

Taiwan and South Korea started as military dictatorships, became democratic enough in the 80s, and it worked out well.

India started its nation-state as a democracy that was very much socialist and stupid. It didn't help, but at least it's recently been seeing the wisdom of markets.


Many people mistaken democracy and (relatively) free markets as necessary co-dependents, but for some countries it just isn't true.