Most Successful Government?

[m1469]

Recently the subject of "government" came up between my dad and me, and we discussed a little the different governments in the world.  One of the types of government we discussed a little bit more in-depth was communism, and then the differences between how the communist government worked in the Soviet Union, vs. how it works in China.

What do you think the most "successful" examples of government have been?  Why?

Do you think there's a better type than something that currently exists?

[rachfan]

Hi m1469,

In general I believe that the government that governs least governs best.  Communist governments of all stripes govern the most to the point where they rob citizens of their liberties, so those governments are of no interest to me.

David

[m1469]

Hi m1469,

In general I believe that the government that governs least governs best.  Communist governments of all stripes govern the most to the point where they rob citizens of their liberties, so those governments are of no interest to me.

David

I start to think that, even though I don't actually fully understand any government model "out there," somehow there are not actually any governments who "govern the least."  I think there are only illusions of that, and some are governing in much more subtle ways.  Subtle doesn't make it less, and in fact in some ways subtly can make the effect infinitely more potent.  

One of the characteristics of the Chinese government vs. the Soviet Union government that my Dad pointed out, was that in the Soviet government all people were treated "equally" - in that, I guess, everybody basically earned the same amount of money for whatever job they did, and so that there was no incentive to improve.  Whereas the Chinese government has a dictator but then some other body of individuals between the dictator and the people, and that the people are basically given the ability to make a profit that is unique to them and their business, and so their incentive to get better at what they do is greater.

[rachfan]

Hi m1469

I believe that it poses the question as to whether a society can be equal and excellent too.  I very highly doubt it.  An oppressive government, as most communist governments truly are, keeps everyone equal, thus wallowing in mediocrity.  Opportunities are tightly controlled--including in the arts--so that striving for improvement is largely futile for the "masses".  A free society values exceptionalism and one may strive for excellence in any sector of society and be rewarded accordingly for success.  Thus I have no desire to live in China or Russia!  

And if I think of those communist regimes, tyrants like Stalin in Russia, Mao Tse Tung in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia purged and murdered literally millions of people.  Here in the U.S. a former FBI undercover agent, Larry Grathwohl, once attended a meeting of the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers presiding. The subject was overthrowing the government and installing a communist regime. Grathwohl asked Ayers about citizens who resisted the takeover.  Ayers said that anyone not responding to reeducation would have to be liquidated, and he then estimated that approximately 25,000,000 Americans would need to be exterminated to enable the communist government to thrive.  Somehow I have a very difficult time admiring these communist tyrants and elites.

David

[jesc]

These are dangerous topics. I hope this forum will handle it well. If it does, my hat's off to the people here... seriously.

There are too many variable to consider. First the definition of a Successful Government is in order. What do you mean by a successful government? If a successful government roughly means "survivability of the government itself", that's easy to answer by looking at the hard data. Just survey the recorded history on the longest surviving government, then you're done. Truthfully, there are leaders out there who would define a successful government as the ones where you can stay in power the longest.

Another, if the meaning of a successful government is tied to progress, then hard data is also viable. For science, tabulate the discoveries of each country and the governments during those time and compare. For economic, military expansion, do the same.

Another, if you mean successful government tied to happiness of the people, then that's the difficult part and I won't even try to imagine how to answer that question. I mean, happiness is even hard to answer individually.

[m1469]

Hi m1469

I believe that it poses the question as to whether a society can be equal and excellent too.  I very highly doubt it.  An oppressive government, as most communist governments truly are, keeps everyone equal, thus wallowing in mediocrity.  Opportunities are tightly controlled--including in the arts--so that striving for improvement is largely futile for the "masses".  A free society values exceptionalism and one may strive for excellence in any sector of society and be rewarded accordingly for success.  Thus I have no desire to live in China or Russia!  

And if I think of those communist regimes, tyrants like Stalin in Russia, Mao Tse Tung in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia purged and murdered literally millions of people.  Here in the U.S. an FBI undercover agent once attended a meeting of the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers presiding. The subject was overthrowing the government and installing a communist regime.  The agent asked Ayers about citizens who resisted the takeover.  Ayers said that anyone not responding to reeducation would have to be liquidated, and he then estimated that approximately 25% of the American population would need to be exterminated to enable the communist government to thrive.  Somehow I have a very difficult time admiring these communist tyrants and elites.

David

Yes, ok, thank you for your perspective.  I think that part of what I am feeling right now is that the US government is not working.  Recently I went through a time of actual disgust with related issues, and as I said at the time I myself was included within that, but I of course don't have much perspective on other governments and the effects of those.  I do feel that we are *so* commercialized here, and that the media pushes *so* much towards us that there is a form of brain wash, even, with regards to commercialism and big, powerful companies whose tops are in the 1% that the 99% is "complaining" about.  It bothers me.  

So, I started wondering what kinds of governments DO work?  jesc, you talk about defining what it means for a government to be "successful" and, upon thinking about it, I guess I have a bit of an unrealistic idea on what that means.  If I were to be really honest about what I am wondering regarding that, I would be asking what governments promotes genuine harmony among the human race, among us and Earth, and which gives each individual the opportunity (and perhaps, in some ways, even, the means) to prosper and yes, be happy.  As well as true freedom ... freedom from greedy influences, yet within each of our opportunities to express that freedom, somehow not disturbing a harmony among us.  It seems as though one almost can't exist without the other falling.  

As I was talking with my Dad about it, he brought up the idea which the US claims to be built upon in that we each have the freedom to pursue our own lives, etc..  I thought and said that this is not true, and have, since the fall of the economy, felt as though I am stuck in one way of life and living and that there is nothing I can do about it.  Our house is upside down, and it's difficult to not feel stuck right now.  But, he reminded me that I probably wouldn't have felt that way (and I thought he was going to say something generic like "when you were younger" and I would have agreed saying that I was naive, but instead he said: ) 4 or 5 years ago, before the economy went the direction it did.  And, I realized he was right.  Our situation was, or at least felt, quite different at the time and I believed we were entering some point of having some little slice of "The American Dream" as I believe actually many people may have been thinking (with good or bad motives) ...  So I guess I can see how perspective can be shifty and how easy it can be to forget.

[m1469]

I also believe there needs to be some kind of world government, and I don't mean in the way a Mother controls her out-of-hand child.  I mean, I think our survival and even our happiness as a race is dependent upon it, where ideally goods are dispersed and shared world-wide, and where the things that each country has to share can be done so in a way that is balanced.  Similarly to how within one Nation, each individual could contribute in ways that tend towards their talents and gifts.  Yeah, I'd like to "solve World Hunger" and Ok, am I ready to give up my own paycheck to send over somewhere else?  Well, no, not exactly.  But, part of that is because I don't believe there is a program in place that would honestly truly solve the problem, and so I don't want to necessarily just toss my livelihood towards something that I don't ultimately believe in.

[fleetfingers]

But, he reminded me that I probably wouldn't have felt that way (and I thought he was going to say something generic like "when you were younger" and I would have agreed saying that I was naive, but instead he said: ) 4 or 5 years ago, before the economy went the direction it did.  And, I realized he was right.  Our situation was, or at least felt, quite different at the time and I believed we were entering some point of having some little slice of "The American Dream" as I believe actually many people may have been thinking (with good or bad motives) ...  So I guess I can see how perspective can be shifty and how easy it can be to forget.

Very wise of your dad to think of things that way. Our situation was the other way around: 4 or 5 years ago, we couldn't afford to buy a house. We were stuck for years feeling like we would never stop renting, because the home prices kept rising. And, ironically, the rent prices would rise with the houses, so we paid as much monthly as others we knew who owned their own homes. We felt like the biggest losers; everyone else had a slice of the American Dream, and we were the white trash (I know that doesn't sound nice, but we felt like people saw us that way) with four kids in a 3 bedroom subsidized apartment (and before that, my relative's basement). It was a hard and discouraging time in my life. Two years ago, we finally bought a home. The pop of the housing bubble was the best thing that could have happened to us. It's like now we can live a "real" life and not feel left in the dust anymore.

So, yeah, there are many perspectives and it depends on who you are, where you are, and what stage of life you are in. While one person hopes for growth, another person hopes the growth will slow down a little, so he can catch up.

I disagree with the idea of a world government. There should be no such organization to disperse of any nation's goods. That should be left to the nation itself (and its people) to decide. As it is, there are good people everywhere giving of their time and goods to the needy of other nations, let alone their own neighbors. It all begins with us. I just don't believe that our "happiness as a race" will ever be realized by re-organizing the powers that be. What you said last is how I feel. IF there was a government I trusted, then MAYBE I would be willing to share my livlihood. But, I'm not sure there is anyone I trust to disperse goods. Same with taxes.

[landru]

m1469 - you should read about Isaiah Berlin and "value pluralism", Wikipedia has a good write-up on it. Awhile ago I read a collection of essays by Berlin and he pretty much convinced me to say "Ich bin ein Berliner!"

Basically what I understand of his viewpoint is that government is best which allows the most discussion/conflict over what is meaningful and important for a society. Since some values are irreconcilable between different subgroups of a society, what is important is that a framework exists for compromise and recompense. Communism in theory does this through the "dialectical process", but we know how well that works when one group is in charge of that process with no recourse for those not in the group.

Modern liberal democracy (not liberal as in blue states, but liberal in terms of freely chosen) in my opinion is about the best you can get as it uses representative proxies of the various subgroups of society to hash out the compromises that keep the system going. Society as a whole is invested in this system and there is no ultimate privileged group setting the rules (in theory...) The real danger is when somebody (or some party) says they have the ultimate answer - when they get into power, run for the border or prepare your escape plan!

[Derek]

One thing I'm pretty certain of is that absolutely everyone who ponders these questions de-emphasizes the importance of how money works in their society. In the past, currency was pegged to something real like gold or silver. Now, no government sanctioned currencies are backed by real assets. What does this mean? This means whomever has control over the currency can buy anything they want, at current price, at a huge discount, simply by "printing" more currency. Who prints the currency? The government, a central bank, commercial banks via fractional reserve banking. These few have the privilege of printing new money, and thus, buying anything they want at will AT CURRENT PRICE.  The rest of us must EARN the money. As you know, buying things tends to force prices up if enough buying is going on. Who's doing the buying? The people printing the money. Thus---prices go up for those at the bottom attempting to EARN a living.

To me, the solution is simple, there are two possible solutions:

1) return to a monetary system backed by gold or silver or other hard asset, removing control over the money supply from the elites

2) institute an appropriately progressive taxation system to compensate for a correspondingly REgressive inflation tax imposed by the elites in our current system.

I have not seen a single other person, anywhere on the internet or on radio or tv or newspapers, who have arrived at these conclusions (to be fair, arrived at these conclusions TOGETHER as possible alternatives which would achieve similar results and a healthy economy). So I kind of doubt I'll hear any really thoughtful responses here either, I'll either hear talking points from the left about why yes of course it is important to have progressive taxes to punish the rich, or, talking points from the right that say why you're insane of course we should not have progressive taxes, that's redistribution of wealth.

To really understand what I'm saying, you'll have to learn how money works first. I spent months thinking about how money comes into existence and goes out of existence, how banking works, before I arrived at these conclusions. If you can't say the same for yourself, perhaps don't even bother responding to this. But, I really wish more people would. I think it would help the left and the right see eye to eye and make some real common sense changes in the world. If there's one thing I cannot stand it is a viewpoint that half of the nation are idiots based solely on political persuasion. (talking about U.S.A. specifically here, though I know the left/right dichotomy exists elsewhere as well)

[fftransform]

Sweden, Norway, Austria and Switzerland.

I.e. strongly Social democratic states.

[goldentone]

I start to think that, even though I don't actually fully understand any government model "out there," somehow there are not actually any governments who "govern the least."  I think there are only illusions of that, and some are governing in much more subtle ways.  Subtle doesn't make it less, and in fact in some ways subtly can make the effect infinitely more potent.  

It's not illusion when in some countries, if I said the name of Christ I could pay a high price, while here in America one enjoys free religious expression.  In one country you are limited to what sex of a baby you can have, and many people live under that oppression.  Clearly there are better governments and government models that lead toward the prosperity and freedom of mankind, while some governments subjugate and oppress their people.  

You said that the government isn't working right now in America, and I agree.  But that is because our current leader is working against our system, weighing it down with regulations and uncertainty, and spending money that we don't have at an unprecedented level.  The economic model he has in his mind is not what our country is based upon, as he himself has evinced:  "In order for the world economy to recover, it would require that no country have an undue advantage."  He has, incidentally, also collaborated with the U.N. to restrict religious freedom around the world.  Nonetheless, our country is great enough that we can recover from this anomalous juncture.      

[fftransform]

In one country you are limited to what sex of a baby you can have, and many people live under that oppression.

No such country exists.  This is a lie.

But that is because our current leader is working against our system, weighing it down with regulations and uncertainty, and spending money that we don't have at an unprecedented level.

This is also a lie.  The vast majority of spending under the current administration has gone toward wars that the previous administration placed this one in, as well as payment on securities interest that the previous administration sold, when it took our budget from the black into the red.  We have recovered all but 32 billion dollars from the TARP bill; this was not "free money" to anyone; the banks were on the line for the funds issued as part of TARP.  In the end, it has cost us next to nothing.  Larger payments into social security and medicare are due to the baby boomer generation retiring; it does not matter who or which party reigns.  This would be happening right now no matter what.  The only "big money" that you can possibly complain about is the extension of unemployment benefits - i.e. keeping people from becoming homeless - and the extension of the previous administration's estate tax bill, which Obama fought against.  Or perhaps you would like to see Obama's tax cuts go away; you can't have it both ways.  Lower taxes or more revenue.  If Obama allowed his tax cuts and the Bush Estate Tax cuts to expire, we would reduce the deficit by five trillion dollars over the next 10 years, taking into account our pulling out of Iraq.  As well, the Affordable Health Care Act does not cost the government money; it saves the government money within five to ten years, depending on which analyst you are talking to.  Extending the unemployment benefits is, of course, only an issue because of the ludicrous deregulation that took place during the terms of Reagan, (to a lesser extent) Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., which allowed the banks to do what they did.  You do not understand the issues well enough to hold opinions on them, and should reassess your stance after adequate reading.

He has, incidentally, also collaborated with the U.N. to restrict religious freedom around the world.

Given the track record in your post thus far, I'll just go ahead and assume that this is also a lie, but I'm not familiar with this particular conspiracy theory, so I can't really comment.

[m1469]

For a long time I didn't vote because I felt it didn't make a difference, and even if my individual vote made a difference in who became President, I felt it didn't *really* matter who was President because of bigger patterns which take place over longer periods of time, and the seeming inability for one person to make a lasting difference.  I have started voting in the last few elections, though.  

My current opinion, and in some ways part of how I've always felt subconsciously, is that the average citizen's involvement with politics is something similar to being a fan of sporting events.  People choose a side to root for and have a sense of thinking they understand the game, but there's ultimately many more decisions being made than how it appears.  In a very popular (and strategic) game like American Football, hoards of people turn out in person and watch on television, and get rather passionately involved in the plays and the calls that the refs make.  And of course, they want to see their favorite team win, and are happy to take part while being free to eat popcorn and peanuts, drink beer, hang out with friends and family, be loud and expressive and otherwise be somewhat passively involved by observation, sometimes thinking they know what needs to happen better than anybody on the field.  

To me, citizens are generally like this when it comes to politics.  They might know varying degrees of rules and regulations, they might study laws and constitutions and follow different "plays" made along the way, they might passionately root for their favorite team and fancy themselves as knowing best, happily or unhappily to whatever degree they feel they can or cannot freely munch upon the metaphorical popcorns and peanuts and beers of the way the system is enacted, banning together with friends and families when desired, but in practicality really not actually understanding the game and how its played.  I think this is the extent at which most people are willing to be "involved" and/or feel they know how to be involved.  And, I believe that is the extent at which the largest benefactors of the way a system is run, even the US government, ultimately wants us to be involved.  We believe we have certain freedoms because we can express our likes and dislikes about who we are rooting for or not in our political followings, we can have some fats of the lands while doing so, and so long as most people are passified with that, pretty much, all is good for everyone.  Those who need to play, play - those who need to watch keep on watching and rooting from the sidelines.  So long as we feel we are involved, we believe we are, which is a kind of perfect state of existence for a democracy.

But, I feel there's more to it all than that.

When I talked about world government, I didn't mean any form of dictatorship, exactly, but rather a way for countries to come together and develop the means by which we can work together in a mutually progressive way.  I still have very much to learn about the UN, but perhaps this is exactly what it's supposed to represent.  

Where I personally feel right now is that I don't want to fall for just being passified, and I don't want to form opinions or rather life-principles and values and avenues based only upon being a rooter from the sidelines, however, I currently have no desire nor plans to become an actual player in current political games.  I am just aware that there is more to it than it appears and that I don't actually understand what true involvement, even as a regular citizen, actually entails.  What does it actually take to change anything, or if not actually change anything, what does it really and actually take to truly live my life freely?

Yes, there have been varying degrees of experiences within the current economy - mine has not been what people would consider the worst and it has not been exactly easy, but so far -despite staring at it squarely in the face and bracing myself for it - we haven't actually lost what seems to be our human livelihood.  It's been a road of deep gratitudes, as well as deep letting go'es.  And, for the last 2 years or so, there hasn't been a moment where I can just settle in to thinking everything is humanly fine for us and there is nothing to worry about.  For example, I don't know if I'll get classes again at the School next semester (they have to sign up), and I can't say it would be good if I didn't, and I feel the need to continue to grow in both gratitude and in letting go of everything, yet some more.  I suppose it doesn't really hurt me, at least if I can manage it right - but sometimes it feels like it will last forever this way in a kind of state of limbo and I don't know how long I can do that for.  I think, I *think*, things are inching forward, though.

But, then I think about a man who was the father of a local family I grew up with, whose family was known to be quite wealthy.  There are a few families in the area who are something like the 1% in the US, but on a smaller scale.  They own many businesses and properties around the area.  But, this man either did lose what felt like much, or felt he would lose much through this economic change and because his perspective had been - I guess - for so long a different way, he actually committed suicide because of it.  He called his son up right before, told his son what he was going to do and to come find him so that his mother wouldn't and despite the son's pleas, upon arriving he found his Dad so that his mother wouldn't have to.

There is a lot to it and people have varying degrees of sense about what they feel they have to lose.  I find myself wanting to ask questions, though, like "Am I just settling for peanuts and popcorn and rooting for a team from the sidelines or am I actually living something more than that?"

[m1469]

It is not that I am ungrateful to have the right, as a US citizen, to live an American Dream; it is more that in a Nation full of powerful dreamers, I find myself in quandary over knowing just whose American Dream I am actually living.

[ahinton]

It is not that I am ungrateful to have the right, as a US citizen, to live an American Dream; it is more that in a Nation full of powerful dreamers, I find myself in quandary over knowing just whose American Dream I am actually living.

OK, so then don't bother; just live your own! No one else can do that.

Best,

Alistair

[m1469]

OK, so then don't bother; just live your own! No one else can do that.

Best,

Alistair

It doesn't quite work that way.  I realize that not everybody will feel quite as in between a rock and a hard place as everybody else, at this point.  We (especially me) happen to feel that way right now.  My spirit would like to be traveling the world, I'd like to freely feel I can study as much as I need, etc..  But, that doesn't feel possible.  Right now, I feel as though we are living some banker's American dream, and I think a lot of people are.  We lived some realtor's American Dream, my husband having lost his job of 12 years was a product -as far removed as it was- of somebody else's American dream.  Many people are doing this.  If it were my dream, things would be different.  

So, my American dream is not American, and that's where a trap can be.  Can a person actually dream, and live a dream, outside the constructs of everybody else's dreams around them?  I don't know.  If, for example, my dream were to "own" a house (though we are far from owning it, yet we certainly own the responsibility of paying for it), then yes, at this point, we rely on other people's dreams to help us with that.  Is there anything imaginable that is not like that?  As in, can we actually even imagine *anything* independently of what already exists?  Even very independently wealthy individuals depend upon other dreamers, but the catch is that there are ways for powerful dreamers to feed other people the types of things they should be dreaming about ... like a cheeseburger and french fries from McDonald's, for example.  Or a vacation package to Disney Land ... or an "American Dream"  .

[pianowolfi]

Schubert was a very powerful and courageous dreamer. After he had realised that his one and only goal is to compose wonderful music, he gave up on any dayjob thoughts and commitments and said basically now, dear god, you have to feed me, so sorry, I can't clean people's shoes or teach a bunch of first graders. My job is to compose wonderful music. And of course he was right. Friends who saw his potential helped him out very often. And, as he probably knew intuitively that he wasn't going to live that long, he needed to focus.

Of course I don't post this as a recipe. It's a radical position. But I admit that I admire him, and admire him again often and often...And I think so often that he was right.

[thalbergmad]

Schubert was a very powerful and courageous dreamer.

I am sure I read somewhere that he was in the habit of keeping his glasses, a pen and manuscript paper next to his bed so that if an idea came to him in the night, he could write it down immediately.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

I am sure I read somewhere that he was in the habit of keeping his glasses, a pen and manuscript paper next to his bed so that if an idea came to him in the night, he could write it down immediately.

Thal

Yes I read that too, and that he had his best inspirations in the morning shortly after waking up.

[m1469]

I like and appreciate these ideas on Schubert.  I do believe that there is a kind of Higher Orchestration in life which, when appealed to, has its very own power and direction.  

*Appeals*

*forces herself away from practicing, to go to the music store to get books for teaching*

Did you know that I'm teaching a little guitar now ... as a supplemental split lesson with piano?  Wpheee...

*racks brain for distant past*

[jesc]

Schubert was a very powerful and courageous dreamer. After he had realised that his one and only goal is to compose wonderful music, he gave up on any dayjob thoughts and commitments and said basically now, dear god, you have to feed me, so sorry, I can't clean people's shoes or teach a bunch of first graders.

Unless some miracle happens it seems like I'll never have the guts to do such.

Probably being cynical has something to do with it also... not to mention my lack of faith... and... I"ll just stop now.

[ahinton]

I am sure I read somewhere that he was in the habit of keeping his glasses, a pen and manuscript paper next to his bed so that if an idea came to him in the night, he could write it down immediately.

And likewise Elgar rarely went anywhere without his sketch book. Wise men, both of them.

Anyway, back to the topic. Some cynics might argue that the most successful government was the relatively short-lived one that recently fell in Belgium.

Best,

Alistair

[flyinfingers]

SWITZERLAND!  Minds their own business!

[ahinton]

SWITZERLAND!  Minds their own business!

I'm afraid that they're not allowed to do that as much as was once the case!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The most Successful Government in British history has to be our previous Labour government. Have a look at some of the wonderful things they did.

They took us to war based on a bunch of lies and then got involved in another one which they claimed was a war against terror. At the same time, they let 600,000 people into Britain who they knew nothing about.

They wrecked the education system by dumbing down exams and flooded Universities with students unprepared to even start their courses.

They destroyed many a sporting career by infesting our schools with "non-competitive" sports days.

They signed away billions more Pounds to the fraudsters at the European Parliament and refused the British people a referendum on transfer of powers that they had previously promised.

They allowed a massive increase of the Public sector to increase their powerbase and the creation of hundreds of well paid non jobs. They infested the private sector with endless legislation and made it almost impossible for anyone to get sacked.

They opened our borders to millions of immigrants because they could not get some of the British people to do mundane jobs. They made being on benefits an alternative lifestyle instead of a crutch for the needy and copped out of dealing with thousands of loafers as they would have lost too many votes.

I could go on for hours.

Thal
 

[ahinton]

The most Successful Government in British history has to be our previous Labour government. Have a look at some of the wonderful things they did.

They took us to war based on a bunch of lies and then got involved in another one which they claimed was a war against terror. At the same time, they let 600,000 people into Britain who they knew nothing about.

They wrecked the education system by dumbing down exams and flooded Universities with students unprepared to even start their courses.

They destroyed many a sporting career by infesting our schools with "non-competitive" sports days.

They signed away billions more Pounds to the fraudsters at the European Parliament and refused the British people a referendum on transfer of powers that they had previously promised.

They allowed a massive increase of the Public sector to increase their powerbase and the creation of hundreds of well paid non jobs. They infested the private sector with endless legislation and made it almost impossible for anyone to get sacked.

They opened our borders to millions of immigrants because they could not get some of the British people to do mundane jobs. They made being on benefits an alternative lifestyle instead of a crutch for the needy and copped out of dealing with thousands of loafers as they would have lost too many votes.

I could go on for hours.

That I do not doubt (although this, for you, is quite a lengthy post); however, rather than doing so, why not tell us about the government that you consider to be the least successful, so that we can all perceive the differences?

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

I'm afraid that they're not allowed to do that as much as was once the case!

Best,

Alistair

Yes unfortunately we have more and more politicians who bow to Brussel's bureaucrats. But I hope we can avoid the worst.

[goldentone]

No such country exists.  This is a lie.

Of course this country exists.  It is China.  It seeks to control the number of female babies born through forced abortion.  My wording was somewhat ambiguous, but only because I wasn't sure how many females they allow per family, but you should have used a little discernment before saying I was lying.

You're free to believe what you would like about our current President.  But you need to stop the lying accusations.

[flyinfingers]

Chinese!! I wear it daily and so many other aspects of my life.  If I pick up a piece of clothing and it says, Made in U.S.A., I hope that it fits even if I don't love it! What has happened to our country?  It's sad.  Everything is made in China and it's sickening to think our families migrated here for a better life to work so hard and then it goes to crap thanks to our politicians, who are a bunch of liars!  You can't believe one word out of their mouths!

[pytheamateur]

Scandavian countries: high standard of living, especially good health care, good infrastructure.

Singapore perhaps deserves a mention for its exemplary low rate of corruption, although the government has a reputation for being paternalistic, not to mention the apparent lack of freedom there.  For example, they even legislated on correct behaviour in the bedroom (one such law was only repealed in the past few years).

[fftransform]

Of course this country exists.  It is China.  It seeks to control the number of female babies born through forced abortion.  My wording was somewhat ambiguous, but only because I wasn't sure how many females they allow per family, but you should have used a little discernment before saying I was lying.

You don't understand this policy at all.  Approximately 36% of Chinese families are subject to what is called, in English, the "One-Child Policy."  Gender does not factor into this at all.  It is one child per family, if they fall into the category to which the policy applies (urban area, ethnic majority, full citizen, not in Hong Kong etc.).  Male vs. female is not part of the policy.  Some families choose to have an abortion - they choose to do this, and are in absolutely no way forced to by the government - if they find that they are pregnant with a female, because in Chinese society (and many other Asian societies), there is much less welfare for the elderly.  It is a social norm that the child cares for the parents in their old age, and men tend to earn more money than women.  They are therefore in a better position to care for their parents when the parents retire.  This preference for boys dates back for centuries and centuries, in most societies across the world.  Because Chinese society continues to rely on children to care for retired parents, it is still in effect there.  The government does not force people to have abortions based on gender.

The Chinese government does not force people to have abortions, period.  I do not want to seem misleading.  If a couple becomes pregnant with a child past their quota (a couple can apply to be permitted to have a second child, in many cases), and they proceed to have the child, then the family is fined.  There is no forced abortion.  Many provinces in China also relax the requirements; they were given the authority to do so decades ago, and couples who wish to have many children need merely move out of an urban area, if that area is not one of the few that the policy does not apply to at all.  As well, the male-to-female birth ratio is actually higher in other Asian countries which do not have population control policies.  Most scientific research on the subject concludes that the One-Child Policy has an effect on the male-to-female ratio in China, but that it is minimal, and these studies often find that it is not even statistically significant.


So maybe you weren't "lying," per se.  You were just super-ignorant and wanted to share.

[fleetfingers]

Thank you for clarifying the policy, but it only serves to strengthen goldentone's point that some governments are more oppressive than others.

[thalbergmad]

Approximately 36% of Chinese families are subject to what is called, in English, the "One-Child Policy."  

What an excellent idea. We should apply that to feckless unemployed families here in jolly old England.

Thal

[ethure]

Thank you for clarifying the policy, but it only serves to strengthen goldentone's point that some governments are more oppressive than others.

In one country you are limited to what sex of a baby you can have, and many people live under that oppression.   

If it's only about this one-child policy, you should much more mind your wording here -- 'control' is more justified and fair than 'oppressive'.

Of course this country exists.  It is China.  It seeks to control the number of female babies born through forced abortion.  My wording was somewhat ambiguous, but only because I wasn't sure how many females they allow per family, but you should have used a little discernment before saying I was lying.

a very funny post to read.

[fleetfingers]

If it's only about this one-child policy, you should much more mind your wording here -- 'control' is more justified and fair than 'oppressive'.

Oh, no, I very much meant to use the word oppressive. I even looked it up before posting to make sure it was the one I wanted to use.

[fftransform]

Thank you for clarifying the policy, but it only serves to strengthen goldentone's point that some governments are more oppressive than others.

A potential fine strengthens his statement?  The forced abortion was ok, but not fines?  Regardless of whether "oppressive" is the best word choice, your statement is still garbage.

Of course some governments are more "oppressive" than others.  What is your point?  Do you have one?  Is the One-Child Policy necessarily a bad policy?  Can you adequately defend that?  Because you can't just say that it "impedes freedom."  So does a law against rape or murder.

If you want to have a big-boy conversation, you're going to have to bring a little bit more to the table.

[fleetfingers]

My point was simply that the policy you described in your post made me sick. Perhaps, I was wrong, but it seemed like you were trying to make it sound better than a policy of forced abortions. But it didn't.

That's all I wanted to say. I have no interest in having a "big-boy" conversation with you. Sorry for getting you all riled up.

[fftransform]

My point was simply that the policy you described in your post made me sick. Perhaps, I was wrong, but it seemed like you were trying to make it sound better than a policy of forced abortions. But it didn't.

That's all I wanted to say. I have no interest in having a "big-boy" conversation with you. Sorry for getting you all riled up.

So a policy with the exact same premise, one ending in fines and the other ending in forced abortions, is better if it ends in forced abortions.  Yes, you were (and are) wrong.  If any position is sick, it's yours.

You should not use the word "interest," when you mean to say "capability."

[m1469]

Hi m1469

I believe that it poses the question as to whether a society can be equal and excellent too.

I think this is an interesting question, and even moreso given what you stated below:

I very highly doubt it.  An oppressive government, as most communist governments truly are, keeps everyone equal, thus wallowing in mediocrity.  Opportunities are tightly controlled--including in the arts--so that striving for improvement is largely futile for the "masses".  A free society values exceptionalism and one may strive for excellence in any sector of society and be rewarded accordingly for success.  Thus I have no desire to live in China or Russia!  

And if I think of those communist regimes, tyrants like Stalin in Russia, Mao Tse Tung in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia purged and murdered literally millions of people.  Here in the U.S. a former FBI undercover agent, Larry Grathwohl, once attended a meeting of the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers presiding. The subject was overthrowing the government and installing a communist regime. Grathwohl asked Ayers about citizens who resisted the takeover.  Ayers said that anyone not responding to reeducation would have to be liquidated, and he then estimated that approximately 25,000,000 Americans would need to be exterminated to enable the communist government to thrive.  Somehow I have a very difficult time admiring these communist tyrants and elites.

(...) considering the fact that China is perceived as a leading educational force in the world right now, and its rise to excellence in pure demonstrated and potential human skill, and that Russia used to be thee powerhouse to contend with in athletics and arts (as well as scientific progress, armed forces, and other areas I don't even know about) and that both of these countries have seen these kinds of traits under communistic regimes.  But, perhaps you set that up on purpose?  I also think it's interesting that the US's big claim is that of equality in the opportunity to pursue and achieve ... excellence?!    And, what grand skills have we dominated in without the aid of those individuals originating from other countries?  

The US is pianistically and musically growing in the ability to provide solid educational opportunities to students in large part because of, for one big example, the influence from Russian (or Russian-influenced) pedagogues and performers (as well as others) who have made the US their permanent residence and place of profession.  I find that interesting!  Also, from my perspective right now, in the US a person is very much still limited by being born into exactly the right circumstances of money and such in order to support a particular educational and opportunistic route to what is regarded as worldly excellence, whereas (I don't know for sure) that hasn't exactly been the case in communistic governments, where resources have been *actually* (not just "idealistically") more evenly dispersed, has it?

I've been allowing your question to reverberate for a time, largely in part because (it's interesting(!), but also because) during the last couple of years as my husband has been forced into a job change and my daily thought-patterns have been *severely* altered as a result, I've been feeling very much the need to grapple with understanding what, exactly, is governing my/our life/ves?  And, that is the core of it to me.  What is the supreme government within our lives?  

Of course, daily chores, daily routines, daily and moment by moment expressions of our sense of living might seem isolated, but that's one of the biggest challenges I've taken up in my thought-patterns.  What am I going to allow to govern how I live those daily, moment by moment experiences?  And, that's where it's a real challenge to grapple with concepts of oppression and liberty, and what those really mean.  Because it can be very easy to allow something circumstantial to be the governing force in one's daily, moment by moment life!  It can seemingly erase one's entire sense of joy, happiness, purpose.

As I've been grappling with those issues in personal ways, it's of course affected my professional outlook.  I started this post thinking I had a sole purpose of expressing one sentiment that came to me this morning as I contend with those issues before the start of my day (presumably to be filled with the mundane as well as otherworldy), and if I were to try to wrap all of that up into some package of pertinence to my life in this very moment, and to bring it home to my musical endeavors, I feel I have to at least consider the difference(s) between being a person and musician who chooses to speak to the heart of the individual, vs. the one who aims to speak to the heart of the human profession or government.  That's a very tricky seeming line, perhaps especially these days.

Perhaps that's a little over the top for here ... but, hey, I'm a passionate person  .

[tombowler]

Most Successful Government??? A government that actually dares to offer its people something new, and is not afraid to change with the world.

I really don't think we've had that here in England since the post war Attlee labour administration.