The economic sucess is not an excuse for the lack of democracy. We saw that in some South America countries.

A little beat of more freedom in China would not endanger the pace of economic improvment

Freedom, yes. Democracy, no. Democracy will ruin China, just as it has ruined Europe. Democracy is in essence the right of the majority to set aside the rights of the minority. In practice, taxes, socialism, and bureaucracy will be the results. All of those are antithetical to freedom and thus antithetical to economic growth. What China needs, and all other countries for that matter, is a strong constitution, where rights are laid down, and not laid open to modification by any given majority. It also needs a strong an impartial judiciary and a strong and small government. China is on its road to all of these, but not on the road to European-style, multi-party democracy, luckily.

Igor, you are wrong, there is not freedom without democracy. Do you agree that in China, if you give your point of view, you can be arrested and send to Laogai without even a trial, just a police decision. During this time, you are free on Asia Observer to make the apologia of Chinese dictature. Its more easy for you than for Chineses looking for freedom

: Igor, you are wrong, there is not freedom
: without democracy.

We shall just have to disagree on this, then. In my eyes there can be no freedom as long as there is democracy.

: Do you agree that in China, if you give your point
: of view, you can be arrested and send to
: Laogai without even a trial, just a police decision.

Certainly not by a decision of the ordinary police. This would have to involve a decision by branches assigned to evaluate state security. To answer your question, yes, you are right, there are laws in effect in China that circumvent the rule of law under special situations. It is certainly something we would like to see amended.

May we return to democracy versus freedom for a moment. Would you agree with me that democracy invariably leads to an expansion of the public sector? Is there any occurence of a democracy where this is not happening?<br><br>Post edited by: Igor, at: 2007/04/28 15:54

No, Igor, there are no link between democracy and enlargment of public sector. For instance, in my country, we are next sunday to vote to elect your president.

The rightist want to cut the State employees number by to and the leftist rise their number. All that in the same democracy.

China, that is not a democracy has the most percentage of States employees in the world.

very interesting topic and discussions,
i wanted to give my two cents opinion
about democracy, although i adhere to
democratic ideals i have to admit that
democracy is the most difficult
form of government in the sense that
it has the essence of the right
of the majority to set aside the rights
of the minority as what Igor stated.

What is sick about the matter is,
the powerful and influential takes
the majority and rule all.

Democracy ruined USSR, and now in the Philippines
it is so much abused, they donot even know
what the real meaning of democracy and freedom
entails.

Therefore, Democracy in one nation,
is not applicable to another. we may enjoy the
benefits of democracy in our own terms
but when manhandled it could lead to chaos
and distructions because man is never satisfied.

donot misinterpret what i posted
it is for the sake of discussions that we
disect democracy when it comes to china.

we just hope and aim for an objective
approach to our differences and at least
arrive to the most at least if not compromise.

from Igor:
We shall just have to disagree on this, then. In my eyes there can be no freedom as long as there is democracy.


perhaps for the sake of all readers, can you please expound the price of freedom in terms of democracy?

Freedom was given to man, but man destroyed freedom.

therefore freedom has a price.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

JOHN ADAMS

: No, Igor, there are no link between democracy
: and enlargment of public sector. For instance, in
: my country, we are next sunday to vote to elect
: your president.

That connection is well-known and well-documented. You may well look at the figures for your own country since common suffrage was introduced. You may look at the number of persons employed by the three public sectors in France, which are the state, the municipality and the health services, or you may look at a simple figure as the VAT rate. When was VAT introduced in France? What was the percentage then? What is it now? There is an abundance of evidence pointing at a continuing enlargement of the public sector in France. In other countries the tendency is even more striking.

: China, that is not a democracy has the most
: percentage of States employees in the world.

Yes, but look at the tendency! Government businesses are being sold or closed down en masse!

To Linsi:

: perhaps for the sake of all readers, can you
: please expound the price of freedom in terms
: of democracy?

I believe the two are two different things. Freedom is safeguarded through constitutional rights. One has the right to work, to relocate, to engage in peaceful ativities, to express oneself. There are no rights that can be voted over. Rights should be immovable, rock solid.

I believe the inhabitants in a block of flats should have the opportunity to vote over which colour to paint that house in. I do not believe the citizens in a country should have the opportunity to vote to elect who runs that country. We have some nasty examples of what the latter results in: We have the German historical experience (I do not need to name it) and more recently a retard with a history of substance abuse has been elected and then reelected as a president of the largest military power in the world.

Instead I believe the leaders of a nation should qualify themselves through elitist organisations, public service or private enterprise, proving themselves able to govern, gradually moving from a lower position and upwards.

Elected leaders are rarely statesmen, but frequently corrupt and invariably populist.

To Igor,
One more time your are wrong.

It's OK that elected leaders are not always the better and you give a good exemple. But, following your way of qualification for the leaders of a nation, you got Staline.

You admire Chinese regime, but following your definition of freedom, the Chineses have not the right to relocate neither to express themselves. There, these rignhts are not immovable, rock solid as you said.