China Again Blocks Move to List JeM Chief Masood Azhar as Global Terrorist by UN Security Council

[mishra]

Masood Azhar= Dalai Lama.

But Chinese can’t utter it

[Tibarn]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is all fine and dandy to say that the governments should be appraised based on the objective goals of the society. However, you should read late 19th century and early 20th century pro-democratic literature from Europe regarding WHY democracy is preferrable to dictatorships.

Except I have read pro-Democracy literature, along with the major Enlightenment philosophers from who actually seeded the key ideologies of "Classical Liberalism" including "Democracy" and they, like all philosophers, are only speculating and/or articulating their own biases.  Some of their basic assumptions underlying the entire Enlightenment, which is where this love for democracy comes from, are demonstrably false. Some of it is steeped in Christian theological concepts. There is no reason for me to accept any philosophy simply because their flowery language gives people warm feelings. 

 

Literally every philosophy in the world appeals to certain people, and those particular people find it profound/true. I have a friend who thinks the Koran is the most beautiful piece of literature/philosophy she has ever read, and she is training to become a Pharmacist. I am supposed to accept this simply because she likes what it says and it convinced her, someone already predisposed towards it, even if she will not be able to quantitatively explain why it is so beautiful? That's not going to fly.   Flowery rhetoric =/= a basis of accepting one system/ideology over another. 

 

Data and effectiveness is what matters, not rhetoric. 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I know you have a reflexive bias against Europeans and tend to throw everything those humans do in the trash or minimize their accomplishments,

This is bold is an ad hominem.

 

There has never been an instance of me demeaning actual so-called "European" accomplishments. I praise "Europeans" for what they actually do/did objectively well and trash them for what they don't/didn't. I also am not someone who groups "Europeans" as a single group: I speak of countries in Europe.  I understand that they are not a single entity which can be painted with a single brush. Asking for data/analysis over rhetoric and bold proclamations of amorphous "European exceptionalism" isn't bias, it is far closer to objectivity. More people should actually learn beyond a superficial level of what they did/do, to actually provide evidence/data/proof of what policies the "Europeans" actually used/did and what conditions actually led to their current status.  

 

It is far more accurate to say that you are far more reflexively biased in favor of Europeans without actually critically examining what they actually do and why they actually succeeded. I can give at least one example from memory as well.  You are far more likely to actually refer to them/praise them as the nebulous mass of along the lines of "Europeans"/ something similar. Again, I can give an example.  

 

I can support my claims of your bias far better than you can claims of my alleged "bias". 

Quote

but bear with me here - the main focus was the fact that democracy neuters the government from doing severe harm or something incredibly rash. The main casualty of it, is that it also hobbles the government from doing a lot of productive good. 

Again, this is empty rhetoric by those philosophers. There is no quantitative data which shows that a Democracy prevents rash actions any more than a Monarchy, a Republic, or a Dictatorship. 

 

I've seen Monarchists say that Monarchy prevents bad decisions, because the cost of failure in a Monarchy is the death of one's entire family if peasants revolt. That is similarly unsubstantiated. 

 

Even if one were to accept this basis of this theorizing, then it is also dependent on one's views what exactly is a rash decision and what isn't.

 

The flip side of the coin would be accusations of: policy paralysis and government lethargy. The easiest example of this is the Climate Change, as well as other existential issues. How exactly is it good if a government can't act on existential issues? 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Given human history and burden of evidence, we have seen over and over and over again - from India to China to Arabia to Europe- everywhere - that 90% of people in power prefer to screw the weak and helpless of their society and 10% are actually the 'enlightened, civil servants who want betterment of entire society'. 

Again, this is a made up stat and can effectively be seen as slandering countless people who also think they were doing what was "good" for society.  I don't think you will really be able to give any compelling, objective data that what you claim is/was for the "betterment of entire society" is actually better. 

 

That people have a different views on what is good or bad for society is an inherent reality. Assigning malevolence to their intentions is assuming one has the correct answers. It's a meaningless, endless argument unless one defines and agrees upon what parameters equal "betterment of entire society."

 

Without those parameters, it's just empty proclamations by various people of "what I say is better because I say so."

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Even in our history, dictatorships have yeilded extremely silly wars and loss of life - Cholas and Chalukyas fought several of their wars solely on the premise of ' the @sshole king divorced his Chola princess wife/ set aside his son from the Chalukya princess for succession' etc. We all know the Aaluddin Khilji and Padmavati. 

 

Not agreeing with those reasons for war, but war is war. Everyone thinks their war is a war for a good cause or for a good reason. There isn't really a set, universal definition of what exactly is a good reason for war. Some people would say all war is wrong, except for self-defense.  

 

Some argue war itself is profitable. 

Quote

Now compare it with wars waged by the Greek city states that were democratic or the janapadas that were democratic - hardly any such instances.

This is comparing apples to oranges, so to speak, as the Greek city-states   themselves were essentially so small that they hardly can be seen as some view on effective governance for societies many more times greater in size and scale. Athens herself was at one time a direct democracy, IIRC, which would be so difficult to implement in any even moderately sized country today.

 

Communists also cite some random communes in (Arabia iirc) which were similar to their dream societies, where everyone worked without profit, despite the fact that a small Indian village governs more people than these communes.  

 

This is also fallacious as there is the fact that small societies can hardly war for the same reasons as a large society.

 

Djibouti or North Korea, if they were to wage a war against some other country, would have to be more selective on both for what reason to go to war and who to go to war with. The US and China in comparison could wage war for a far greater range of reasons and against a greater range of opponents. 

 

All around, the Greek city-states are a non-descriptive example of human societies. 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

And this is why democracy is the best way forward - most people are @ssholes. they are in it for themselves and they will happily slit the throat of another for personal profit if they can get away with it.

I disagree, this seems more like an assumption of Original Sin, rather than anything which has a basis. Humans have different priorities and self-interests. 

Quote

Democracy is a system that mitigates the negatives of humans rulership at the expense of also neutering the positives.

Again, that's an vague, unsupported hypothesis. First one has to set the parameters: 

What aspects of Humans are positive/negative? That definition itself will come with biases. 

 

Then how does Democracy actually neuter both the positives and negatives of it?

 

Quote

Given that dictatorships have a losing track record by a landslide in the 'maniac vs rational' divide, its the best system FOR a society.

Once again this relies on what is the definition of maniac/rational, as well as what is "good for society". I'm sure what you think is good for society wouldn't necessarily be congruent with what many other people think is good for society. 

 

This is also a case of recency bias: most large governments throughout history were essentially dictatorships, if one equates dictatorship to monarchy. When the base is larger, it's easier pick more examples from it.  It's also a bias in history to look for "exceptional characters." No one reads about some unexceptional 8th century king of some Bantu tribe.  The "Era of Democracy" is the current era, and even Universal Democracy is hardly ~100 years old. There has been numerous leaders/governments in this era who have shown plenty of "irrational"/violent policies with similar/worse human costs.    

Edited March 14, 2019 by Tibarn

[FischerTal]

Indians themselves are divided, as this thread shows. Putting up an united fight against dictatorships like Pakistan and China is out of he question until all major political parties in India don’t agree on a common national security plank, which does not look to be happening in the near future. 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Except I have read pro-Democracy literature, along with the major Enlightenment philosophers from who actually seeded the key ideologies of "Classical Liberalism" including "Democracy" and they, like all philosophers, are only speculating and/or articulating their own biases.  Some of their basic assumptions underlying the entire Enlightenment, which is where this love for democracy comes from, are demonstrably false. Some of it is steeped in Christian theological concepts. There is no reason for me to accept any philosophy simply because their flowery language gives people warm feelings. 

Enlightenment literature is not the same era of late 1800s-early 1900s. I am not talking about the enlightenment era literature talking about theory of democracy and its ethics, i am talking of the literature of a later period that pointedly notes how democracy is a neutered option than the 'high risk, high reward' scenarios of dictatorships. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Data and effectiveness is what matters, not rhetoric. 

Data clearly shows that good dictators are far more rarer than bad dictators and dictators have a far bigger effect on society than democratic governments. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

This is bold is an ad hominem.

 

There has never been an instance of me demeaning actual so-called "European" accomplishments. I praise "Europeans" for what they actually do/did objectively well and trash them for what they don't/didn't.

I am yet to see actually any instances of your claim of you praising any subset of Europeans in a positive manner for anything they've done. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I also am not someone who groups "Europeans" as a single group: I speak of countries in Europe.  I understand that they are not a single entity which can be painted with a single brush. Asking for data/analysis over rhetoric and bold proclamations of amorphous "European exceptionalism" isn't bias, it is far closer to objectivity. More people should actually learn beyond a superficial level of what they did/do, to actually provide evidence/data/proof of what policies the "Europeans" actually used/did and what conditions actually led to their current status.  

It is a geographical term as well and used as such in my writings. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

It is far more accurate to say that you are far more reflexively biased in favor of Europeans without actually critically examining what they actually do and why they actually succeeded. I can give at least one example from memory as well.  You are far more likely to actually refer to them/praise them as the nebulous mass of along the lines of "Europeans"/ something similar. Again, I can give an example.  

You can give plenty of examples of me praising as well as criticizing Europeans on this website alone. I am yet to see one from you where you praise anything/contribution of the Europeans without presenting caveats like you do with our ancestors. Feel free to correct me with actual examples, as i am merely stating i havn't come across such from you, not saying you have not made such (since i don't read everything here). 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

I can support my claims of your bias far better than you can claims of my alleged "bias". 

Above is a classic example of personal observer bias. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Again, this is empty rhetoric by those philosophers. There is no quantitative data which shows that a Democracy prevents rash actions any more than a Monarchy, a Republic, or a Dictatorship. 

Show me how many democracies have waged war on the basis of the top ruler wanting to shag someone ( Alauddin) or getting irked at their family member being divorced ( Cholas) or passed up on succession order ( Chalukyas).

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

The flip side of the coin would be accusations of: policy paralysis and government lethargy. The easiest example of this is the Climate Change, as well as other existential issues. How exactly is it good if a government can't act on existential issues? 

Because a government that is paralyzed from doing harm, is also paralyzed from doing good. Since we actually have evidence of far more instances of dictatorial powers subverting entire national policy for PERSONAL wars and destruction than democracies, maybe the reality is, humanity is incapable of forming a government that can act on existential issues either way.

Ergo, logical to go for the paralyzed government than the sadistic government. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Again, this is a made up stat and can effectively be seen as slandering countless people who also think they were doing what was "good" for society.  I don't think you will really be able to give any compelling, objective data that what you claim is/was for the "betterment of entire society" is actually better. 

 

That people have a different views on what is good or bad for society is an inherent reality. Assigning malevolence to their intentions is assuming one has the correct answers. It's a meaningless, endless argument unless one defines and agrees upon what parameters equal "betterment of entire society."

Casus belli for wars is an objective parameter. Should you wish, i can compile a list historically of casus belli for war in democracies vs dictatorships and the results are abundantly clear - dictatorships are far more prone to sacrificing civillian lives for the sake of honor/gain of the elites than democracies have been. 

If we grant the notion that there is no objective parameter of 'doing good for society', perhaps we can agree that sending your people to die by the thousands in a war just because your daughter was insulted and you are the most powerful family/person in your kingdom, is by definiton, anti-patriotic and pro-plutocratic. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Without those parameters, it's just empty proclamations by various people of "what I say is better because I say so."

 

Not agreeing with those reasons for war, but war is war. Everyone thinks their war is a war for a good cause or for a good reason. There isn't really a set, universal definition of what exactly is a good reason for war. Some people would say all war is wrong, except for self-defense.  

Sure. In this hazy sliding scale of warfare, you will find that MOST people will agree, that going to war and killing thousands/altering trade networks as a consequence etc. all to mollify the honor code of the upper class, is near the bottom end for a justified war and dictatorships are chock full of such wars through human history. 

You cannot really blame it on 'different times different rules' argument, because i will cite Sparta vs Athenian policies as a direct contrast - Sparta has fought far more wars due to their king being insulted or marriage contract being broken than Athenians have in their psuedo-demcratic framework 2000+ years ago.

 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Some argue war itself is profitable. 

It is, for the very few who are in position to profit. Yet to see any evidence that it is profitable for an entire society unless decisive victory can be achieved and punitive surrender terms can be imposed. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

This is comparing apples to oranges, so to speak, as the Greek city-states   themselves were essentially so small that they hardly can be seen as some view on effective governance for societies many more times greater in size and scale. Athens herself was at one time a direct democracy, IIRC, which would be so difficult to implement in any even moderately sized country today.

Sure, but like-for-like comparisons in the Greek city-states will show that the psuedo-democratic ones are less prone to 'honor warfare', aka on the basis of egos of their elites, than the autocratic Greek city states, from the same period. 

 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Djibouti or North Korea, if they were to wage a war against some other country, would have to be more selective on both for what reason to go to war and who to go to war with. The US and China in comparison could wage war for a far greater range of reasons and against a greater range of opponents. 

This assumes that all the executors of the government are equally rational. 
An autocracy with a schizophrenic dictator has no such safeguards as you are implying with rationalism. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

I disagree, this seems more like an assumption of Original Sin, rather than anything which has a basis. Humans have different priorities and self-interests. 

No assumptions, the fact that humans in general are self serving than altruistic has plenty of objective proof in the modern day world as well as through history. The original sin comment is irrelevant, since this observation is inherently not tied to Christianity or the desert cult philosophies, as can be seen from even our own literatures sans desert cultist effects. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Again, that's an vague, unsupported hypothesis. First one has to set the parameters: 

What aspects of Humans are positive/negative? That definition itself will come with biases. 

See above in terms of proposal of agreement towards high probability of considering a 'unjustified war'. 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

This is also a case of recency bias: most large governments throughout history were essentially dictatorships, if one equates dictatorship to monarchy. When the base is larger, it's easier pick more examples from it.  It's also a bias in history to look for "exceptional characters." No one reads about some unexceptional 8th century king of some Bantu tribe.  The "Era of Democracy" is the current era, and even Universal Democracy is hardly ~100 years old. There has been numerous leaders/governments in this era who have shown plenty of "irrational"/violent policies with similar/worse human costs.    

If you claim recency bias carte blanche, i will simply counter with ' eden syndrome bias' in your case. Plenty of examples also exist of people wanting change just for change's sack and thinking the grass is greener on the other side just because they are bored with their current scenario. 

 

I have not said democratic leaders are less irrational or less violent than autocrats. I have simply stated that they have less power to affect their constituents than an autocrat and objective evidence, as well as rational quantification of the mechanics of power in either system makes this abundantly clear.

 

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, FischerTal said:

Indians themselves are divided, as this thread shows. Putting up an united fight against dictatorships like Pakistan and China is out of he question until all major political parties in India don’t agree on a common national security plank, which does not look to be happening in the near future. 

if a country of 1.3 billion people representing more than 1/7th of humanity, with 25+ major languages and cultures are NOT divided on the semantics of foreign policy, it can only mean one thing - that country has no freedom of thought or is a country of retards. 

[surajmal]

19 hours ago, beetle said:

Yeah...either vote for us or we will rule you with danda.

Sick !

This is the reason people need to vote out govts( parties) from time to time. So they don't think they have a natural right to govern.

 (more) Right people should be preferred to govern over those who are (more) wrong. Pretty straight forward reasoning. Nothing Sick about. But again, SSC lost after overseeing double digit economic growth for 3 consecutive terms. Especially astonishing since MP was literally a gangland democracy prior to his arrival. Hence, MPites ought to lose their voting cards. "Stupidity is like death. It's only painful for others". 

[Muloghonto]

36 minutes ago, surajmal said:

 (more) Right people should be preferred to govern over those who are (more) wrong.

Since you are only a member of species homo sapiens without any AI advancements made to their CNS, your idea of 'more right' is 1 outta 1.3 billion Indians. 
You don't get to tell others your idea of 'more right' is actually more right than their's just like they don't get to tell you that, either. 

36 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Pretty straight forward reasoning. Nothing Sick about. 

Commies who think they are more right than you for their flavor of dictatorship, says hello.

 

[beetle]

2 hours ago, surajmal said:

 (more) Right people should be preferred to govern over those who are (more) wrong. Pretty straight forward reasoning. Nothing Sick about. But again, SSC lost after overseeing double digit economic growth for 3 consecutive terms. Especially astonishing since MP was literally a gangland democracy prior to his arrival. Hence, MPites ought to lose their voting cards. "Stupidity is like death. It's only painful for others". 

Who gets to decide who is right snd who is wrong ?

In a democracy.....it is the people.

 

[surajmal]

8 minutes ago, beetle said:

Who gets to decide who is right snd who is wrong ?

In a democracy.....it is the people.

 

let me see - SSC is right, Digvijay and murderer Kamal nath are wrong?

Its pretty effin clear, who right and wrong are in Indian Political scenario. This is not a theoretical exercise. If 70 years of data points don't tell you what is best for you ,atleast to pick the least worst option (and what that least worst option is), then the problem is you.  

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, surajmal said:

let me see - SSC is right, Digvijay and murderer Kamal nath are wrong?

Its pretty effin clear, who right and wrong are in Indian Political scenario. This is not a theoretical exercise. If 70 years of data points don't tell you what is best for you ,atleast to pick the least worst option (and what that least worst option is), then the problem is you.  

least worst option for whom ? 1.3 billion people don't have the same linear goals. The least worse option are in power currently and they are getting the window of opportunity - to either make enough rope to hang themselves or prove that they are the least worst option. 

[surajmal]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

least worst option for whom ? 1.3 billion people don't have the same linear goals. The least worse option are in power currently and they are getting the window of opportunity - to either make enough rope to hang themselves or prove that they are the least worst option. 

You see me advocating for people who dont have "same linear goals"? 

[R!TTER]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I am not talking about Huwawei or any particular company. Most Chinese goods in the Indian market are cheap consumables - like patakaas, clothing, cookwares, toys etc. We can't just up and ban them when we are signatories to the WTO and Free Trade regulations. 

Governments trying to do so have been successfully sued in the world court systems and whether they've averted the lawsuit or succumbed to it, it still cost them millions to do so. Those millions are much better spent in creating a 'people blackballing wave'. 

 

There are other non tariff barriers, which the likes of EU & China employ. You don't have to outright ban them, if tariffs are impractical there are still ways to decrease our imports from China, but hey we want cheap Chinese sh!t so we deserve this.

 

Explain the internet market in China then - ebay/google/fb/amazon/twitter are virtually banned in the PRC, how do you suppose China gets away with that?

[surajmal]

2 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

There are other non tariff barriers, which the likes of EU & China employ. You don't have to outright ban them, if tariffs are impractical there are still ways to decrease our imports from China, but hey we want cheap Chinese sh!t so we deserve this.

 

Explain the internet market in China then - ebay/google/fb/amazon/twitter are virtually banned in the PRC, how do you suppose China gets away with that?

There is no viable alternative to Chinese goods (scale/price and even quality is acceptable now). Hence China can dictate to multinationals. China is unassailable now. Bitch all you want, Even Umrica will come around when China is sending a human mission to mars before them.  

[Tibarn]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Enlightenment literature is not the same era of late 1800s-early 1900s. I am not talking about the enlightenment era literature talking about theory of democracy and its ethics, i am talking of the literature of a later period that pointedly notes how democracy is a neutered option than the 'high risk, high reward' scenarios of dictatorships. 

Which book? 

If it doesn't actually address theory, then I expect it has actual quantitative data? If not, then what is the point of reading it if I am expected to accept more unsubstantiated observations by another random person?

That is called observer bias. 

 

My point stands, observations by biased individuals don't constitute a basis of acceptance or discarding a political system. 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Data clearly shows that good dictators are far more rarer than bad dictators and dictators have a far bigger effect on society than democratic governments.

I doubt there is no compelling data which quantifies this.  This is again observer bias. 

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I am yet to see actually any instances of your claim of you praising any subset of Europeans in a positive manner for anything they've done. 

I am yet to see one from you where you praise anything/contribution of the Europeans without presenting caveats like you do with our ancestors. Feel free to correct me with actual examples, as i am merely stating i havn't come across such from you, not saying you have not made such (since i don't read everything here). 

Shifting goalposts: my statement wasn't particular to this forum. I don't actually talk about "Europeans" on this forum, since those topics don't exist on this forum and it isn't interesting, so I doubt anyone would've seen me either praise or discredit them reflexively.

 

On cursory glance through my post history, for the Big 3 European countries (England, France, Germany). I have mentioned France a grand total of once time my entire time posting here, and Germany twice.  Out of 56 times England/UK has been mentioned 55 was in the context of Cricket. That is 4 times total for the 3 important ones.  

 

That ad hominem of supposed "reflexive bias" against Europeans is baseless and unsubstantiated.    

 

If the statement of fact that a country is developed counts, then this one praises a couple of them including Greece and Poland. 

 

 

Either way, I have no reason to discredit "Europe" or "European" countries on actual objective measures.  The key-word being objective. I am not going to praise "Europe"/"Europeans" on subjective measures.  

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Above is a classic example of personal observer bias. 

 

Personal observer bias relates to an experimental group where people see what they want to see when studying a subject.  I am neither studying you, nor your posts. Anything you post that I read is said directly to me. I neither gain anything from your being shown to be biased or nor do I lose anything if you are not shown to be biased. I also didn't preemptively level any accusations of bias against you for whatever motive.  

 

Frankly speaking, everyone has biases, accusing others of being biased while feigning neutrality is dishonest.  Pot meet kettle. I am only doing what you did when you made the baseless allegation of a supposed reflexive bias against Europe that I have. The difference is, I am openly offering to show why I consider you biased pro-"Europeans"/other over-generalized term, however, I rather cut out the useless drama from the thread.  

Quote

You can give plenty of examples of me praising as well as criticizing Europeans on this website alone.

Maybe, maybe not but I will use a derivative of your earlier statement:

I am yet to see actually any instances of your claim of you criticizing any subset of Europeans/Europeans in any non-trivial way, but I have seen you make grandiose statements regarding either Europe, regions of Europe, or countries in Europe which were sometimes bordering on apologia/propaganda for them. 

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Show me how many democracies have waged war on the basis of the top ruler wanting to shag someone ( Alauddin) or getting irked at their family member being divorced ( Cholas) or passed up on succession order ( Chalukyas).

Strawman, I never claimed that democracies ever waged war on any of those grounds. My statement was regarding the assumption on what is rash behavior.  

 

In this example, You are assuming that "wanting to shag someone" is rash, but Zoologically, this is a valid reason for war/combat, (especially since the rest of the ROPer barbarians would also get their chance to shag and wage Jihad).  As is succession and resources.  You will find them primitive barbarians, but they, if they successfully invade and conquer you, will call you all sorts of derogatory phrases(and that is the mild end of the spectrum of what they will do as you already know).  

 

In the current global political climate, a country would be condemned for going to war over, say control of a river, but that doesn't change that it was legitimate enough of a reason. That climate isn't necessarily a permanent fixture. I would say with the decline of the US and the rise of China, more such behavior would be legitimized. 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Because a government that is paralyzed from doing harm, is also paralyzed from doing good. Since we actually have evidence of far more instances of dictatorial powers subverting entire national policy for PERSONAL wars and destruction than democracies, maybe the reality is, humanity is incapable of forming a government that can act on existential issues either way.

 

This I would only agree with on the Personal Wars part. I doubt there have been many personal wars by democracies in the current democratic era.  I don't see anything compelling showing that democracies are any less destructive than dictatorships, the list of genocides, invasions, slaughtering, imperialism by democracies are abundant. 

 

I am not so sure. China has taken a number of steps which are impressive to me, which I don't think a single democratic country will take in the foreseeable future. 

Quote

Ergo, logical to go for the paralyzed government than the sadistic government.

False choice, there is no reason to assume that a non-democratic government would be sadistic, and there is no compelling, quantifiable evidence that most dictatorships/monarchies were sadistic. That is just an assumption which likely relies on confirmation bias.   

 

Even, if we accept that democracies do less harm, which isn't so, a paralyzed government isn't objectively good.  A paralyzed government could only be considered good, when they need to avoid screwing things up when they are already good. This doesn't support the idea that a poor or lower income country should accept this form of government as they need the correct policies.  Ergo it is illogical. 

 

Paralysis also hurts those who are disadvantaged by the status quo. It pretty clear that to me, that Europe and India are (expletive) by the current status quo in both regions/countries. 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Given human history and burden of evidence, we have seen over and over and over again - from India to China to Arabia to Europe- everywhere - that 90% of people in power prefer to screw the weak and helpless of their society and 10% are actually the 'enlightened, civil servants who want betterment of entire society'.

 

Again, this is a made up stat and can effectively be seen as slandering countless people who also think they were doing what was "good" for society.  I don't think you will really be able to give any compelling, objective data that what you claim is/was for the "betterment of entire society" is actually better. 

 

That people have a different views on what is good or bad for society is an inherent reality. Assigning malevolence to their intentions is assuming one has the correct answers. It's a meaningless, endless argument unless one defines and agrees upon what parameters equal "betterment of entire society."

 

Casus belli for wars is an objective parameter. Should you wish, i can compile a list historically of casus belli for war in democracies vs dictatorships and the results are abundantly clear - dictatorships are far more prone to sacrificing civillian lives for the sake of honor/gain of the elites than democracies have been. 
 

To clarify this part since it seems to be veering in another direction (your posts in black). The point of this statement was that different people have different views about what is good for society. You were claiming that these "elites" were taking actions to screw the weak and the helpless.  This isn't an objective truth, it is a Marxist reading of History/Sociology as one of class struggle ( It follows from Conflict theory of Sociology). That 90% number is, again, a made up statistic. There isn't anything compelling which suggests one should accept this reading of History/Sociology over Symbiotic-Interactionist or Functionalist theories.  

 

One could argue that literally any major decision will affect the poorest members of society. That isn't particular to a dictatorship. The big reform in the US in the 90s was NAFTA under Pres. Clinton, and the people most negatively affected by it was arguably the blue-collar working class. Similarly the "illegal immigration" issue affects the unskilled labor force, and AI will affect those target groups as well. Are we to assume maleficence for all these actions

 

 

Quote

If we grant the notion that there is no objective parameter of 'doing good for society', perhaps we can agree that sending your people to die by the thousands in a war just because your daughter was insulted and you are the most powerful family/person in your kingdom, is by definiton, anti-patriotic and pro-plutocratic.

The definition of good for society must be subjective, unless one include parameters which are shown to be objectively good. Say you and your old nemesis @Green Monster (green mogambo) are arguing for what is better for society, and the topic of Feminism comes up. How exactly are you guys going to come to an agreement on what is "doing good for society" when you guys are so far apart on the two ends on this issue, that there isn't really a middle?  In this scenario, there isn't really any hard experimental science which supports the stands on a philosophical/political issue like Feminism, one way or the other, therefore all that will be left would be seeing who has more people agreeing with their opinion or weaker forms of evidence.  

 

If we are going solely by my parameters, which again are subjective, a government must be judged by its ability to turn its country into a superpower(Economic + Military). Whichever form of government achieves that, is what is best.

 

 However, you would likely add ABC to that or subtract XYZ, while another person will add DEF and subtract VUW, etc etc... That is what makes it subjective. 

 

Bolded part: patriotism is only the: 

Quote

pa·tri·ot·ic

/ˌpātrēˈädik/

adjective

1. having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.

Thinking that a ruler has a dumb cause for a war doesn't really make the ruler unpatriotic, so long as he also has followers who think it is a patriotic duty to fight because his daughter is insulted. Patriotism doesn't necessarily depend on what some peasants think either. A country could effectively be a ruling class and a bunch of redundant interchangeable peasants who other times function as mercenaries. 

 

One could argue that most societies are anyway plutarchies,  which should especially be true for democracies. The same general people always rise to the top of societies, there is in fact a book on this subject,( which I will plug the next time I come on this forum to respond to this post because I don't have the name off the top of my head right now).    

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. In this hazy sliding scale of warfare, you will find that MOST people will agree, that going to war and killing thousands/altering trade networks as a consequence etc. all to mollify the honor code of the upper class, is near the bottom end for a justified war and dictatorships are chock full of such wars through human history. 

 

Most people agreeing on something doesn't make something objective, it just makes it popular.  Also, this is again a Marxist reading of history.

Quote

You cannot really blame it on 'different times different rules' argument, because i will cite Sparta vs Athenian policies as a direct contrast - Sparta has fought far more wars due to their king being insulted or marriage contract being broken than Athenians have in their psuedo-demcratic framework 2000+ years ago.

Sure, but like-for-like comparisons in the Greek city-states will show that the psuedo-democratic ones are less prone to 'honor warfare', aka on the basis of egos of their elites, than the autocratic Greek city states, from the same period.

I don't view things in a different times different rules sense. 

 

The Athenian example was to note that small societies don't necessarily scale to large ones. There have been all kinds of smaller societies with different rules and practices which were ultimately subsumed by more dominant methods of organization. 

 

I think you said you are a techie nowadays, so maybe you will get this reference, but think of it like Big(O) analysis of algorithms. Bubble-sort is efficient for small data-sets, but as the scale or size goes up a more efficient sorting-algorithm will be needed for those larger sets.     

 

I don't deny that democracies are less prone to "honor warfare", I deny that it is objectively bad. 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

This assumes that all the executors of the government are equally rational. 
An autocracy with a schizophrenic dictator has no such safeguards as you are implying with rationalism.

Sure, but the whole discussion is based on assumptions on democracies which aren't really substantiated as being objectively good.  

The safeguards are if another higher up would stage a coup d-etat should someone actually crazy get power. It's not like there aren't endless examples of overthrown kings/queens or government collapses. There are even peasant revolts/revolutions. 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No assumptions, the fact that humans in general are self serving than altruistic has plenty of objective proof in the modern day world as well as through history. The original sin comment is irrelevant, since this observation is inherently not tied to Christianity or the desert cult philosophies, as can be seen from even our own literatures sans desert cultist effects. 

Not really, humans aren't a monolith. There are people who will never show an iota of altruism while there will be people who display suicidal levels of altruism. This will extend to the culture-wide level. There isn't a monolithic human nature which can be generalized to make such a blanket statement.  

 

The modern arguments for democracy, particularly Universal-Liberal democracy, are derived from the Enlightenment, which has roots in Christianity (although not exclusively, there is cultural fusion with Roman and Greek philosophy). Whatever our own literature says/doesn't say doesn't really affect the roots of many of the assumptions put-forth by the Enlightenment. It also doesn't have much effect overall as India's constitution and government is a copy-paste job of the American+ British governments. 

Quote

See above in terms of proposal of agreement towards high probability of considering a 'unjustified war'.

I don't find it convincing. Even if I accept all your arguments as true, war is still only single variable in a multi-factorial analysis of governments. Some of the same arguments you make regarding the positive aspects of policy paralysis don't bode so well in the economic sphere. Then there is  

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

If you claim recency bias carte blanche, i will simply counter with ' eden syndrome bias' in your case. Plenty of examples also exist of people wanting change just for change's sack and thinking the grass is greener on the other side just because they are bored with their current scenario. 

Except I am not saying one is better than the other. I am I would accept whichever one helps reach the targeted end-goal. I have been almost exclusively arguing that most of the arguments for are just subjective statements. 

 

People who fall on the sword of democracy are actually suffering from anchoring bias: clinging to what is safe and known.  

 

The recency bias statement was more in terms of the sample size question. Pretty much every significant government in history has been some type of autocracy: Monarchy in particular in the past. Now we have the current metamorphosis of Single Party-rule and Dictatorships. The only significant "democracy" in pre-Enlightenment history is basically the Roman Republic. Otherwise all the democracies in the sample are too small to be relevant ie Athens, or are in their infant/toddler stages: like all the "3rd world" countries. The oldest active one was formed in 1776, and the first one to even remotely resemble a Universal Liberal Democracy came around ~1900. The story-book isn't even over, so one can't write a summary, especially when the character in question(democracy), has only just made their entrance. 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I have not said democratic leaders are less irrational or less violent than autocrats. I have simply stated that they have less power to affect their constituents than an autocrat and objective evidence, as well as rational quantification of the mechanics of power in either system makes this abundantly clear.

Not really. This is patently false. A Singaporean has been more free than an Indian for pretty much the entire post-Independence era. This is despite Singapore having a Single-Party system. Economic freedom is arguably the most important, impact aspect of freedom.  Many businesses in India aren't even allowed  to run 24 hours a day. Add to that the aspects of taxation, red-tape, etc. There have been so many instances of democracies directly interfering in people's day to day lives. There isn't really a leg to stand on here. Legislation is legislation, regardless of form of government. At least the argument that dictators have more potential to damage is sufficiently vague,( ie rooted in unsupported assumptions, subjective opinions,  and lacking any significant sample set of pre-modern democracies to draw conclusions from), but there is nothing that suggests a democracy can't interfere with/affect a constituent as much as a dictatorship.  That is the very basis of law itself, affecting and interfering with constituents.   

 

Aside from a law itself, there isn't really anything that can stop a democratically elected leader from directly interfering in people's lives. The power that a dictator or a president has derives from their monopoly on violence (police, military, intelligence) and whatever legal abilities they are given. The moment a law is replaced by a more favorable one supporting violence, then it suddenly becomes legal to do that violence.  That's aside from the fact that plenty circumvent laws that are on the books.  

 

 

Will see you all ICFers in a couple of weeks to write any responses 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Tibarn

[R!TTER]

20 minutes ago, surajmal said:

There is no viable alternative to Chinese goods (scale/price and even quality is acceptable now). Hence China can dictate to multinationals. China is unassailable now. Bitch all you want, Even Umrica will come around when China is sending a human mission to mars before them.  

This is not true at all, the only reason why it's unviable is because people are unwilling to pay better prices for Indian goods though they're happy to pay less for things that don't last as much. Just last year we had this talk about a bajaj desert cooler, it lasted only 1 year & the motor gave in just after the warranty. The repairman, who we know for a long time also opined that the quality of these Chinese imported products is way below par - that is not to say that China only produces sub standard stuff, but their quality products are also expensive! We had LED bulbs made in China over the first half of this decade, now you can count the number which are made in India thanks to some govt incentives & of govt procurement. China is best for economies scale, but they supply that to markets 10x bigger than India, for our own consumption we don't need them but alas people always put short term gains over long term profits. There is absolutely nothing China produces - that cannot be made in India by Indian firms, if need be we could use the JV route which China abused for decades. It will take time for sure but the erosion of our manufacturing base is all our fault, govt & the people!

 

That's where misinformation comes in, without stealing US or western tech China's nothing even today. China is 2 decades behind the US in space exploration, if not more.

Edited March 15, 2019 by R!TTER

[Muloghonto]

32 minutes ago, surajmal said:

You see me advocating for people who dont have "same linear goals"? 

Whether you advocate for them or not, you still have to accomodate them via dialogue or else its your 'best plan' vs their best plan and civil war/anarchy. Fun stuff. 

[Aiden]

Thank you China. No wonder Pak/China friendship is higher than highest himalayas & deeper than deepest sea.

[surajmal]

3 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

This is not true at all, the only reason why it's unviable is because people are unwilling to pay better prices for Indian goods though they're happy to pay less for things that don't last as much. Just last year we had this talk about a bajaj desert cooler, it lasted only 1 year & the motor gave in just after the warranty. The repairman, who we know for a long time also opined that the quality of these Chinese imported products is way below par - that is not to say that China only produces sub standard stuff, but their quality products are also expensive! We had LED bulbs made in China over the first half of this decade, now you can count the number which are made in India thanks to some govt incentives & of govt procurement. China is best for economies scale, but they supply that to markets 10x bigger than India, for our own consumption we don't need them but alas people always put short term gains over long term profits. There is absolutely nothing China produces - that cannot be made in India by Indian firms, if need be we could use the JV route which China abused for decades. It will take time for sure but the erosion of our manufacturing base is all our fault, govt & the people!

 

That's where misinformation comes in, without stealing US or western tech China's nothing even today. China is 2 decades behind the US in space exploration, if not more.

You should have stopped here. Proves my point. Cheapest always wins. China will soon catch up in high end goods as well, like Japan did. They have almost caught with mobile phones already. 

 

And get rid of the substandard stuff notion regarding China. Quality is catching up like it was predicted as local consumers in China start demanding more. 

Easy example - Chinese civil engineering is top of the heap now (has been for a decade) , bar none. 

[surajmal]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Whether you advocate for them or not, you still have to accomodate them via dialogue

No, I don't. 

 

Quote

or else its your 'best plan' vs their best plan and civil war/anarchy. Fun stuff. 

Yeah. Its coming. 

[R!TTER]

14 minutes ago, surajmal said:

You should have stopped here. Proves my point.

It doesn't prove anything, in fact your doubling down on a non sequitur proves that you don't understand the economics & politics of international trade.The most profitable phone maker in the world Apple, sells them in the range above $500 while the most profitable car makers are also making premium cars. China itself is moving up the value chain, the really low cost manufacturing is moving to India, Vietnam, Indonesia etc.

14 minutes ago, surajmal said:

And get rid of the substandard stuff notion regarding China. Quality is catching up like it was predicted as local consumers in China start demanding more. 

That's not just a notion, that's reality - China makes stuff in each & every value/quality range however their quality stiff is neither cheap nor too affordable. The only time it's possible is when the PRC subsidizes their companies, which they obviously do through various sops. What China is great at is dumping avg or below avg quality stuff at or just above break even prices.

Edited March 15, 2019 by R!TTER