7rabbit7 wrote:
而且沒有整肅機構存在(錦衣衛)
只是不叫錦衣衛而已,
這類單位在司法不完全獨立的國家一定會存在.
共黨也不是一人說得算，
是和議制度
難不成古代帝制都是皇帝一個人說了算?
皇帝一個人怎可能管那麼多事,
咱這兒可是民主國家,
政策大小事不也是總統說了算???
個人積分：6451分
文章編號：72840273
個人積分：116分
文章編號：72840301
個人積分：0分
文章編號：72842984
我貼過來第三個問題（中國會在未來的25年內變為民主社會嗎？美國能做什麽來促進這個轉變）的最高票回答。
China has a more rational and robust form of democracy than the US right now. It can be improved in many ways, but its foundation is more solid and more central than the US. I wouldn’t worry about it. The Chinese can improve it on their own terms.
This may come as a shock to you, but American-style democracy in politics is the equivalent of Soviet-style communism in economics.
In Soviet-style communism, my laziness is equal to your diligence. My guaranteed job and pension is equal to your risk-taking. My useless busywork is equal to your efficiency and innovation. So guess what happened? Everybody wants the take, and nobody wants to do the work. So eventually everybody is poor together.
In American-style democracy, my ignorance is equal to your knowledge and experience. My irresponsibility is equal to your responsibility. My cowardice is equal to your bravery and self-dedication. My selfishness is equal to your compassion. And guess what? Everybody wants more political privilege and nobody wants any political accountability. So eventually politics degrades to your ‘bread-and-circus’ PR swindle gig to make other people pay for my benefit, and everybody is screwed.
This new crop of politicians in the West are all PR specialists / drama kings. Mr. Trump (US), Trudeau (Canada), Macron (France), Erdoğan (Turkey), Kaczyński (Poland), etc. Even the German political scene is getting more PR-centric, for crying out loud! They may be fighting like cats and dogs among themselves, but in essence, they are all cut from the same cloth. Excellent PR, lousy policy.
This should not surprise anyone. In fact, during the Cold War, Democracy was a USSR slogan, and Freedom was the US slogan. The root thinking behind Democracy is the same fundamental social concept of Equality as in Communism. Well, ideologies are like religion - they can be good and useful, but if you are too literally into it, it’ll kill you.
There is no doubt that Equality is a very good social concept, but the trick is to know what the most important equality is that will move the whole society forward, and make other types of equality easier, not harder, down the road. The Chinese, being practical and agnostic, the antithesis of ideologues, started with “the result we want to achieve”, and then walked down the path of “how to get the result we want to achieve”. Politics is treated as an applied science discipline, and the democracy is configured as the democracy of a university Physics Department.
In a Physics Department, you would pick Copernicus over the Pope, because the fact proved him right. You would pick Stephen Hawkins over Macron, because Hawkins is more brilliant, even though he can’t speak or walk, and looks ugly. You would pick Michael Faraday over Rothschild, because Faraday could contribute more to Physics, even if he was poor and uneducated. This is the result you want to achieve, the opposite of what a PR campaign will deliver, for sure. But you can not have power without corresponding capability and accountability, and to go one step deeper - the person is not important. The result and the knowledge that can be experimentally proven to be beneficial to the world, now that’s the useful bit.
So now you can see where Democracy fits into the path to achieve this result - It’s not about a PR campaign for an irresponsible vote. Instead, it’s about creating the largest pool of candidates possible for the likes of Copernicus, Hawkins, and Faraday. It’s about the liberation of the under-privileged class, so that they can all write their own equations and do their own experiments, thus contributing to physics. It’s all about EQUAL OPPORTUNITY so that everyone has a real chance to be Copernicus, Hawkins, or Faraday, if he so wish. The best minds out of a billion people should for sure be better than the best minds out of the 200 super-rich. So it’s all about safety and security for all, women’s liberation, free and ever improving education, universal basic healthcare, and openness to factual evidence, irrespective of religion or ideology - It’s about liberation, and enabling, for all, everything that’s the opposite of what competitive party politics can give you.
Who dah have thought!
But would I ever advocate for it for the US? Not in a million years! You see, this is fundamentally culturally incompatible with Individualism, the driver of American culture and economics. Under the circumstances, the smartest ones will only screw the less-endowed people the hardest, because people define “success” as “what I can achieve for myself”. Poor people deserve less education, less healthcare, less safety for themselves and their families, and more prison times for petty transgression. This is the social consensus in the US. So what do you get for putting the smartest folks in power? They’ll use their formidable intelligence to screw you out of your life and your money even more efficiently! Warren Buffett: 'My Class Has Won' And 'It's Been A Rout' The elites are already carving laws in stone to keep their elitist status in the family forever! How it got here is totally bizarre, when the original intent of individualism, as in the early American history, is that an individual should have the same dignity and freedom as anybody else!
Confucius defined Adulthood at around age 40, because by then you really know yourself, and you fully shoulder the responsibilities for your parents, your wife, and your kids. So basically, you are not Adult until you have the will and the ability to Be Responsible for Other People. That’s China, not America. That is so NOT how we define adulthood. We define adulthood as “I’m 18, I can borrow money and watch porn”, not “I’m responsible for other people’s welfare”. In the US you vote for pot if you want to smoke pot. In China you vote for pot if you want to take care of your drug-addicted father or children, so yes in the US, and like “never in your wildest dreams” in China. This is the reality one has to work with.
個人積分：7121分
文章編號：72843189
個人積分：18653分
文章編號：72844721
個人積分：116分
文章編號：72845021
個人積分：257分
文章編號：72845051
個人積分：55分
文章編號：72845519
Roc.au wrote:
大家回帖的都看樓主發的文章了嗎？先認真看看嘛。
我貼過來第三個問題（中國會在未來的25年內變為民主社會嗎？美國能做什麽來促進這個轉變）的最高票回答。
感謝17樓還轉貼第三篇討論
用谷歌翻譯下，雖然機器翻譯有點爛，大概成熟度六成五吧。
-------------------------------
中國現在擁有比美國更加理性和強大的民主形式。它可以在很多方面得到改善，但它的基礎比美國更堅實，更中心。我不擔心。中國人可以按照自己的條件進行改進。
這可能會讓你感到震驚，但美國式的政治民主相當於蘇聯式的共產主義經濟學。
在蘇聯式的共產主義中，我的懶惰等同於你的勤奮。我保證的工作和養老金等於你冒險。我無用的繁忙工作等同於你的效率和創新。那麼猜猜發生了什麼？每個人都想要這個，沒有人願意做這項工作。所以最終每個人都很窮。
在美國式民主中，我的無知與你的知識和經驗相同。我的不負責任等於你的責任。我的怯懦等於你的勇敢和自我奉獻。我的自私與你的同情相等。你猜怎麼著？每個人都想要更多的政治特權，沒有人想要任何政治責任。因此，最終政治會降低你的“麵包和馬戲團”公關詐騙演出，讓其他人為我的利益付出代價，每個人都被搞砸了。
西方的這批新政治家都是公關專家/戲劇國王。特朗普先生（美國），特魯多（加拿大），馬克龍（法國），埃爾多安（土耳其），卡欽斯基（波蘭）等。即使是德國的政治舞台也越來越以公關為中心，大聲喊叫！他們之間可能像貓狗一樣打架，但實際上，他們都是用同一塊布料剪掉的。優秀的公關，糟糕的政策。
這不應該讓任何人驚訝。事實上，在冷戰期間，民主是蘇聯的口號，自由是美國的口號。民主背後的根本思想是與共產主義相同的基本社會平等概念。嗯，意識形態就像宗教一樣 - 它們可以是好的和有用的，但是如果你太過於字面意思，它會殺了你。
毫無疑問，平等是一個非常好的社會概念，但訣竅在於知道什麼是最重要的平等將推動整個社會向前發展，並使其他類型的平等更容易，而不是更難以實現。中國人，實踐和不可知，與理論家的對立，從“我們想要實現的結果”開始，然後沿著“如何得到我們想要達到的結果”的道路走下去。政治被視為應用科學學科，民主被配置為大學物理系的民主。
在物理系，你會選擇哥白尼超過教皇，因為事實證明他是正確的。你會選擇斯蒂芬霍金斯而不是馬克龍，因為霍金斯更加出色，即使他不會說話或走路，看起來很醜陋。你會選擇邁克爾法拉第而不是羅斯柴爾德，因為法拉第可以為物理學做出更多貢獻，即使他很窮也沒有受過教育。這是您想要實現的結果，與公關活動提供的結果相反，當然。但是，如果沒有相應的能力和責任，你就無法擁有權力，而且更進一步 - 這個人並不重要。結果和知識可以通過實驗證明對世界有益，現在這是有用的。
所以現在你可以看到民主在哪裡適應實現這一結果的道路 - 這不是關於不負責任的投票的公關活動。相反，它是為哥白尼，霍金斯和法拉第等人創造最大的候選人。這是關於弱勢階級的解放，因此他們都可以編寫自己的方程並進行自己的實驗，從而為物理學做出貢獻。所有這些都是關於平等的機會所以如果他願意，每個人都有真正的機會成為哥白尼，霍金斯或法拉第。十億人中最好的人應該比200名超級富豪中最優秀的人更好。所有這些都是關於所有人的安全和保障，婦女的解放，免費和不斷改進的教育，普遍的基本醫療保健，以及對事實證據的開放，無論宗教或意識形態如何 - 這是關於解放，並為所有人提供所有與之相反的事物。競爭政黨政治可以給你什麼。
誰想到了！
但我會為美國提倡嗎？不是一百萬年！你知道，從根本上說，這與美國文化和經濟學的驅動力 - 個人主義在文化上是不相容的。在這種情況下，最聰明的人只會給那些資源不足的人帶來最大困難，因為人們把“成功”定義為“我能為自己取得的成就”。貧困人口應該得到更少的教育，更少的醫療保健，更少的自己和家人的安全，以及更多的監禁時間來進行輕微的違規行為。這是美國的社會共識。那麼，如何讓最聰明的人掌權呢？他們將利用他們強大的智慧，更有效地幫助您擺脫生活和金錢！沃倫巴菲特：'我的班級贏了'和'這是一場大戰'
個人積分：7121分
文章編號：72845843
個人積分：0分
文章編號：72845954
“大陸字典那有"民主" "獨裁"這些詞.
他們哪裡會懂·懂了肯定造反.
不過不懂有理.懂了死得快·就像六四那些人.
跟他們說.等於對牛彈琴.浪費時間.”
我大陆来的。希望能一块理性交流
大陆的确不够民主，但我认为还够不上独裁。
大陆的民主不能像台湾那样一人一票，毕竟人太多，14亿每人一票不可行。
台湾民进党和国民党两党的争斗反应在选民上已经接近1:1了，台湾2300万人口来算，也就1150万的差距。
但在大陆是7亿的差距。这么多选民如果斗争起来，那将会是灾难。
印度人口也不少，是一人一票式选举，但是印度的民主有目共睹，已经烂的不成样子。
习大大上台后，对于言论的管制很严，也消去了主席连任的限制。我本人表示反对（但反对无效）
这确实有点独裁的味道。不过，党内毕竟还有几位大佬，还存在不同派系，不至于让他无限扩张，目前来说对民众影响不大，都在静观其变吧。
我很反感大陆的GFW，因为我认为堵不如疏，由此而造成的民间的不满也已经很高了。
不过，大陆目前个人翻墙不算违法，但不允许传播。类似允许嫖，但不允许聚众淫乱的意思。
翻墙对个人的技术要求还是比较高的，因此GFW相当于一个巨大的过滤器。
不可否认，目前外网上充斥了对土共的批评，但其中很多具有抹黑的成分，对于大陆受教育程度较低以及大陆人极易被煽动的特点
外网对大陆的稳定有比较大的威胁，谁也不想无限内耗下去。所以，尽管我不喜欢GFW，但他的作用我认为还是有的。
關閉廣告