A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The first thing that strikes me from this article is this laughable, and needless statistic:

• In fact the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections were deeply flawed. 42 percent of the electorate did not show up.

That's down 42 percentage points from when Saddam was in power, though.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Perhaps the sole example of a benevolent despot?

Have any of you guys ever been to Singapore? To compare Singapore to countries with rigged elections is absurd. The ballots are secret and there are multiple partys. I lived in Tokyo for three years and spent a great deal of time in Singapore. The two are not very different. In Japan, someone can be held without any reason by the police for thirty days. Then what they do is let the person go and when they leave the police grounds they grab the person again and hold them for another thirty days. People spend years in Jail under this system. Prosecutors have a 99% prosecution rate. And this ain't because of plea bargaining and deciding not to prosecute. There are no juries, and almost all the judges are former prosecutors. If a person is convicted of a capital crime, they disappear into the system. No one can meet with them and the date of the execution is kept secret. When the system decides to execute, they are executed in secret and then the family is notified to pick up the body.

If you ask the Japanese about this system, they all defend it. I never met one Japanes citizen who thought their system should be more like the U.S. They will tell you there is little crime in Japan and so their legal system is much better than ours. It is the same thing in Singapore. I used to complain to singaporeans all the time about their legal system. How can you execute someone for a few joints? I would talk to kids and they would all tell me that they don't want to become a toxic waste dump like the U.S. When I told them many people in the US think drugs should be legal, they looked at me as though I must be insane. All the western lawyers and bankers that work in Singapore that I know all had the same experience. They were hard pressed to find a Singaporean, in or out of the country, who didn't like their government and their system. They all supported the government. And this was not because they were afraid. They were all just brainwashed.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Have any of you guys ever been to Singapore? To compare Singapore to countries with rigged elections is absurd. The ballots are secret and there are multiple partys. I lived in Tokyo for three years and spent a great deal of time in Singapore. The two are not very different. In Japan, someone can be held without any reason by the police for thirty days. Then what they do is let the person go and when they leave the police grounds they grab the person again and hold them for another thirty days. People spend years in Jail under this system. Prosecutors have a 99% prosecution rate. And this ain't because of plea bargaining and deciding not to prosecute. There are no juries, and almost all the judges are former prosecutors. If a person is convicted of a capital crime, they disappear into the system. No one can meet with them and the date of the execution is kept secret. When the system decides to execute, they are executed in secret and then the family is notified to pick up the body.

If you ask the Japanese about this system, they all defend it. I never met one Japanes citizen who thought their system should be more like the U.S. They will tell you there is little crime in Japan and so their legal system is much better than ours. It is the same thing in Singapore. I used to complain to singaporeans all the time about their legal system. How can you execute someone for a few joints? I would talk to kids and they would all tell me that they don't want to become a toxic waste dump like the U.S. When I told them many people in the US think drugs should be legal, they looked at me as though I must be insane. All the western lawyers and bankers that work in Singapore that I know all had the same experience. They were hard pressed to find a Singaporean, in or out of the country, who didn't like their government and their system. They all supported the government. And this was not because they were afraid. They were all just brainwashed.

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm confused about your point. Are you saying the highest form of social order is the benevolent despotic regime with a free market economy and free elections that ratify the existing regime? Or do you view them (Singapore, Japan) as currently at a transition state to an ideal balance of free market economy/free elections/individual liberties?

What's the ideal formulation of individual liberties in a democracy?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Nice idea in theory but totally untrue. That is why I like to use the per capita income stats.

Nice idea in theory but totally useless. If you want to even begin to approach accuracy, you have to consider income distribution. There's a reason why Thailand's peasants sell their 11 year old daughters to brothel owners in Bangkok and Phuket, and it isn't because it's good for tourism.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Have any of you guys ever been to Singapore? . . .They were all just brainwashed.

I have, and have thought about the system extensively (well, at least more than 5 minutes). It has its advantages, but it by no means constitutes a democracy in the sense we use the word here. Yes, people can vote. Yes, generally they are happy with teh way the government runs. But, no, single-party rule that is ensured in the ways that it is in Singapore is not true democracy--there are simply too many speech restrictions and limitations on ballot access that limit the degree to which it can fairly be called democratic. Yes, it's better than a lot of places, but it has a way to go.

I'll also hit some Poli* Sci 101: If it were a true democracy, why would single party rule continue? Equilibrium in true democracies generally results in an even distribution of seats across parties (the equilibrium number of parties depends on the nature of the electoral system), as parties move to capture a majority. I don't believe that Singapore has been so far from equilibrium for its entire existence--rather, something is preventing the fractioning of the PAP into "liberal" and "conservative" wings--namely, extra-democratic party discipline.

* please note that it is Poli with an "i" not a "y" -- it is not the study of multiple sciences.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I know I shouldn't be, but I'm confused about your point. Are you saying the highest form of social order is the benevolent despotic regime with a free market economy and free elections that ratify the existing regime? Or do you view them (Singapore, Japan) as currently at a transition state to an ideal balance of free market economy/free elections/individual liberties?

What's the ideal formulation of individual liberties in a democracy?

No, we should invade Iran to foster the flowering of democracy in places like Singapore and Japan. Keep up, dunce.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
No, we should invade Iran to foster the flowering of democracy in places like Singapore and Japan. Keep up, dunce.

Fine with me. I don't have very many draft age relatives.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I know I shouldn't be, but I'm confused about your point. Are you saying the highest form of social order is the benevolent despotic regime with a free market economy and free elections that ratify the existing regime? Or do you view them (Singapore, Japan) as currently at a transition state to an ideal balance of free market economy/free elections/individual liberties?

What's the ideal formulation of individual liberties in a democracy?

I have not been posulating at all about the perfect system or the perfect social order. I am simply saying:

1) Free markets lead to prosperity that leads to democracy

2) closed markets do not lead to prosperity allowing dictators to stay in control.

People were trying to argue that prosperity did not lead to Decmcracy and I was just showing that prosperity does leaed to Democratic societies, but in these democratic societies the people do not necessarily choose a system like ours with all our invidividual liberties. But just because the people do not choose our individual liberties does not mean the people are not in control. Singapore, Japan, South Korea all are Democratic societies. The people choose the government. But the governments that they choose are ones I wouldn't choose. They choose security and order over individual rights. In the poor systems where the econommies are closed, like Burma, Vietnam, North Korea - the people have no say in how the government is run.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let them go back to Jordan where they belong and vote all they want.

Many of them didn't come from Jordan. They came from Israel, which does not recognize any right of return. (And yes, I understand why -- I'm not trying to have that argument.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Nice idea in theory but totally useless. If you want to even begin to approach accuracy, you have to consider income distribution. There's a reason why Thailand's peasants sell their 11 year old daughters to brothel owners in Bangkok and Phuket, and it isn't because it's good for tourism.

Actually the brothels in Thailand are mostly full of girls from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Let see if you can guess what the common denominator among these three countries is.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have not been posulating at all about the perfect system or the perfect social order. I am simply saying:

1) Free markets lead to prosperity that leads to democracy


.

How do you conclude that causation is not the opposite?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually the brothels in Thailand are mostly full of girls from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Let see if you can guess what the common denominator among these three countries is.

That's not consistent with any of the reports I've read, but I'm sure you know better.

[SlaveNoMore]

Because Photo of the car riddled with 400 bullets and hit by American tank fire in an attempt to murder Italian journalist of the highest integrity isn't cutting it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Many of them didn't come from Jordan. They came from Israel, which does not recognize any right of return. (And yes, I understand why -- I'm not trying to have that argument.)

Fine. Redact the word "back" from my previous statement.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)


I'll also hit some Poli* Sci 101: If it were a true democracy, why would single party rule continue? Equilibrium in true democracies generally results in an even distribution of seats across parties (the equilibrium number of parties depends on the nature of the electoral system), as parties move to capture a majority. I don't believe that Singapore has been so far from equilibrium for its entire existence--rather, something is preventing the fractioning of the PAP into "liberal" and "conservative" wings--namely, extra-democratic party discipline.

* please note that it is Poli with an "i" not a "y" -- it is not the study of multiple sciences.

I used to think until I went there and met the people. They think the United State is a cess pool and the PAP has brought them unparralleled prosperity and kept them from becoming a cess pool like the United States. They just don't think individual rights are that important. Every time I went there I could not help myself. I kept asking people, how can you accept a government like this? It was like being in the Stepford Wives.