blade123
As an American, I sometimes wonder if it is too dogmatic to treat democracy as the end all be all of governments.
As I understand it, democracy refers to a heuristic for solving the problem of reaching consensus in a decision making scenario in a system of multiple agents each having a differing opinion. In this heuristic, every agent has the right to vote on an issue in order to influence the consensus. (America is a republic so we vote on other agents to do the voting on our behalf rather than the issues themselves.)
Computer scientists can come up with all sorts of different ways of tackling the consensus problem. For example, one strategy is to choose the agents with the most information about the system (most educated) and treat their opinions as more important when reaching consensus. (As society advances and modeling societal problems become more sophisticated, solutions may require people with increasingly more domain knowledge.)
Although variations of such strategies are probably not democracies, I don't think they are necessarily inferior, if as a heuristic when tried out, are actually effective.
If there's a formal proof that democracy is, in fact, the best government, I'm open to hearing it though.
When people say they want democracy, don't they often mean more specifically that they want rule of law / due process? Is it not possible to have both a government that have characteristics that make it authoritarian / not democratic but also have rule of law?
I think the term shalmanese used, "ungovernable anarchy," is a fair description of Chinese culture. However I think you are mistaking this to also imply non-self-organization - which would be inaccurate.
Chinese culture values pragmatism over consistency. As a matter of pragmatism, the Chinese are cognizant of working cooperatively with other people in order to better obtain their individual or their respective families' goals. Families that work together survive together. To this end, in Chinese culture, people do often help each other out and look after each other like family. The Chinese aren't as unsophisticated ("non-amicable") as you think.
In this culture of ungovernable anarchy, individual agents grow up to be highly autonomous adults. You can see this manifested as immigrant Chinese entrepreneurship in places all around the world from America to Africa. The self-organization aspect of this culture are manifested by the numerous Chinatown communities in cosmopolitan cities around the world from New York to Montreal. These communities aren't led by any all powerful authorities - they are self-organized ghettos, sociological gems.
> instead decision-making can be distributed to the people...
Jordan Peterson once said something along the lines of how the more we clamor for autonomy, the more we also internally desire to be controlled - or something of the sort. I wish I could find the clip since I butchered that.
However, I'd say there are abstract kinds of tyrannies that people subject themselves in America. An example is how Americans are taught to follow laws, regulations, or processes even when they are inefficient, wrong, or don't make sense. The Chinese people are more willing to avoid these formalities because they may be more confident in deciding for themselves what makes sense.
In this way, the Chinese people can be said to have more freedom than Westerners because they don't subject themselves to a certain form of other people's control. Such a contrast makes Chinese society seem relatively like a self-organizing "ungovernable anarchy".
For one, these opinions are essentially a list of judgments based on a biased set of observations. There is a difference between making an observation and making a judgement:
For example, perhaps you observe that there are few replies on this thread and therefore judge that people are disinterested. Perhaps you observe China is a rising power and you judge that it is gathering power for the purpose of undermining Western countries. Perhaps you observe that Chinese people have copied a lot of Western ideas and you judge what they are doing to be selfish stealing. Perhaps you observe that China doesn't have due process, free press, etc and therefore judge that Chinese authorities are "happy" to jail people.
These kinds of judgments tend to attribute intention to behaviors. Such judgments aren't falsifiable nor testable, are too narrowly focused, and they put people at risk of committing fundamental attribution errors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error)
I suspect people who post opinions like these tend to have some less-than-virtuous private psychological desire they want to fulfill. Perhaps they are projecting their own life metaphors onto abstract geopolitical entities - which I think is often silly. Even though we all know China is a country and not a person, people often personify the abstract entity of _the whole of China_ as “wanting” things or having "values" or being "happy to do anything". Perhaps they think life is supposed to be fair and so they frame the actions of countries in terms of fairness. I don’t think it is always correct to think about countries in terms of these metaphors.
Sometimes I also suspect people who have these kinds of opinions to be low-key racist since they are quick to turn observations into more than they are. Perhaps they believe Chinese people are only good at copying people and not making anything original of their own. Perhaps they think Chinese people live in inferior ways and are too inferior to come up with a superior way of living. Perhaps they think it is only natural we should always be drawing negative attention to divergences between what those people do and what we do. I can sympathize with these views but I wonder what the end goal of propagating these views are - is it a war based on an obsession with something related to identity? Or are people calling for help in finding some way to peacefully coexist? Or do people just want to stroke their own ego?
It is no great intellectual achievement to come up with a political narrative. Many narratives aren't falsifiable, some are psychologically driven, bias driven, and many should never be considered politically-actionable. It is one thing to be disinterested and another to be informed yet cautious about jumping to judgment.