> It's a big double standard to call their flavor of restrictions "authoritarian", while being ok with (or even strongly in favor of) our flavor of restrictions, even though the two are objectively similar in nature.
Not sure how this is at all relevant? In both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. Or do you mean they should be allowed to have a say in this?
The vast vast majority of citizens in either country do not play a part in legislation.
The USA has lobbying, which is seen by the rest of the OECD countries as a legalized form of bribery. This allows regulated industries to corrupt and otherwise influence the regulation of their own industry. The USA might very well have similar restrictions to China on say prize boxes in video games if not for the outsized effect of industries on legislators.
The US also has a history of actual disenfranchisement and state legislators gerrymandering away the influence of a large minority of votes for Congress.
The effect is that the US actually has a complicated system of perverting the democratic system, whereas the Chinese system doesn’t even try to appear democratic, thereby appearing at least more honest about what it is.
Lobbying is a beautiful mechanism of democracy. Anyone can register to be a lobbyist. Any organization's members can pool money together to form an association which represents its interests to legislators. I worked as a Congressional staffer on Capitol Hill and saw firsthand how it works. We met with lobbyists on both sides of every niche issue you could possibly imagine.
There's no perversion of government caused by lobbyists. On net balance lobbyists are beneficial - and sometimes they're all that stops a 20-something Legislative Aide from drafting a terrible piece of legislation which the Member only faintly understands.
I would certainly think so. But it turns out to be surprisingly hard to quantify.
(I'll just talk about lobbying, not political donations, which is a related but separate issue.)
The organizations with the most lobbying spending are the US Chamber of Commerce (politically right, but not necessarily representing the very wealthy) followed by the Open Society Policy Center (politically left, but not necessarily representing the poor).
Most lobbying comes from industries of some sort (e.g. realtors, hospitals, farmers, coal, manufacturing, unions, education, etc). The legislation these groups favor will often disproportionately benefit the rich, but they tend to benefit rich and poor alike within that industry. For example, the farming industry may favor subsidies that benefit both poor and rich farmers.
As an example of industry working against the wealthy, the life insurance industry is the main group lobbying in favor of estate taxes (a tax which only affects the wealthy).
I'm not aware of any lobby groups that are specifically for the interests of the wealthy. However, politically right groups largely fill this role (the distinction being that right-wing fiscal policies are broader than just cutting taxes for the rich).
Lots of things. To name a few - printing literature, building a website, salary for a coordinator to schedule the hundreds of meetings that will come up, and salary for a communications expert who can strategically articulate your position to legislators and their aides.
I know all of that sounds distasteful to some people, but the alternative is not the utopia they imagine - it's Chinese authoritarianism.
Without commenting on the specific issue at hand, if playing "a part in legislation" is a literal criterion for democracy, I think the direct democracy in a place like California (or Switzerland, and possibly 1-2 other places) which allow for public votes on essentially everything including constitutional amendments place a decent number of US voters ahead of most OECD counterparts.
Anecdotally, I think there are far more significant issues with US democracy than lobbying given that legislators still largely seem to do what they campaign on, lobbying-influenced or otherwise, and voters elect them in almost universally accepted elections. If the disconnect were between the expectations of voters (from campaigns, etc.) and actual legislation, I would be more inclined to place further blame on lobbying, but I'm not sure that's the case. I wouldn't say lobbying isn't a problem, obviously.
It does seem relevant. Whether some supreme leader decides what's better for you, or some other random group decides what's better for you. What's the difference? Either way, you aren't doing the deciding, and the change enforced upon wasn't really democratic to you.
I think he's pointing out in this specific case, a democratic process of elected representatives is not better than that of appointed officials since it's still a group of people making decision for another totally unrelated group of people, teenagers, who didn't get to vote for those making the decisions/votes.
I'm not sure what you mean about relevance, but I'll attempt to answer.
This thread is debating whether we should be appalled at China for this law, or whether it's morally similar to some of our own laws (like banning drinking and gambling for minors). Bogwog suggested the difference is we banned minors from drinking democratically, while China's "supreme leader decided he knows what's best". The parent to Bogwog's comment suggested they're similar and we're holding China to a higher standard (possibly due to our biases).
As you say, in both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. That seems like a similarity between here and China. If children could vote here, that would strengthen Bogwog's argument.
(If it makes a difference, I'm against governments restricting minors from playing video games more than 3 hours per week. But I also don't think democracy is what would make it okay.)
A lot else could be said about this. Just to list a few possible objections to the democracy argument:
- It's kind of easy to just throw the word "democracy" around without actually establishing why the law is just and good and moral. For example, if a democratic country decided to ban Muslims, would people think it was moral and justified?
- Maybe the commenter feels democracy justifies it because the people (indirectly) chose the law. But in this case, the majority (people over 21) are placing restrictions on a minority (people under 21). That's a possible failure of democracy: a majority can abuse a minority, even if the minority is overwhelmingly against the proposed law.
- On top of that, most of the people being restricted (people under 18 or 21 depending on which law and which state we're discussing) weren't allowed to vote at all. They can't choose representatives in Congress.
- The comment overstates the difference between the US and China and makes it sound like this law is solely the whim of a dictator. While the US is certainly much more democratic than China, the US isn't completely democratic, and China isn't completely undemocratic. China has elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China). Video game addiction is a popular concern in China. South Korea democratically passed a similar (though less severe) law restricting video games for minors. This is a position of the communist party, with a lot of public support, not just a personal whim of Xi Jinping. (People exaggerate how much China is ruled solely by Xi Jinping instead of the party as a whole. Xi is powerful, but he can be replaced by the party and he's only been leader since 2012, and no person governs alone.) Meanwhile, there are many reasons why US politics don't always perfectly reflect the will of the people.
> If children could vote here, that would strengthen Bogwog's argument.
Just to add another layer to this, the somewhat cynical take is that - at least in the US - the system is actually a republican democracy, meaning that even people over 18 don't typically have a direct voice in the matter. At best people can do things like write to their representative or organize protests, but most people don't bother, and even if they did, representatives may not listen (either because your elected representative belongs to the opposite party as yours, or because they are detached from reality or they don't consider your concern a priority or they are being swayed by lobbyists etc)
Does that mean it's impossible, according to your definitions, for the U.S. Congress to pass any bill that is in any way authoritarian? Or, indeed, is it possible for the U.S. government to do anything authoritative, since it is ostensibly democratic?
Okay, if the mechanism by which the government ostensibly makes a policy isn't the thing that makes the policy authoritarian or not ("democracy" versus "single-party" or "communist"), and the content of the policy itself isn't the thing that makes the policy authoritarian or not (restricting minors' alcohol usage versus restricting minors' video game usage), then what is it that makes the policy authoritarian or not?
> then what is it that makes the policy authoritarian or not?
Typically when a person says, 'that policy is authoritarian', they are making the claim that ~'that policy can only practical be made and enforced in an authoritarian political system, where political power is withheld from the masses'.
So in this case the implied claim is that the only reason the CCP can get away with limiting video game hours for those under 18 to 3 hours a week is because of their system of government is authoritarian, where the masses do not have practical say in the policy.
This also implies the commentor does not think the masses in China would choose this policy for themselves.
That’s a reasonable explanation, of course, but it contradicts the two points in this thread that caused me to ask those questions:
1. It was claimed that the the China policy is authoritarian, but the U.S. policy is not authoritarian, because the latter is a democratic government.
2. It was claimed that any reported approval of the Chinese government by the Chinese population is irrelevant, either because the report is fake or because the people are manipulated or “brainwashed.”
> That’s a reasonable explanation, of course, but it contradicts the two points in this thread that caused me to ask those questions:
> 1. It was claimed that the the China policy is authoritarian, but the U.S. policy is not authoritarian, because the latter is a democratic government.
I think my above point offered a method to resolve this miscommunication by giving a more complete description of what is often meant by 'that policy is authoritarian'.
> 2. It was claimed that any reported approval of the Chinese government by the Chinese population is irrelevant, either because the report is fake or because the people are manipulated or “brainwashed.”
I think there is a similar miscommunication here that can be resolved, but I am not interested in delving into more topics currently.
Authoritarianism and Democracy are two orthogonal things. Authoritarianism describes the degree to which the state regulates the affairs of its subjects. Democracy is a process by which decisions are made.
You can be in a authoritarian democracy, say Iran which is a theocratic republic which obtained that status through a legit revolution, overthrowing what used to be a dictatorial, but fairly liberal society under the Shah.
In particular, it's ludicrous to believe that all laws are personally approved by Xi Jinping himself. The sheer volume of legislation ensures that even if he spends all his waking hours reading them, Xi can be barely aware of only a tiny fraction of what is enacted by the party.
Not completely unlike in the Democratic West, actual legislation originates from some opaque process involving lobby groups, lower regional governments, individuals in various party fractions, idealistic civil servants and sometimes even concerned citizens.
My experience in the USA is that most seem to believe the in, or at least act in line with, the idea that governments with feedback from the masses serve the masses better or really at least less worse with those without feedback.
Many systems need feedback to remain stable. For governments that feedback in theory can come through different channels where more channels and more direct channels is often assumed to be better.
Voting, free speech, the right to own guns, among other laws/rights/practices are often used by those raise in the USA as the standard to judge other governments/systems, mostly because those are the channels people in the USA have and are therefor familiar with.
I don't want to start a us-vs-commies flame war but I'm finding it ironic that not a week ago someone was trying to tell me that american democracy is more of a plutocracy...
Something that people don't seem to realize about China is that CCP values are supported by a majority of Chinese people.
> What other word would you use to describe the Chinese government?
I strongly suggest getting out of your comfort zone and go talk to some mainland Chinese people (preferably not the living-in-america ones). You'll find that they describe it with words like "unified" (which, for record, I also consider a loaded term).
...is it possible for it to not be unified? I.e. are opposition groups free to run for office and oppose the CCP in china? If not wouldn't describing it as unified be a bit ironic at best, and disingenuous (but still ironic, for a different reason) at worse? Is it possible to get honest opinions online of the CCP? I.e. if someone thinks Xi is the worst leader to ever hold office in China, would they be free to say so publicly and on the (online) record?
You're arguing from the ideology that arbitrary freedom is good, whereas China operates under a "do what's good for you" sort of ideology.
If we think about those two ideologies, one could flip your "is it possible for it to not be unified" to "is it possible for it to not have freedom" to illustrate the inherent ideological bias in the question. It may seem like an attempt at being inflammatory, but consider that for vaccines, for example, many people actually believe that we shouldn't get to decide against medical recommendation.
I posit that neither ideology is necessarily superior, given that empirically we know of both good and bad outcomes for both sides (e.g. your argument about their lack of freedom of speech vs theirs about our botched covid handling due to "freedom" SJWs)
And to reiterate: I do think "unified" is a loaded term: it implies everyone should be on board with whatever the CCP decides, because it's for the "common good", when in reality that's not a belief held equally by everyone. (Incidentally, it also implies that the US is functionally stuck on inaction due political bickering, a position that I find somewhat accurate, especially on matters of public welfare, e.g. healthcare reform)
Personally, I think always coloring things with one ideology doesn't work because each topic is different, hence my suggestion to seek different opinions outside of our own echo chambers.
Half-truth here. Younger people, recently more influenced by Xi Jinping's heavier hand in dispersing Marxist indoctrination, are indeed very supportive of the CCP ("generation N"). Other demographics, specially in southern China, aren't, but they can't speak up or they'll get prosecuted with "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".
I mean, I'm not trying to insinuate that every Chinese always agrees with the government, that's just silly.
Even in the US, a good chunk of the population always disagrees with whatever is the political topic du jour...
All I'm saying is that a bunch stuff happening in China does have a sizable amount of public approval, even if news articles make it sound like no one could possibly want it.
Our restrictions came about through a democratic process (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...), not because our supreme leader decided he knows what's best for us.
Not sure where you're coming from with calling the two situations similar. They're obviously entirely different.
> My advice is to be careful of using loaded terminology such as "authoritarian"
How is that a loaded term? What other word would you use to describe the Chinese government?