zlacker

> It's good to have diversity in governance systems and be able to see the different outcomes...

I've been lucky not to experience this myself, but I imagine it is bad to experience the "different outcomes" firsthand when the governance system -- novel as it might appear from a distance -- has foundations in violent suppression of individual freedom.

>>npongr+(OP)
Of course.

Then again, when some lunatic American colonists tried an alternative system of governance everyone knew was absurd and evil, it worked out surprisingly well.

I guess what I most of all am arguing against is unified world government.

>>Burnin+Hb
I think most reasonable people agree with the idea of pluralism, and benefit to diverse approaches to governance. However, I think your original take ignores the fact that China has stood on the shoulders of Western liberalism and the 20th century innovation it has produced. IP theft and mercantile trade policies can only work when existing alongside an innovative and free enterprise system which they can exploit for unilateral benefit.

>>Burnin+Hb
> alternative system of governance everyone knew was absurd and evil

Kind of ridiculous hyperbole here; there may have been the usual establishment bootlickers saying that, but the US was hardly the first Republic in the world.

>>Burnin+Hb
Ironically, one of the most controversial parts of the Annapolis Convention (which came up with the current US constitution after it was decided that the articles of confederation used since before independence didn't work) was the question of whether an effectively national government/republic over an area as large as the then 13 states was actually possible to operate as a democracy.

>>Burnin+Hb
> "Then again, when some lunatic American colonists tried an alternative system of governance everyone knew was absurd and evil, it worked out surprisingly well."

Are you sure they did? At the time republicanism was in vogue because Roman classicalism was currently in fashion. However these same men (particularly Hamilton) spoke very negatively about democracy, considering it a road to tyranny.

So at the time, democracy was considered absurd and perhaps evil. But were republics? The UK had an experience with republicanism before America, under Cromwell (that left a bad taste in the mouths of many monarchists) but even so it changed the way a lot of people thought. John Locke for instance predates the American revolution.

>>Burnin+Hb
Of note here is that the American lunatics and the Chinese lunatics exactly evoke the opposite concern in people.

For the United States, many land owners were concerned with these radical ideas of free people and a republic, e.g. breaking away from autocracy, because they believed that people would be inherently prone to chaos and violence.

For China, the opposite is true. People are concerned about the autocratic dictatorship that subdues personal freedom to the goal of the PRC and state, as they believe human progress, kindness and trust will be stifled and ultimately destroyed in such a system.

I find it quite interesting.

>>npongr+(OP)
Are you sure you're not experiencing it right now? There aren't many countries that weren't founded on violent suppression of individual freedom - either through war, (probably with compulsory conscription), occupation, or a low-freedom society like feudalism or tribalism.

When you say individual freedom, I think you really mean individual political freedom. Excluding Xinjian, China has probably more freedom in day-to-day life for individuals than, say, America because it has less violent crime, less imprisonment, and lower regulatory barriers to doing business. It might be that it can only achieve these good things by restricting political freedom.

Even when they do restrict individual freedom, like with the one child policy, and internal travel restrictions, that has the aim of making the overall society better. There's a trade-off between individual freedom and survival and growth of the society. Too much freedom is anarchy and too little is totalitarianism. Where is the sweet spot?