- This topic has 6 voices and 23 replies.
-
Posts
-
The government is arrogant and prideful, but the people are meek and domicile….not to mention utterly programmed to obey.
But ultimately, even in the communist system, the government derives its power from the consent or lack of resistance of the governed. Too claim simple obedience on the part of the Chinese is to compare them to the Germans under Hitler, which is perhaps not so bad a comparison to make. Because of the Chinese peoples implicit consent to their government they are also implicitly responsible for its excesses.
I still maintain that every human being would pick liberty over slavery if the choice were offered to them. The Chinese people are no different, but they lack the will (at this time) to throw off their oppressive government because their meek nature is more long suffering than what we are accustomed to. Their mental discipline is such that they can endure whereas we couldn't. The Chinese leadership are well aware of their peoples' traits, and exploit them to the fullest.
Don,History has proven you false here. There are many more examples of stable, repressive regimes in the historical record than stable free regimes. To name a few there are all the monarchies, despotism, oligarchies, dictatorships etc. The only free regime I can think of is democracy, which only exists through the consent of the governed. As Americans, our biggest problem is we simply cannot comprehend how others could not want to live like us, i.e. FREE!
But how has most of those tyrants throughout history risen to power? By promising a new dawn of freedom and prosperity only to never follow through on those promises. People don't choose slavery, they are tricked into it.
In modern and near modern times it is true that freedom and prosperity were promised. I can't think of any examplars from ancient times where that is true except for maybe the greeks and some of the Italian Renaissance city-states. Most regimes in pre-modern times promised security and prosperity but not necessarily freedom, hwever security was a paramount consideration. It is hard to enjoy freedom if it cannot be defended. All too often there are those that would take freedom away. One of the hallmarks of democracy is that it is a system whereby individual and collective freedoms are protected. There are many bears in the forest even today. I stand by my contention that freedom is not a natural longing, security and sustenance are but these can be provided without freedom, no matter how brutal or harsh the existence under less than free regimes.
But how has most of those tyrants throughout history risen to power? By promising a new dawn of freedom and prosperity only to never follow through on those promises. People don't choose slavery, they are tricked into it.
I'm not sure that's true. China - Jong Gwo, the Central Country - suffered a century of dreadful humiliation (in Shianghai, 'No dogs, no Chinese') from the barbarians. Then they stopped the 'UN' (Americans and British) in Korea, and have gone on from there. No Chinese I've ever met but glories in this fact, though most of them look for more freedom, certainly. People who are proud, I think, prefer respect to a 'freedom' like that now enjoyed in Iraq.
I think both Don and scout can are correct in their own way. It seems that man desires a minimum amount of freedom, even if it is not the full amount that democracies of the world enjoy today. It also seems that he is willing to forgo some freedom in exchange for security.
