"turn toward a system of liberties, democracy, and rule of law...

[warpedbored]

If a country has laws, but the rulers are above them, then that country does not have rule of law. So by very definition, a dictatorship (for example) cannot have rule of law because the dictator is the ultimate power.

hmmm, interesting that there is current debate in our country on whether Chaney and Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes...

 

So, if they are not tried then we are a country without rule of law? Or, who should say whether there was a crime committed or not and if cause of action should proceed? Personally, I am not an advocate either way... None the less, the debate continues.

 

Many questions here...what IS the law and was it broken and if those who initiated it should be tried.

 

Not meaning to turn this political, but Jason's point strikes to the core of current events in our own country.

 

I know this will get deleted. But, if we're going to discuss this topic in full it should be fully examined or not.

Kindly keep politics out of it.

[Guest Rob & Jin]

You don't even need 51%. You can change many things with only the majority of voters that turn out, so the true percent needed for mob rule is much lower.

 

The question is just who is "You?"

 

The framers of the US constitution were all well-read educated intellectuals, who spent a good deal of time reading the philosophers of old. Plato, Socrates, and the like. All of these philosophies shared a common theme in that the intellectuals would be in authority, and protect and take care of the poor who would perform services for them. The poor and uneducated were never meant to have a voice, because they were / are considered unable to understand and contribute to complicated things.

 

The trouble is, history shows that the people who have been having their "god-given" rights suppressed will eventually rise up and take holy grail away from the intellectual leaders.

 

The Rule of Law as the founding fathers intended it, is no longer practiced in the US.

 

 

correct in regard Platos version of a democracy , which is what the rulers now like, incorrect in Rousseau's version in which I like.

But them one supports inequality the other doesn't.

[rogerluli]

You don't even need 51%. You can change many things with only the majority of voters that turn out, so the true percent needed for mob rule is much lower.

 

The question is just who is "You?"

 

The framers of the US constitution were all well-read educated intellectuals, who spent a good deal of time reading the philosophers of old. Plato, Socrates, and the like. All of these philosophies shared a common theme in that the intellectuals would be in authority, and protect and take care of the poor who would perform services for them. The poor and uneducated were never meant to have a voice, because they were / are considered unable to understand and contribute to complicated things.

 

The trouble is, history shows that the people who have been having their "god-given" rights suppressed will eventually rise up and take holy grail away from the intellectual leaders.

 

The Rule of Law as the founding fathers intended it, is no longer practiced in the US.

 

Quite incorrect on the framers and their influences...They were influenced much, much more by the philosophers of their own time like Thomas Paine ...

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Quite incorrect on the framers and their influences...They were influenced much, much more by the philosophers of their own time like Thomas Paine ... B)

You don't even need 51%. You can change many things with only the majority of voters that turn out, so the true percent needed for mob rule is much lower.

 

The question is just who is "You?"

 

The framers of the US constitution were all well-read educated intellectuals, who spent a good deal of time reading the philosophers of old. Plato, Socrates, and the like. All of these philosophies shared a common theme in that the intellectuals would be in authority, and protect and take care of the poor who would perform services for them. The poor and uneducated were never meant to have a voice, because they were / are considered unable to understand and contribute to complicated things.

 

The trouble is, history shows that the people who have been having their "god-given" rights suppressed will eventually rise up and take holy grail away from the intellectual leaders.

 

The Rule of Law as the founding fathers intended it, is no longer practiced in the US.

 

So, you're suggesting that the founding fathers of the US constitution studied one of their peers when it comes to the great philosophers? Now that's a real interesting twist.

 

I think you better go back and check that one a little more carefully...

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2009 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[rogerluli]

In "free press news" from China comes this...

 

China TV faces propaganda charge

By Shirong Chen

BBC News

 

 

 

Critics say state news puts a positive spin on domestic stories

Chinese intellectuals have signed an open letter calling for a boycott of state television news programmes.

 

The letter says China's Central Television (CCTV) has turned its news and historical drama series into propaganda to brainwash its audience.

 

The author of the damning letter told the BBC that the action should at least serve as a health warning to the susceptible public.

 

The authorities have been alarmed by the latest development.

 

They tend to accuse the Western media of biased coverage of China.

 

But this open letter accuses CCTV of systematic bias in its news coverage.

 

'Whitewash'

 

The letter - signed by more than 20 academics and lawyers - lists six broad categories of bias and brainwashing.

 

It says the state TV monopoly has ignored many stories of social unrest and riots, and whitewashed serious events like the recent milk contamination scandal.

 

The letter's author, Ling Cangzhou, told the BBC that its signatories were fed up with the positive spin on domestic news from the central TV station and the negative tone on international events.

 

He said that the letter should at least alert the public to the problem, though the state TV broadcaster is too pervasive to be boycotted effectively.

 

Media controls meant the letter had to be published on a US-based website, but it has been picked up widely by Chinese websites.

[rogerluli]

Quite incorrect on the framers and their influences...They were influenced much, much more by the philosophers of their own time like Thomas Paine ... B)

You don't even need 51%. You can change many things with only the majority of voters that turn out, so the true percent needed for mob rule is much lower.

 

The question is just who is "You?"

 

The framers of the US constitution were all well-read educated intellectuals, who spent a good deal of time reading the philosophers of old. Plato, Socrates, and the like. All of these philosophies shared a common theme in that the intellectuals would be in authority, and protect and take care of the poor who would perform services for them. The poor and uneducated were never meant to have a voice, because they were / are considered unable to understand and contribute to complicated things.

 

The trouble is, history shows that the people who have been having their "god-given" rights suppressed will eventually rise up and take holy grail away from the intellectual leaders.

 

The Rule of Law as the founding fathers intended it, is no longer practiced in the US.

 

So, you're suggesting that the founding fathers of the US constitution studied one of their peers when it comes to the great philosophers? Now that's a real interesting twist.

 

I think you better go back and check that one a little more carefully...

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of "Common Sense"...

 

In 1774, Paine moved from England to Philadelphia, bearing glowing letters of introduction from Benjamin Franklin. It was there that "his real life story would begin" with the writing of the hugely influential Common Sense, which attacked the divine right of kings and advocated American independence.

[Jeikun]

Wow, you guys are AMAZING. I posted a simple definition of rule of law... one person says "sounds good but..." and starts talking about DEMOCRACY... then tyranny of the majority comes in... then Bush/Cheney...

 

egads I say!

 

Rule of law is rule of law, just like rice is rice, beans are beans, and rocks is rocks (oops).

 

It is a simple, concrete definition of a concept, no politics implied or intended, and is independant of any government system in the strictest sence.

 

It was a term being thrown around in the discussion, in many cases wrongly, and I just wanted to be sure people knew what it actually meant. That's all.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Jeikun (see edit history)

[rogerluli]

Wow, you guys are AMAZING. I posted a simple definition of rule of law... one person says "sounds good but..." and starts talking about DEMOCRACY... then tyranny of the majority comes in... then Bush/Cheney...

 

egads I say!

 

Rule of law is rule of law, just like rice is rice, beans are beans, and rocks is rocks (oops).

 

It is a simple, concrete definition of a concept, no politics implied or intended, and is independant of any government system in the strictest sence.

 

It was a term being thrown around in the discussion, in many cases wrongly, and I just wanted to be sure people knew what it actually meant. That's all.

 

You know how threads go Jason...Somebody picks up the baseball and starts playing football with it...

 

Evidently China's largely ineffective rule of law can be traced back to Confucius who thought that senior officials were above the law...

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KA14Ad01.html

[Li & John]

1. About the reasons why some Chinese people want to come to America:

 

A.People in China think America is a paradise( thanks to the media, who said we dont have the freedom of media?) And those people will soon be disappointed by what real America is.

 

Actually, it is not only America. I have been to Britian, France, Italy( I went to a college in Britian)... all the dreaming countries. But to me, they are all very old, depressing countries, very differnt than what you think they are before you really go there.

 

B.Some people think America is a country of freedom where you can do whatever you want.( a lot of people stay in the same companies and it is hard for them to change jobs in China, they think America will help them realise their dreams, but actually, it is even harder in America, because the easy_found jobs are mostly low_paid, physical__related ones).

 

C.Some people want to come to America to make money.( Because of the currence exchange rate, you make one dollar, it becomes 7 yuan)

 

D. Others want to come to America for medical treatment.( America does have better technologies in medication).

 

2.About China blocks some media,

 

I have been in America for three years, and I dont find much new that I didnt know when I was in China. The only thing makes me feel a little surprised is the people practising Fa Lun Gong standing by the roadside protesting. But I always have a wonder: if they want to practise Fa Lun Gong, just stay at home practise it, what is the point of protesting on the street?

 

Some bad Chinese will betray their country just to get a greencard of America. So next time, when you heard a Chinese telling you about how bad China is, ignore him. 100% sure he is a liar, or to attract your attention, because he needs the greencard.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Wow, you guys are AMAZING. I posted a simple definition of rule of law... one person says "sounds good but..." and starts talking about DEMOCRACY... then tyranny of the majority comes in... then Bush/Cheney...

 

egads I say!

 

Rule of law is rule of law, just like rice is rice, beans are beans, and rocks is rocks (oops).

 

It is a simple, concrete definition of a concept, no politics implied or intended, and is independant of any government system in the strictest sence.

 

It was a term being thrown around in the discussion, in many cases wrongly, and I just wanted to be sure people knew what it actually meant. That's all.

 

Jason, not to worry. I am familiar with the rule of law as it's practiced in the US, which is directly attached to democracy. If you look at the history of the "Rule of Law," and how it came to the US, you will see the parallel I was attempting to illustrate with regard to the US founding fathers; especially Thomas Jefferson, who is credited with actually "penning" the declaration of independence, and a good deal of the constitution.

 

Nearly all of the founding fathers were educated with a healthy dose of philosophy that included Plato and Socrates. If you look back to Plato, you will find that several of the components of the Rule of Law are rooted in his philosophies. Along with his observations, he expressed what he thought to be the strong points and weak points of it. Both Plato and the founding fathers agreed that the Rule of Law is dangerous in the hands of the uneducated, and they should be shielded and protected by the state.

 

Again, the Rule of Law as described by Thomas Jefferson, Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and so on, is no longer practiced in the US, where you see just as the early philosophers predict, that corruption always takes over.

 

Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.

Edited January 14, 2009 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[Jeikun]

Wow, you guys are AMAZING. I posted a simple definition of rule of law... one person says "sounds good but..." and starts talking about DEMOCRACY... then tyranny of the majority comes in... then Bush/Cheney...

 

egads I say!

 

Rule of law is rule of law, just like rice is rice, beans are beans, and rocks is rocks (oops).

 

It is a simple, concrete definition of a concept, no politics implied or intended, and is independant of any government system in the strictest sence.

 

It was a term being thrown around in the discussion, in many cases wrongly, and I just wanted to be sure people knew what it actually meant. That's all.

 

Jason, not to worry. I am familiar with the rule of law as it's practiced in the US, which is directly attached to democracy. If you look at the history of the "Rule of Law," and how it came to the US, you will see the parallel I was attempting to illustrate with regard to the US founding fathers; especially Thomas Jefferson, who is credited with actually "penning" the declaration of independence, and a good deal of the constitution.

 

Nearly all of the founding fathers were educated with a healthy dose of philosophy that included Plato and Socrates. If you look back to Plato, you will find that several of the components of the Rule of Law are rooted in his philosophies. Along with his observations, he expressed what he thought to be the strong points and weak points of it. Both Plato and the founding fathers agreed that the Rule of Law is dangerous in the hands of the uneducated, and they should be shielded and protected by the state.

 

Again, the Rule of Law as described by Thomas Jefferson, Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and so on, is no longer practiced in the US, where you see just as the early philosophers predict, that corruption always takes over.

 

Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.

 

 

Yes, Plato didn't think much of direct democracy. Neither did some of the founding fathers. But I reacted because I was simply defining what the term "rule of law" meant, because I saw it being misused and expected it would confuse the argument quite a bit. Since your reply on the merits of democracy quoted that post of mine, then it ran off into a tangent based on your post, I felt my meaning was being twisted.

 

I was not (in that post anyway) arguing for or against democracy, Facism, Platonic thought, Confuscinism, or those who choose to venerate Sam the great boar who makes the sun rise. Merely pointing out that the rule of law by definition means the law is above the rulers. Not any particular implementation of it, no caveat of "how it is practiced in the US" - just defining for purpose of further discussion. That rule of law doesn't simply mean "there are laws" because if you look back, some people have misconstrued it as such.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Jeikun (see edit history)

[Jeikun]

Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.

 

 

It's not silly talk. "Snozzlefrazzle Snizzlefritz Goblamdapoop" is silly talk. You disagree with him. You have reasons, so does he. So do many people who have taken up the argument, both Non-Chinese and Chinese. I don't really find either side of the argument to be silly.

[Guest Rob & Jin]

Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.

 

 

It's not silly talk. "Snozzlefrazzle Snizzlefritz Goblamdapoop" is silly talk. You disagree with him. You have reasons, so does he. So do many people who have taken up the argument, both Non-Chinese and Chinese. I don't really find either side of the argument to be silly.

 

 

the rule of law

 

nice concept but in reality who it really protecting, my guess the corrupt ruling class in any country.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.

 

 

It's not silly talk. "Snozzlefrazzle Snizzlefritz Goblamdapoop" is silly talk. You disagree with him. You have reasons, so does he. So do many people who have taken up the argument, both Non-Chinese and Chinese. I don't really find either side of the argument to be silly.

 

 

Okay then, seeing as there appears to be the need, I will then clarify what I mean about silly talk by providing a few examples:

 

1. Silly talk: An expectation, desire, hope, or dream that something will happen that in all likelihood, hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of ever being realized.

 

If you contrast the "silly talk" desires, with something that can actually happen, it may better illustrate the point.

 

Example 1: Joe wants to improve his income, but never finished high school. He thinks of different things he can do to make this happen, but begins to realize that it's not such an easy task. He learns of different things he can do, some of which are harder than others.

 

a) Finish high school by getting a GED, and then move on to college. He discovers that this will take time and money, and money is not something he has a lot of. He discovers that there is government money available and student loans. It's not insurmountable, and he might just be able to do it.

 

Start a business. He wonders to himself, and shares some of his ideas with his friends, and realizes that this too will be difficult, but not insurmountable.

 

c) Consider relocating to find a better job. Probably not the best of options, especially when considering todays economy, but it's certainly something to be considered an option.

 

Example 2: Joe doesn't much like the fact that southern people eat grits. As a matter of fact, he just hates it. What makes it worse is he lives in the south and wherever he goes, people eat grits. They even grow grits in his city, and that is the biggest employer in his city. Joe decides he wants to change this.

 

a) Joe considers finding others that feel like he does about grits, and thinks of rallying them to protest the eating and harvesting of grits in his town. He knows it's a big task, but there are a few people that feel like he does. Maybe it will work?

 

Many of Joe's friends suggest that he simply move to another town that doesn't even know what grits are. Trouble is, excluding the grits, Joe is comfortable in his town, but this is an option.

 

c) Joe hates grits so much, he even considers doing damage to the factories, trucks, and restaurants that are about grits. He wonders if he can get away with it.

 

Fact is, the Chinese culture is thousands of years old, and the Chinese people are proud of that history. Today in China, you will find thousands of people that travel from place to place, and city to city, to see and experience their own history.

 

I think of Roger's ongoing suggestions about bringing Western change to China, in the same way that I view Joe choosing to change the eating and grit-business habits of his home town. Even though Joe lives in the city, it's very likely he will be confronted by many angry people when he suggests changing the grit-habits and business in his town.

 

Change is happening in China, and while it may amaze and baffle some, is that most of these changes are being done as the people and government of China believes to be best for its people. Think about it. What grass-roots American wouldn't be deeply offended by having some wild-eyed Frenchman waltz into town to tell all Americans they suck and need to change their government and do things the French way? Trying to do such things is the epitome of being culturally vacant, and absent of sensitivity. Those that think that way should spend a little time experiencing the people and countries of other cultures before they set about trying to change it into something that is more comfortable to them.

[Jeikun]

There's a difference between opining on a messageboard, and jamming something down someone's throat.

 

If I muse in private, or discuss with a friend over whether or not Sally should lose some weight it is not the same as me walking up to sally and saying "Hey tubby, why doncha drop a ton or two?"

 

And Jesse, your silly talk example only holds water as far as facts go. To apply that to Roger's points would be to first make the assumption that you are right and he is wrong - period. Can you be SO sure of yourself as to literally make that a given?

Edited January 14, 2009 by Jeikun (see edit history)