An interesting defense of a different point of view on human rights/democracy

Posted on March 3, 2012 by jnc4p

An interesting defense of a different point of view on human rights/democracy: 
 
“Why China’s Political Model Is Superior 
By ERIC X. LI 
Published: February 16, 2012″ 
… 
 
“In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than all but a handful of China’s dynasties. 
 
Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal political system for all mankind and that its success is forever assured? 
 
The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.” 
… 
 
“The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation. 
 
The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end. 
 
History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.” 
 
Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist. 

Edit: Link doesn’t seem to be working properly:

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

Compassion or selfishness?

Posted on March 3, 2012 by ScottC

Our recent discussion about education, how it should be provided, and what kind of choices parents should be allowed to make with regard to the public provision of education has raised what to me is an interesting question.  What is the ultimate purpose of having the government provide education, and more generally what is the purpose having the government provide any kind of social services at all?  Is this done so as to benefit the individuals to whom the service is provided, or is it done so as to provide some kind of “social” benefit to the wider public?

Obviously the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An individual benefit may, of course, provide ancillary benefits to a wider group of people, just as a “public good” such as a road obviously benefits people individually.   But I have always assumed that the primary motivation for those who advocate for the government provision of things such as education , health care, and other so-called social safety-net programs was out of a sense of compassion or duty towards the <i>individuals</i> who would derive an individual benefit from them.  One of the reasons I have thought this is that those who oppose or want to limit the public provision of such things are so often accused of not caring about people and lacking in compassion.

However, recent discussions have suggested to me that at least some of you think these types of things should be provided  by government primarily because of a “public good” aspect, ie that they are seen as somehow providing benefits to society at large, and that is why they should be pursued.  If that is the case, then I think further questions are warranted.  For example, how do we measure the “public good” provided by a particular program so as to judge whether or not the provision of the good is cost effective?  Do the individuals who are clearly receiving an individual good as part of this effort then have an obligation to ensure that the desired “public good” comes to pass?  If so, how do we enforce this obligation?

So I am curious who here agrees that education, health care, and other social services should be provided by the government  primarily to promote some benefit to the public rather than the individual, and how do you answer the questions that arise from such an approach to the provision of these things?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 26 Comments »