If you do believe a society is a complex system, that it should be organically operated instead of applying a top-down method by a group of elite, then i would assume you agree with what F. A. von Hayek's points, i.e., spontaneous order.
If you believe spontaneous order, then naturally you'll be more comfortable with different interested groups get involved in policy-making process. Voting is somewhat a result of a dynamic process.
To reach a social consensus, it needs public debate, it needs independent media (or not really independent, but different interested groups get a say, some louder, some quieter, but guaranteed everyone who want to make noise can do that, in such a world connected), in the end, it needs people to vote, to make a decision. Elites may and indeed do have greater flexibility to shape the agenda, but they should never given the rights to be the only group that can think, speak and decide.
If you really think society/nation is a vivid organic thing, you should refrain from promoting the dangerous idea that an organic thing will operate like a machine. If we shouldn't given the privilege to have a voice, we can't speak out what we think and try to influence the decision making, then what's the point for we to think? Furthermore, if thinking independently is not needed, what's the point to be human being. Are the MASS simply a group of primitive animals that only need to be feeded.
The fact I choose not to let other people to vote on what treatment should be applied to me is essentially that my free will gotta to decide what's good for me. While in public policy making, it affects everybody, hence everybody should be given the right to voice out. Just that simple. We have medical professional trained to treat us. Unfortunately, politics is a more difficult discipline than medicine. None of our Politiburo members are trained to rule, and there is also no therapy can be taught to them. That's the major difference.
Instead of the unfit doctor analogy, socity/nation is more similar to a corporation, we pay tax, buy the shares, our benefit are at the stake, hence we get to vote. We hire the government to serve us, not pay money to be muted.
BTW, think tanks are useful, it is fair to say think tank shapes almost all policies in Western countries. The differnece is, you got think tank to represent riches, to oppose tax reform, to advance unilaterism, to defend free trade, you also got think tanks to promote civil rights, to emphasize criminal justice, to support big government and protectionism. They may be non-profit, but they have endowment, they have difference agenda, different power sphere in both policy making, academia, media, they have debates too. In the end, their influences are on the voters, and let they decide. That's why there are partisan tags on most of them.
While in our system, it is the government oversee limited debate, and make the decision. All think tanks are semi-offcial government branches or party branches, yes, they're also partisan, the major difference, is we only have one ruling party.
I applauds the technocrat government model which has brought China to its today's height. But it's time to think about how many people were left behind in the economic boom, how many civil rights/property rights has been blatantly trenched? It is fortunate we have an institution that currently on the right direction, and the momentum a one party system could generate is huge. Problem is, we get a great engine, where is the brake, where is the check and balance that we can rely on?
I apologize to non-Chinese members, this site isn't a very proper venue to discuss such irrelevant topics. But I'm quite annoyed by those people that are either arrogant self-claimed ruling elite or power-worship, ready to surrender their own minds and souls.
If you believe spontaneous order, then naturally you'll be more comfortable with different interested groups get involved in policy-making process. Voting is somewhat a result of a dynamic process.
To reach a social consensus, it needs public debate, it needs independent media (or not really independent, but different interested groups get a say, some louder, some quieter, but guaranteed everyone who want to make noise can do that, in such a world connected), in the end, it needs people to vote, to make a decision. Elites may and indeed do have greater flexibility to shape the agenda, but they should never given the rights to be the only group that can think, speak and decide.
If you really think society/nation is a vivid organic thing, you should refrain from promoting the dangerous idea that an organic thing will operate like a machine. If we shouldn't given the privilege to have a voice, we can't speak out what we think and try to influence the decision making, then what's the point for we to think? Furthermore, if thinking independently is not needed, what's the point to be human being. Are the MASS simply a group of primitive animals that only need to be feeded.
The fact I choose not to let other people to vote on what treatment should be applied to me is essentially that my free will gotta to decide what's good for me. While in public policy making, it affects everybody, hence everybody should be given the right to voice out. Just that simple. We have medical professional trained to treat us. Unfortunately, politics is a more difficult discipline than medicine. None of our Politiburo members are trained to rule, and there is also no therapy can be taught to them. That's the major difference.
Instead of the unfit doctor analogy, socity/nation is more similar to a corporation, we pay tax, buy the shares, our benefit are at the stake, hence we get to vote. We hire the government to serve us, not pay money to be muted.
BTW, think tanks are useful, it is fair to say think tank shapes almost all policies in Western countries. The differnece is, you got think tank to represent riches, to oppose tax reform, to advance unilaterism, to defend free trade, you also got think tanks to promote civil rights, to emphasize criminal justice, to support big government and protectionism. They may be non-profit, but they have endowment, they have difference agenda, different power sphere in both policy making, academia, media, they have debates too. In the end, their influences are on the voters, and let they decide. That's why there are partisan tags on most of them.
While in our system, it is the government oversee limited debate, and make the decision. All think tanks are semi-offcial government branches or party branches, yes, they're also partisan, the major difference, is we only have one ruling party.
I applauds the technocrat government model which has brought China to its today's height. But it's time to think about how many people were left behind in the economic boom, how many civil rights/property rights has been blatantly trenched? It is fortunate we have an institution that currently on the right direction, and the momentum a one party system could generate is huge. Problem is, we get a great engine, where is the brake, where is the check and balance that we can rely on?
I apologize to non-Chinese members, this site isn't a very proper venue to discuss such irrelevant topics. But I'm quite annoyed by those people that are either arrogant self-claimed ruling elite or power-worship, ready to surrender their own minds and souls.
