- 在線時間
- 5 小時
- 最後登錄
- 16-10-23
- 國民生產力
- 1
- 附加生產力
- 523
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 10-7-31
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 259
- 主題
- 6
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 783
- UID
- 643417
|
Everyone says loving democracy (including me). But I found many good arguments in the web that for democracy to be good, there are some criteria. Please see the following from what I found from the web:
Quote
An American christian, Gary DeMar, has written the Devil of Democarcy in The American Vision, a Biblical Worldview Minsitry. The following are extracted from his short article:
.......John Winthrop (1588–1649), first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, declared direct democracy to be “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.”[1] John Cotton (1584–1652), seventeenth-century Puritan minister in Massachusetts, wrote in 1636: “Democracy, I do not conceive that ever God did ordain as a fit government either for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be governed?”[2] In the Federalist Papers (No. 10), James Madison (1751-1836), fourth president of the United States and recognized as the “father of the Constitution,” writes that democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” Pure democracies are “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. . . . In general [they] have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[3] These more realistic descriptions of the effects of direct democracy are a far cry from today’s modern appraisal.
.......
So, contrary to what is widely taught in the schools of the United States and bruited about in the news media and expressions of politicians, the United States is not— in the opinion of one its principle founders and interpreters—a democracy. The Constitution itself, Article IV, Section 4, says: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government. . . .” Taken simply literally it is a guarantee of a republican government in the states and a republican government outside and above the states. There is no mention of the word democracy in the Constitution.[4]
What should we think of this? Did these men oppose the democratic process?.......
These men feared that the whims of the majority cut off from an ethical base would prevail if direct democracy were ever accepted as a legitimate form of civil government. On the other hand, these men knew that only “the people” could keep a civil government in check. There was no divine right of kings (or a divine right of representatives or judges), and there must be no divine right of the people. A checking and balancing civil government was the ideal our founders worked for. But if at any time the character of the people changed, the effort would have been for nought.
Unquote
Quote
The following quote is commonly found in articles in the West: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." The quote was probably written by Professor Alexander Tytler in University of Edinburgh in 1790, according to Loren Collins in his article "The Truth About Tytler".
Unquote
Quote
Clearly, direct democracy cannot exist in Hong Kong nowadays for three main reasons:
1. Opposite parties do not tolerate each other. Recent examples are Taiwan and Thailand. When one party rules the country, the other party would try to pull it down. The whole country would be in great chaos.
2. Large income inequality exists in Hong Kong (large disparity between the rich and the poor). As the quote in my another message, in direct democracy, the majority would vote for the candidate who promises them with the most benefits. This is always the reason for the collapse of the economy.
3. People hate mainland China. Many people don't want to be ruled by the Communistic Party. Some poitical parties even want to overturn the Communistic Party. I really can't see how we can have direct democracy.
Unquote
Quote
The following are extracted from Fox News:
A Chinese state-run newspaper’s claim that the United States is helping pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong is only partially inaccurate, a top foreign policy expert said Monday.
Michael Pillsbury, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Fox News National Security Analyst KT McFarland the U.S. holds some influence over political matters in the region.
"We have a large consulate there that’s in charge of taking care of the Hong Kong Policy Act passed by Congress to insure democracy in Hong Kong, and we have also funded millions of dollars of programs through the National Endowment for Democracy … so in that sense the Chinese accusation is not totally false,” said Pillsbury, author of the upcoming book, “The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower.”
Unquote |
|
發表於 14-10-22 00:58
從來，我都相信，美國佬「亡我之心不死」，鷹派確實要「圍堵中國」；香港，從來都是一個間諜基地，從國共內戰到冷戰，一直都是英、美、共產黨、國民黨的情報中心，每個領事館、辦事處、新華社、中聯辦，內藏各種各樣情報單位。以前去北京採訪，就有國安托中間人要搵我傾計，成個北京都諜影幢幢，有幾奇？大家唔好扮天真。