Is Third World Democracy a bad thing?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
So how exactly is the one child policy implemented and enforced?

btw how is having children like drilling a hole in a boat? Sure too much population may be a problem, but gosh it looks like the west is handling it nicely through voluntary individual decisions.

The West does not have one and a quarter billion people living in one country.

The One child policy is handled with taxes and privledges. There is a major economic disincentive to have more than one child.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have an alagory for libertarian morality. You have ten people on a boat. Each of them owns a specific portion of the boat. One person decides he wants to drill a hole in his section. According to libertarian morality, not only should he be able to do so, but it would be wrong for the other nine to try and stop him. The world is just a very large boat.

--

The One China Policy is China's attempt to control it's population. It is their belief that it is better to have lower growth rates than to allow the 'right to childbirth'. They've just favored one right for the other. It just happens to be the opposite of the West (where we have room and resources for the extra population), which is why some Westerns have a problem with it. I bet if the West was under the same population constraints, we'd all be singing a different tune.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
I have more anecdotes if you want, about how I spent about 20 minutes trying to get from the third level to the second level of the pagoda at Hanshan Temple, Suzhou, China. OMG. The stairs were creaking and I was paranoid that the weight would cause the pagoda to fold in upon itself. OMG.

Sounds about half as bad as Disney World, hehe.

But China is big country land mass wise. Europe is about that size and they've got what, 900+ Million people? China might be even bigger, I'm not sure.

Lots of places are packed with people, they don't take the actions China does.

[Ben Kenobi]

"The West does not have one and a quarter billion people living in one country."

Che- this does not support your argument. What if you compare China with India? India has 1 billion people, so why don't they have a 1 child policy? How does having a population of 1.25 billion people hurt China?

"There is a major economic disincentive to have more than one child."

Guangdong charges a fee of 8x the average annual income. Kind of harsh. Although, I suppose it encourages the 'right' people to have children.

"I have an alagory for libertarian morality. You have ten people on a boat. Each of them owns a specific portion of the boat. One person decides he wants to drill a hole in his section. According to libertarian morality, not only should he be able to do so, but it would be wrong for the other nine to try and stop him. The world is just a very large boat."

Several assumptions here, first, you assume population is a negative effect, that people have mouths and not hands, and secondly that the Earth has a fixed capacity to support population and China is near the breaking point or close to the hull. Both are false.

Ranskaldan-

"The streets are clogged, CONSTANTLY, and I'm talking about weekends and holidays. The pollution being belched out has colored the sky the shade of grey goo. And it's not just that - of approximately 900 million peasants, at least a third are milling in the cities to work (or trying to find work), and there's probably a few more million (ten million? hundred million?) who've been laid off by stagnant government businesses trying to privatise."

Compare with Europe in the 19th century during the process of industrialisation. People flocked to the cities, from the countryside, in conditions remarkably similar to which you record here. China is industrialising, as the West has already. The West came out fine, why not China?

One point I want to mention are the 'dry branches' in China. Chinese society favours boys over girls, leading to a disparity in the gender ratio. There are approximately 40 million more men then women, and
in 1999, there the ratio for newborns was 117-100. What are you going to do with all these single men? Dry branches are easy to set alight with war.

Tell me Che- how does a Communist country justify charging a fee to have children? Will this not oppress the poor and the working class who might want their children to take care of them in their old age? The rich, and the powerful will not be affected, while the honest workers will feel the brunt of the policy.

Population problems, like starvation, have more to do with how the government makes use of the people. Why haven't we had the mass starvation predicted by Malthus? Malthus never predicted that people could find ways to increase food production. As food becomes more demanded, their becomes a greater incentive to increase production. No farmer makes money by planting unless he plants close to what he will harvest and sell. It is only when demand increases, comes the push to increase production.

Also, worker productivity increases with population density. Population density allows for greater specialisation just because there are more people to split the tasks available.

50 years from now, China will be screaming for people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

India has 1 billion people, so why don't they have a 1 child policy? How does having a population of 1.25 billion people hurt China?

Have you SEEN India? Overpopulation is the main reason why India is so poor today. China is much richer because it has attempted to curtail population growth.

[OzzyKP]

Oh population has nothing to do with it. Japan has much more population density than India and it is very wealthy. I'm sure you can find some very poor African nations (or other nations) with less population density than India too.

Density is more telling than raw numbers anyways.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Che- this does not support your argument. What if you compare China with India? India has 1 billion people, so why don't they have a 1 child policy? How does having a population of 1.25 billion people hurt China?

India should toughen up on family planning. Quickly.

Several assumptions here, first, you assume population is a negative effect, that people have mouths and not hands, and secondly that the Earth has a fixed capacity to support population and China is near the breaking point or close to the hull. Both are false.

People have hands. But they also need medical care, and they need to send their children to school. They also need jobs, and a place to stay, and consumer products. They also need to produce waste, and pollution, and traffic.

Compare with Europe in the 19th century during the process of industrialisation. People flocked to the cities, from the countryside, in conditions remarkably similar to which you record here. China is industrialising, as the West has already. The West came out fine, why not China?

As a Chinese, I'm not looking forward to all of European history - revolutions, wars, riots, topplings of various governments, etc.

One point I want to mention are the 'dry branches' in China. Chinese society favours boys over girls, leading to a disparity in the gender ratio. There are approximately 40 million more men then women, and
in 1999, there the ratio for newborns was 117-100. What are you going to do with all these single men? Dry branches are easy to set alight with war.

Dry branches?
Tens of millions of laid-off workers roaming the streets are dry branches. 300 million peasants looking for work in the city are dry branches.

Tell me Che- how does a Communist country justify charging a fee to have children? Will this not oppress the poor and the working class who might want their children to take care of them in their old age? The rich, and the powerful will not be affected, while the honest workers will feel the brunt of the policy.

Despite its vague pretentions, China is probably less communist than Canada. In Toronto we have free skating rinks here. The last time I checked they cost a fortune for 1.5 hours in Beijing.

Population problems, like starvation, have more to do with how the government makes use of the people. Why haven't we had the mass starvation predicted by Malthus? Malthus never predicted that people could find ways to increase food production. As food becomes more demanded, their becomes a greater incentive to increase production. No farmer makes money by planting unless he plants close to what he will harvest and sell. It is only when demand increases, comes the push to increase production.

Not just starvation. I'm talking about social unrest. Unemployment. Rich-poor gap. the works.

Also, worker productivity increases with population density. Population density allows for greater specialisation just because there are more people to split the tasks available.

The population density in China is way beyond that "splitting the task available" stage. In some provinces, the land is so overfarmed that even though all the nutrients are utterly leached off, up to half of the population fiddles their thumbs for lack of anything better to do. Some end up in the cities as cheap labour. Others go rob a bank.

50 years from now, China will be screaming for people.

That'll be the day when China has 400 million people. And I hope that day will come soon.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Oh population has nothing to do with it. Japan has much more population density than India and it is very wealthy. I'm sure you can find some very poor African nations (or other nations) with less population density than India too.

Density is more telling than raw numbers anyways.

Japan does not have a large, poor peasantry; vast roaming hordes of unemployed workers; or a gaping rich-poor divide.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Sounds about half as bad as Disney World, hehe.

But China is big country land mass wise. Europe is about that size and they've got what, 900+ Million people? China might be even bigger, I'm not sure.

Lots of places are packed with people, they don't take the actions China does.

See point about Japan.

edit:

Just checked. Europe has 800 million people.

On the other hand, about half of China's landmass is devoted to the Tibetan Plateau, the Tien Shan ranges, the Gobi & Taklamakan & Dzungar Deserts, etc etc.

China & Mongolia:



Europe:



Other than that they're about the same size, I think.

But on top of that, take into account that Europe has already had decades to adjust to and provide for its population. China, on the other hand, is beginning to feel the strains of the load - adding to it without giving time for social services, laws and regulations, etc to kick in would be folly.

[Ben Kenobi]

"People have hands. But they also need medical care, and they need to send their children to school. They also need jobs, and a place to stay, and consumer products."

Ranskaldan, how do they get those things without other people?

How can you have medical care without nurses, doctors? How can you have schools without teachers, librarians, and even custodians? How do you build houses without construction workers, or draftsmen or architects?

"They also need to produce waste, and pollution, and traffic."

And they also write poetry, paint works of art, some design new machines, and some even leave the world a better place then when they came. It's not all bad.

"half of the population fiddles their thumbs for lack of anything better to do. Some end up in the cities as cheap labour. Others go rob a bank."

Again, the problem isn't the people, its what you can do with the people. Is the solution to unemployment to kill off all the excess workers or to try to find them jobs?

"Not just starvation. I'm talking about social unrest. Unemployment. Rich-poor gap. the works."

"Tens of millions of laid-off workers roaming the streets are dry branches. 300 million peasants looking for work in the city are dry branches."

With all of this, I think you will get revolution even with population control. Population control does not fix underlying social problems, nor unemployment.

As for Europe and China, the point is well taken. There is much more arable land in Europe than in China. But the question remains, why doesn't Japan have roaming peasentry? Why have they gotten their act together, while the Chinese have not?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Japan does not have a large, poor peasantry; vast roaming hordes of unemployed workers; or a gaping rich-poor divide.

Good to see that 50 years of a free-market economy has given Japan less of a rich-poor divide than 50 years of Communism has given China.

Long life Chairman Mao!

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"People have hands. But they also need medical care, and they need to send their children to school. They also need jobs, and a place to stay, and consumer products."

Ranskaldan, how do they get those things without other people?

How can you have medical care without nurses, doctors? How can you have schools without teachers, librarians, and even custodians? How do you build houses without construction workers, or draftsmen or architects?

If you can magically find good employment for the 500 million people roaming around in China looking for odd and low-paying jobs, I'd be very grateful.
But they can't.

"They also need to produce waste, and pollution, and traffic."

And they also write poetry, paint works of art, some design new machines, and some even leave the world a better place then when they came. It's not all bad.

"half of the population fiddles their thumbs for lack of anything better to do. Some end up in the cities as cheap labour. Others go rob a bank."

Again, the problem isn't the people, its what you can do with the people. Is the solution to unemployment to kill off all the excess workers or to try to find them jobs?

And where are these jobs going to come from?

"Not just starvation. I'm talking about social unrest. Unemployment. Rich-poor gap. the works."

"Tens of millions of laid-off workers roaming the streets are dry branches. 300 million peasants looking for work in the city are dry branches."

With all of this, I think you will get revolution even with population control. Population control does not fix underlying social problems, nor unemployment.

It prevents these underlying social problems from escalating. While we work on solving these problems we don't want them to get bigger as we go along.

As for Europe and China, the point is well taken. There is much more arable land in Europe than in China. But the question remains, why doesn't Japan have roaming peasentry? Why have they gotten their act together, while the Chinese have not?

Japan has had 150 years to do this. Their population wasn't very large at the beginning (about 20 million), and they could adjust as they went along.

China, on the other hand, has had, what, 10-20 years of development. And we started with a huge population already in place, growing at an alarming rate.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by OzzyKP




Good to see that 50 years of a free-market economy has given Japan less of a rich-poor divide than 50 years of Communism has given China.

Long life Chairman Mao!

What do you think they're doing in China? Not communism, for sure.

We aren't North Korea, you know.

besides, it was Mao who came up with this "More people means easier to do things" wacky theory. Under his rule China's population grew from 500 million to 900 million, despite one famine that he personally caused.

[ranskaldan]

Besides, under Mao there was only the poor-poor equality. Capitalism created the rich-poor divide.

Not to say that capitalism is bad though. It's done better things in China than any concept or ideology has in 100 years.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
But China is big country land mass wise. Europe is about that size and they've got what, 900+ Million people? China might be even bigger, I'm not sure.

Only ten percent of the land in China is arable.

[DinoDoc]

Under his rule China's population grew from 500 million to 900 million

It wasn't because Chinese women are particularly sexy?

[ranskaldan]

that would explain the harshness of the laws in place.

one day we will swamp your fertile, underpopulated countries with Chinese women. We will hypnotise your populations. Then we will rule.

[chequita guevara]

As long as I get my Chinese hottie you can rule all you want.

[The Mad Monk]

I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs several years ago that suggested that new Democracies are nearly always unstable and dangerous, and that it is a normal state for them to go through. IIRC, it started with the French Revolution as an example of how any nascent democracy can drive itself to idealogical extremes. It suggested that third world democracies are having problems not because they are third world, but because they are new democracies.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, it started 100 years prior with the English Revolution. We all remember what a nice man Cromwell was, don't we?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As long as I get my Chinese hottie you can rule all you want.

It's a certified traditional strategy, known as the meirenji or "Strategem of Beauty". It has been used to great effect throughout Chinese history. It is, for example, how the Manchus bought off the Chinese general responsible for keeping the Manchus out.

I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs several years ago that suggested that new Democracies are nearly always unstable and dangerous, and that it is a normal state for them to go through. IIRC, it started with the French Revolution as an example of how any nascent democracy can drive itself to idealogical extremes. It suggested that third world democracies are having problems not because they are third world, but because they are new democracies.

It depends on how much you want to sacrifice for the switchover, though. How long can a country afford to be a "new democracy" before the very purpose of being democratic - better living standards and greater individual dignity - is defeated?

Some countries switch over quite peacefully after all, Poland, for example, or Hungary. But others go through so much turmoil that their entire economies are wiped out. In this case it isn't worth it to switch over - the people's living standards have dropped and may not recover for a long time.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, when both Poland and Hungary were first democracies, they very quickly became right-wing dictatorships, back following WWI.

[Mr. President]

Whatever Third World countries get, they find some way to waste. Money, education, natural resources, democracy, whatever - sooner or later it goes down the drain and they're the Third World again.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

I have an alagory for libertarian morality. You have ten people on a boat. Each of them owns a specific portion of the boat. One person decides he wants to drill a hole in his section. According to libertarian morality, not only should he be able to do so, but it would be wrong for the other nine to try and stop him. The world is just a very large boat.

If they can keep the water they let in out of everyone's compartments, go for it. But since they can't (and you know it), libertarian morality doesn't require allowing them to flood the boat.

Imran -

Have you SEEN India? Overpopulation is the main reason why India is so poor today. China is much richer because it has attempted to curtail population growth.

Why would China with a larger population be richer while India with a smaller population is poorer? It seems to me the main difference between India and China is that China is allowing the market to operate more than India. I've seen documentaries on the quagmire caused by India's regulatory system.

ranskaldan -

People have hands. But they also need medical care, and they need to send their children to school. They also need jobs, and a place to stay, and consumer products. They also need to produce waste, and pollution, and traffic.

As poor countries industrialise, reproduction rates decline with some countries seeing a negative rate. That has happened all over the "1st" world. I don't know about population densities in every country and continent, but it seems the most "backward" places have the lowest population densities. There's a reason for that, more hands translates into more production, more improvements, and more scientific discoveries.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs several years ago that suggested that new Democracies are nearly always unstable and dangerous, and that it is a normal state for them to go through. IIRC, it started with the French Revolution as an example of how any nascent democracy can drive itself to idealogical extremes. It suggested that third world democracies are having problems not because they are third world, but because they are new democracies.

Ahem. The grand ol' U S of A never imploded. Not counting England (which still had a king, and wasn't a real democracy/republic) we are the first modern democratic country and longest continuous. Does this mean we are just better than the rest of the world? hehe, as if anyone would admit that.

Some possible deal breakers:
After independence we had the Articles of Confederation which failed within 10 years and the Constitution was written. Since it was a transfer from democracy to democracy and it was entirely peaceful and voluntary I don't think there is much of a problem here.

The true question y'all will raise, and rightly so, is the Civil War. It was a big crisis for the nation, but not a sign of unstability and danger, it happened after 80 years of stable peaceful democratic rule, and even the war never threatened US democracy. We split and fought, but amazingly both halfs retained democracy on their own, and after the war was over democracy remained with no major changes. There was no period of anarchy, no government change, no dictator rising to power, no massive civil unrest (some riots, but nothing unusual).

Our government has been unbroken and largely unchanged for the last 220 years, meanwhile France went through 5 republics, 2 empires, and 2 or 3 monarchies, hehehe.

I don't know why this is, and I'm not attempting to create a universal model for forming successful democracies, just pointing out that it did happen, and came off quite splendidly.

[Arrian]

(Representative) Democracy has its faults. It is very vulnerable to demagaugery (see: Hitler, Adolf), it tends to be shortsighted because the pols are only in power for a set # of years before having to get re-elected, and IMO the nature of the election process pretty much guarantees that the people who seek high office are the very last people who should be allowed to attain it.

Like Churchill said, it's the worst form of government, except for all the others. Each of those problems are, to me, preferable to the alternatives presented by non-democratic systems of government.

Anyway, I think there is definitely something to be said for the argument that young democracies are usually volatile. The US had some advantages that 3rd world countries don't have.

-Arrian

[VetLegion]

An article about overopulation and liberty of breeding: The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker

I don't know about population densities in every country and continent, but it seems the most "backward" places have the lowest population densities. There's a reason for that, more hands translates into more production, more improvements, and more scientific discoveries.

Hmm...some of the least densely populated countries:

Canada
Australia
United States (yes, the US)
New Zealand
Sweeden
Russia
Norway

All well under 100/square mile

Even China doesn't have that high a population density, relatively speaking.

Really, the only exceptions are countries like Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Belgium, and a few other western European countries (although not France, Germany or Spain).

Overall, though, population density is rather meaningless in comparison to development. Many African countries have lower densities (comparatively speaking), and countries like India and Bangladesh have a some of the highest. Many Carribean states have densities as high or higher than the UK or Italy. Indonesia, while overall not that dense, has some areas (ie: Java) that are among the most dense in the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would China with a larger population be richer while India with a smaller population is poorer? It seems to me the main difference between India and China is that China is allowing the market to operate more than India. I've seen documentaries on the quagmire caused by India's regulatory system.

Um.. you looked a map lately? China is bigger than India.

And the regulatory system in India is NOTHING compared to what China had to go through. Both have liberalized at similar times.

[ranskaldan]

Bangladesh is one of the densest large countries in the world. Australia, on the other hand, is barely populated on the fringes. Is Bangladesh richer than Australia?

The problem does not lie with the density per se - it lies with the support structures in place that would keep these people fed, schooled, paid, married, happy, etc.

China, as of now, is struggling in that respect.