Can you jump out of the shackles instilled by the West?

Can you jump out of the shackles instilled by the West and really think rationally about whether what others preach to you is true democracy? Is it really logical and factual?

Summarize the article first, lazy bag:

1, equality is not equal to average. One person, one vote, regardless of individual ability differences, all are absolutely average, which is the biggest inequality.

2. The distribution of human rights is based on the principle of equality, and any right is linked to ability and contribution rather than average, so is political rights.

3. One person, one vote violates the universal law of human talent selection. Talents in any industry are not elected by one person, one vote. One person, one vote is irresponsible.

Multi-party system is the best way to shirk responsibility, and the real black hand behind the scenes is unscathed.

5. What is the purpose of choosing leaders? It is for the benefit of the people, which is the ultimate goal and the highest public opinion. So democracy is in the interests of the people.

6. The so-called democracy is a spiritual need, but the spiritual need is not a delusion, but also linked to your ability.

Development has nothing to do with "one person, one vote". Most countries that implement "one person, one vote" are not developed countries.

8. The government's integrity depends on the rule of law, not the way of one person, one vote and other sources of power.

9. The so-called voting supervision is the most unreliable way.

The following are the details and the demonstration process:

1, one person, one vote jeopardizes "everyone is equal".

Many people confuse "equality" with "average".

In fact, equality refers to equality of personality, not equality of rights, which is embodied in fairness, not average. And "average" is often unfair and unequal, and the embodiment of equality and fairness comes from inequality.

Just like the college entrance examination, any country has a set of ways to screen students, such as the college entrance examination, exams, grade points and so on. What can reflect the equality between candidates? This is fairness! In other words, each candidate competes through his own strength, and the final result and reward are divided according to the candidate's learning ability. If he studies well in a good school, then he can only go to a bad school or even fail in the list. This result is unbalanced, but fair, which embodies the equality among students.

If egalitarianism is implemented, students can go to a good school no matter how bad they study, which is unfair and completely unequal to those who study well.

Therefore, in a fair society, you will get as much as you pay. If you pay and don't pay, you get the same return, then this is an unfair society.

And one person, one vote, no matter whether you are hard-working or idle, no matter whether you are knowledgeable or illiterate, it is the same vote. No matter how hard you try, you are the same as people who don't work hard. This is an absolute egalitarianism, which means that people with poor ability and less effort account for the rights of people with high ability and more effort. This is the biggest unfairness! Therefore, one person, one vote actually seriously jeopardizes everyone's equality.

2. All human rights are linked with ability and dedication, which embodies equality and fairness. Political rights are no exception.

You really safeguard your rights by exercising the rights that match your abilities and efforts.

The college entrance examination mentioned above is an example. Even if the general meeting of shareholders elects the president in the company, it is one share and one vote, not one person and one vote. The right to vote is linked to your investment, which also reflects fairness.

Political rights are the needs of the people. Everyone has the right to participate in politics. Of course you have the right to vote. But like any other right, the size of the right is linked to the level of ability.

If doctors can diagnose diseases, nurses can't, architects can design buildings, but construction workers can't, so they can only move bricks. This is a division of labor. Whether you design or move bricks, you all participate, but the position and right to participate are linked to your ability.

This is not discrimination or inequality, but the level of ability.

The reason why architectural designers have professional qualifications and positions is that they are selected through examination, assessment, practice and other selection steps, and they are selected by experts in the field of architecture, not construction workers. Because construction workers have no corresponding professional training to choose designers.

Similarly, state-level government affairs also require extremely high professional standards.

It is absurd to say that construction workers have been engaged in construction for many years, but they still know something about the construction field, while most of them are not engaged in the political field, and their political accomplishment is much lower. The understanding of politics is just like the level of first-grade pupils, so it is absurd for first-grade pupils to choose national leaders such as "professors" and "academicians".

Therefore, it is not denied that everyone has the right to vote and stand for election, but as in any other field, the size of your rights is linked to your ability.

Quantifying the size of the right to vote and to be elected is to determine which level of political talents you can select, rather than directly selecting national leaders in one step. Hierarchical elections, rather than direct elections in one step, are the best and most reasonable selection methods.

Just as ordinary workers can choose a foreman but not a chief engineer, the chief engineer must be chosen by a higher level person.

Therefore, it is reasonable to let the people participate in the election, but it is limited to the election or presupposition of local people's congress representatives. This is limited by rank, not by rights.

3. No one in any industry or field of human beings is elected by universal suffrage of one person, one vote to select talents.

Selecting talents through professional institutions through examination, assessment, evaluation and publicity is a mode of selecting professionals and elites.

Because selection itself is a professional ability, not everyone can become a Bole. Just like doctors, only 5-7 experts in this field can be selected from the defense Committee. Talents in any field are not elected by laymen, one person, one vote.

There is no one person, one vote in all industries and fields. Are all the participants monopolized by autocracy? Can't these industries be regulated? Unable to serve the people?

This is not to say that the national quality is not enough. As long as there is a division of labor in human society, there are amateurs and experts. People do their own things and have their own professional fields. Of course, they are good at their own fields, but they are amateurs without their majors. Just like you show the doctor of medicine the drawings of skyscrapers, he is blind. Can he choose an architect? You show the plane designer the surgical photos. He is also blind. Can he choose a surgeon?

Similarly, politics is an extremely professional matter, which requires extremely high quality of political talents. Leaders at the national level, in particular, should take into account complex internal and external contradictions and interests such as society, economy, military affairs and diplomacy. Without professional experience and accomplishment, it is impossible to be competent.

How many ordinary people understand politics? (It is not that the quality of the people is not enough, but that there is a division of labor in society. Even if all people are doctors, their majors are different and they are laymen outside their majors. )

Let the people elect national leaders who require high competence and professionalism.

Isn't this a typical layman choosing an expert?

Just like doctors don't let experts and professors reply, but let passers-by decide whether to give degrees, and doctors are not evaluated by professional institutions, but let passers-by who don't know medicine vote whether to give doctoral qualifications or not, and let people who don't know architecture vote ... Is this a responsible attitude towards society and people?

Why does the west adopt this way of "one person, one vote" and publicize it all over the world?

Because "one person, one vote" actually puts the responsibility of selecting professional political talents in the hands of the vast majority of people who don't understand politics at all, and also adopts the principle of "the minority is subordinate to the majority". A few people in the crowd who really have a political mind are diluted by others who don't understand politics, which won't work.

In fact, the decision-making power of this typical layman to choose experts is not in the hands of ordinary people at all.

It is because people don't understand politics at all, so as long as they control public opinion, they can control people's thinking and then affect the election.

It is difficult to fool the elite, but it is too easy to fool the people.

Just like a person who doesn't know how to be a doctor wants to be a doctor, he can't fool a professional medical institution. However, if one person, one vote is adopted, most people who don't know medical skills will still be fooled. It is strange for a liar like Hu.

Therefore, Chen Shui-bian can play with millions of voters with two toy bullets, and the votes of a few people who can see something strange are diluted and useless.

Therefore, "one person, one vote" is only a means for interest groups to control politics.

4. "Multi-party system" is another means to further fool.

The same financier can manipulate different parties,

By monopolizing candidates through these political parties,

Ensure that the election results are in your own hands,

For example, every election in the United States is monopolized by two-party candidates (others will definitely not be elected if they run), but how the candidates are elected is not up to the people.

As long as the options are given by others, no matter which one you choose, it is others'.

This is just a scam.

Although American lawmakers are elected by the people, the support rate of the US Congress is only 20% all the year round, and the opposition rate is as high as 80%. This is a system that goes against public opinion. Moreover, it is legal for capital to lobby members, which makes Congress a tool for consortia. The so-called partisan struggle in Congress is actually a puppet show.

So we can see that the United States can spend more than ten trillion dollars to burn cannon fodder in the Middle East, fill the financial hole in Wall Street, and even provide hundreds of billions of dollars in military assistance to dictators in some countries. However, the two parties have an unprecedented tacit understanding on these matters, and they can honor the medical reform plan and only spend tens of billions to buy medical insurance for the poor, but it will not be implemented until the government closes.

Moreover, in the process of being in power, the multi-party system can be used as a way to shirk responsibility, shifting power from the left hand to the right hand. The people only see that their dissatisfaction has led to the rotation of the government, but they can't see the same interest groups behind the rotation of the government.

This government screwed up and the people were angry.

What should we do?

Master is going to launch a spokesperson party again.

You can re-elect, which will make him step down. You can choose this.

As a result, the people thought they had won, and their grievances subsided temporarily.

Then everything starts all over again.

This noise, that play, that noise, and then switch back to this.

No matter how the spokesmen change, the master behind them remains motionless.

How come this is not a scam?

Just like the financial crisis in the United States, it is so big, but even the responsible person can't be found.

But wall street is still wall street, and it still earns a lot of money.

However, many Americans really understand, so people stop going to the White House and go directly to occupy Wall Street, so they know who is the real master.

Having said that, many people criticize China's one-party system.

Think that one side is absolute power,

But the other side of absolute power is absolute responsibility.

You can't hide the responsibility, and you can't pass it on to both sides as easily.

In order not to make the people dissatisfied, we can only do it in a good way.

That's why the west, such as the United States,

What investigation into the embargo on China?

Really good things, such as high technology, are afraid that China will get them.

But he spared no effort to sell American democracy to China again and again.

Because if China is on the road.

They can also support spokesmen and puppet regimes in the same way.

5. What are the criteria for judging whether it is true democracy?

Democracy is in the interests of the people, not form!

Democracy is an inherent word, and its meaning cannot be understood literally.

Regarding the criteria for judging democracy, some people look at whether universal suffrage, separation of powers and freedom of speech are the criteria for democracy in full accordance with western standards.

But these are all forms, not essence.

For example, one person, one vote for the president, is it the president? No, I hope this president can make his life happy and improve his situation.

The separation of powers is also to maintain the legal system, and the purpose of maintaining the legal system is also for the happiness of people's lives.

Freedom of speech is also for the people to express their opinions and for the people's happiness.

The so-called people's participation in politics is also for the happiness of people's lives.

Therefore, people's happiness is the ultimate goal and the highest public opinion.

As long as it meets this highest goal and the highest public opinion, it is democracy.

In other words, as long as it conforms to the interests of the people, it is democracy.

Other so-called public opinion is lower than this highest public opinion and must also obey this highest public opinion.

For example, who you choose as president is only a staged public opinion and a means to reach the highest public opinion. If it is not in the interests of the people, even if the president is elected by one person, one vote, it is not democracy at all.

Therefore, what we see is that some countries have learned the forms of "one person, one vote", parliamentary system and separation of powers, but they have failed to achieve the goals of economic development and improvement of people's lives, even the most basic social stability and people's livelihood security. That is to say, it is not in the interests of the people at all, and this cannot be called democracy at all.

Just like Taiwan Province Province on the other side, we have learned all the forms, but what is the elected leader? Lee Teng-hui, a Japanese, Chen Shui-bian, the "chief executive of the United States in Taiwan" who represents the interests of the United States, and Ma Ying Jiu, who has a support rate of 9%, are all called idiots.

As a result, social development stagnated and people's wages 17 years remained unchanged.

The economy has changed from 40% of the mainland before the western-style system to only one twentieth today.

Is this in the interest of the people?

Is it in line with the highest public opinion?

Can this be called democracy?

As long as it conforms to the interests of the people, it is democracy.

Instead of the so-called ballot and multi-party form.

As political amateurs, it is difficult for most people to grasp their own interests, especially the protection of long-term interests, which requires a certain political vision.

If we blindly follow the wishes of the people, we may eventually harm the people's own interests. Can this be called democracy?

Just as a doctor will restrict the patient's behavior, it may not be in line with the patient's wishes, but it is definitely for the patient's benefit. Can you say that patients are slaves of doctors?

Parents and teachers will also restrain their children's behavior, which is also for their own good. Can you say that this child is the teacher's slave?

6. Democracy is a spiritual need.

The adoption of indirect elections in a step-by-step manner and at a higher level can already meet the needs of the people's democratic spirit.

Because spiritual needs are not delusions, but also linked to your cultivation. Society does not meet your spiritual needs according to your delusion.

Just as a soldier who doesn't want to be a general is not a good soldier, this "thinking" is not a delusion. If you want to be a general, you must have the ability and quality to be a general.

You want to be a general. Not a spiritual need. This is daydreaming.

If you want to be a general, you should start as a monitor, platoon leader and company commander in a down-to-earth manner, and your real "spiritual needs" are your efforts at every step and the pursuit of your goals.

7. Some people say that most developed countries have a multi-party system of one person, one vote, but they don't see it. Similarly, most backward countries, such as Rwanda and Afghanistan, have a multi-party system of one person and one vote.

None of the so-called developed countries is developed by today's western-style system. For example, after World War II, the United States was the boss, but it was not until the 1960 s that apartheid was implemented, and it was not until the introduction of the 1965 election bill that real universal suffrage appeared; In Britain, the House of Lords ruled until the 1950s, but today the members of the House of Lords are all hereditary. When it was the boss, it was engaged in cannibalism and genocide. In Switzerland, women can't vote until 197 1

Third world countries engage in western-style systems, while developed countries rarely or even hardly have them. South Korea, for example, became the four little dragons during the military dictatorship. In Taiwan Province Province, when the two Chiang Kai-shek were hereditary, they were also the four little dragons. In the 1990s, the western-style system was adopted, and the economy stagnated, accounting for 45% of the mainland's economy and less than 5% today.

The real multi-party system of "one person, one vote" was established in the West only after 1970s, but it has not been tested by history in just a few decades. And the fact is, after these years of implementation, the west has obviously begun to decline. For example, the United States experienced the financial crisis and has survived by debt so far. Europe has not yet emerged from the European debt crisis, the root of which is that Greek politicians cover up problems irresponsibly in order to please voters. The consequences of increasing the number of commitments.

So whether this system is really suitable for the West itself remains to be tested. Not to mention universality.

Conclusion: As a political layman, people can play the role of communication, information and power supervision within the legal framework, and can also participate in voting in local people's congresses at the grassroots level or at the village level, and select more advanced political talents at the first level to ensure the gradual improvement of ruling professionalism. And in the process of the rule of law, give play to everyone's role and cultivate the spirit of the rule of law in the whole society.

This is where the system of our country needs to be improved, instead of introducing universal suffrage and multi-party system advocated by some people and becoming a tool for capital interest groups.

8. One-person-one-vote multiparty system has nothing to do with clean government.

The prevention and control of corruption depends on power supervision, which belongs to the category of rule of law and is different from the source of power.

The degree of government integrity is related to the level of rule of law and social development in the country.

Among 178 countries in the world, China ranks 70-80 in corruption over the years, which can be said to be above the world average, and it is in a better situation among third world countries with the same level of development.

The most incorruptible countries are also developed countries, and their social systems have been improved for at least one hundred years. The perfection of the rule of law is the main factor of incorruptibility.

Similarly, the vast majority of the most corrupt countries in the world are also countries that implement the multi-party system of one person, one vote.

In Asia, the cleanest countries are Qatar and United Arab Emirates. However, they are all feudal systems inherited by chiefs, and no political party activities are allowed, let alone voting and multi-party system. But they are much cleaner than Taiwan Province Province and much better than Indian and Philippine. Because of its perfect rule of law, such as the United Arab Emirates, the rule of law index ranks more than 20 in the world, which is equivalent to the level of developed countries. Although it is a feudal rule of law, such as discrimination against women, it has to conform to the ancient blue classics.

In addition, corruption is not only a government category, but also other people with real power. For example, corruption on Wall Street is known all over the world. Even the Federal Reserve, which issues dollars, is in their hands, which is the lifeline of the United States. However, no one is responsible for their financial crisis. Instead, Congress forced taxpayers' money to fill this loophole. It is precisely because, although the three powers in the United States are separated, no power can compete with Wall Street, but it has become a tool for them to grab money.

Therefore, what our country really needs to improve is the level of rule of law. Of course, this is a long process. The rule of law is not only the perfection of legal provisions, but also the rule of law spirit of everyone in society.

It also takes time to make some laws.

For example, the official property publicity system needs a lot of research and experiments, and should be based on the improvement of the social credit system. Otherwise, hasty implementation will force a large number of stolen money to be transferred or bleached through legal loopholes. For example, many third world countries have implemented the property disclosure system, but the corruption is more serious than that in China.

For example, in the United States, there was a proposal on the official property disclosure system at the beginning of the 20th century, but it was not until the 1960s that relevant laws were enacted. By the end of 1980s, a quarter of states had not implemented it, and it had been brewing for nearly 65,438+000 years.

In our country, proposals were put forward in the 1980s, and now many laws have been promulgated, and some places have started to experiment, which is still much faster.

9. Many people think that with votes, officials can be supervised. In fact, this is a huge misunderstanding. In fact, voting is the most unreliable way. Most countries with the lowest ranking of corruption in the world have one person, one vote.

First of all, you can only vote once every four years. The so-called "if he doesn't perform well, he won't be elected next time" is the least painful! Instead, it is the best way to shirk responsibility!

Four years is a short time? Enough for him, right? But the people's reaction can only be not to elect him after four years. Isn't this like being cheated of a lot of wealth and time by a liar? The victim's reaction can only be "don't look for him next time in a few years", and the liar is not happy? What's more, he will only serve two terms at most. When he is elected for the second term, he will not participate in the next election anyway, and the people will not even have the opportunity to "not elect him next time".

Second, the so-called "because the people decide whether politicians will stay or not, politicians will not run amok for the support of the people." More ridiculous! Who really decides whether politicians stay or not? The people have the right to choose between them only in the final election stage. Who supported him as a candidate before that? Who pays for his publicity? This is not decided by the people, is it? You have offended the consortium and can't even be a candidate!

What's more, people who don't engage in politics and have no political quality are easily influenced by the public opinion controlled by the consortium media. Just like Chen Shui-bian, both toy bullets can play the applause of the people (it can also be seen how unreliable the so-called "don't choose him next time" is. A little trick at the critical moment can make most people change, and a few people with political minds see some strange things, which are also covered up by the rule of "the minority is subordinate to the majority".

It can be seen that people just choose one of the good options given by others. The choice is made by others, no matter who you choose, it is given in advance. Do people really have to decide?

Just like the election in the United States, it has always been a bipartisan monopoly, and the president is a candidate of both parties. And who can make you a candidate of both parties? The super party representatives and the consortium behind them have the final say. If you offend them, you can't even be a candidate, let alone be president?

Even if you become president, like Kennedy, you have the highest support rate in American history? But so what? He was killed in broad daylight, and the relevant information was blocked by the FBI. It won't be made public until 2039. The real murderer is still at large, killing the president and even easily settling it with the state machine. So who is the real power? Who has a real say?

Third, it is the rule of law that really plays a supervisory role. If Chen Shui-bian is arrested after stepping down, it will not be by referendum or election, but by legal means. The impeachment of Clinton was also initiated by an independent prosecutor, which is also a legal procedure! Where is the vote?

The rule of law has nothing to do with one person, one vote. Just like the United Arab Emirates, it is a hereditary monarchy, and political parties are prohibited. However, the rule of law index is higher than that of Taiwan Province Province and Italy, and the corruption index is also in the forefront of Asia, surpassing that of Taiwan Province Province.

Fourth, "because of the votes and supervision, just like the steering wheel, the country can correct itself in the process of progress to avoid going astray, which can keep the country alive for a long time."

Joke! Then why did the United States still engage in slavery for a hundred years? Two hundred years of apartheid? Still breaking out financial crises again and again but unable to find a solution? Is Europe still in deep crisis? Just like Greece, the first electors pushed the country into the abyss step by step, not to mention the third world country that implemented one person, one vote. How many countries can't come back? Even in India, which has performed well, the long-term caste system cannot be shaken. Is the so-called "lest you go astray" really what you think? Can you think rationally and don't shout slogans for granted?

Fifth, any field of human beings, whether it is education, medical care, construction, including judicial and other public authorities, also serves the people and concerns everyone's interests. But none of them use one person, one vote to select talents and managers. According to your logic, can't these areas work well? Unable to effectively supervise?

This is reproduced. I hope it helps you.