You "schooled" me with a Wiki page. How impressive. A sure sign than you are more of an expert than a native voter and political watcher, I take it?
Yes, I schooled you. My citations beat your citations. If you have something to add to that, then add to it and we'll pick up from there.
The exception creates the rule, because non-democrats can use those examples to justify why they shouldn't support democracy, which is what is happening in real life.
Even if, for the sake of argument, I completely grant you Singapore, the best democracies still beat Singapore on every metric, from GDP per capita to HDI.
What does denying reality serve? Even granted that most economic metrics still favour democratic countries in the developed world, some authoritarian states have demonstrated superior economic growth. And that's the whole problem. You can say, "Look at how rich Western liberal democratic countries are," and people in Asia can reply with, "Well, look at how poor democratic India is and look at how well some countries are doing in the last few decades without pluralistic or liberal democratic systems." So they go on their way and
suppress opposition and ensure one-party rule, and that kind of stuff, and enjoy
fame and
fortune.
If you only want to look at growth rates, in isolation of all relevant context, then the democratic nation of Nauru beats all of its opponents (avg 16 % growth past 10 years, compared to 8,2% in China). But then again I suppose total wealth would be a much better metric.
As for India, yes, some authoritarian countries are wealthier than India. So what? I was talking about Western democracies, which still beat all of their opponents in every metric. Best democracies beat best authoritarian countries. On the whole, western democracies perform very well, whereas authoritarian countries do not. Hardly an argument against democracy.
As for Singapore, I realize that Singapore system is not completely free, but I'm not sure you can call it entirely non-democratic either.
Although the elections are clean, there is no independent electoral authority and the government has strong influence on the media.
Freedom House ranks Singapore as "partly free" in its
Freedom in the Worldreport,
[87] and
The Economist ranks Singapore as a "flawed democracy", the second best rank of four, in its "
Democracy Index".
[88][89] The latest elections
were in September 2015, with the PAP winning 83 of 89 seats contested with 70% of the popular vote.[
citation needed]
And again, even if I were to grant you Singapore, what does it matter? Democracies still beat it on every metric.
As for China, all of their authoritarian measures aren't even close to producing the kind of wealth the West enjoys. Hardly a proof of supremacy of their system.
Rather than engaging in rhetoric that isn't working. What is your personal reason for preferring democracy? And how might this connect with others who might not already grasp what you're talking about? I think personal experience might be the key.
As for my personal reasons, it is because I value liberty. I value the possibility of keeping my government accountable. I value the idea that a government should respond to the actual needs of its citizens. Why would I trade any of those things in favor of an inferior system?
My point is that the economic development of Easter Germany was affected by reparations to the Soviet Union. I'm not sure why you keep asking for arbitrary numbers, but if you want link, you can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_German_Democratic_Republic
I want a number, because that will help us gauge the magnitude of the phenomena that you believe exists. How can you justify your claims if you don't even know how much wealth was taken? There is zero reason to think you know what you're talking about.
Don't play the games if you can't support the claims comrade. Give me a number. Back up your assertions and then we'll talk.
Again, why you consider Chinese and Singaporean government systems inferior? Can you prove it?
Even if, for the sake of argument, I completely grant you Singapore, the best democracies still beat Singapore on every metric, from GDP per capita to HDI. Same if true for China.
This thread is yet another example of the question, where S.P. Huntington quotes perfectly fit:
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
and
"In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous"
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
And that's that? You have a quote from one guy vs. all of my statistics? Am I supposed to take this seriously? If I find quotes of people who either oppose authoritarian systems, or support democracy, would that "negate" your singular quote? (Do I even need to do this?)
