Home > aside, Letters > Comments on Democracy and China

Comments on Democracy and China

There has been a lot of excellent debate about democracy and China in recent days.  I want to use thread to bookmark and archive some of the best arguments both for and against.  Any comments capture your attention?

Let’s not use this thread for further debate, just for nominations.  if you disagree with one of the comments, reply directly on the thread the comment came from.  Let’s just use this to bookmark the most interesting arguments.

  • CRT:  – “One man, one vote” isn’t important, but feedback loop is.
  • perspectivehere: – How does “one man, one vote” solve key practical problems?  Democracy is fragile.
  • Buxi: – Political reform is as risky as surgery, and requires more planning than car design.
  • JD: – Democracy is a secure foundation for a more stable society.

And yes, feel free to nominate your own comments (I already did!). 😆

Categories: aside, Letters Tags: ,
  1. Jim
    October 6th, 2011 at 13:57 | #1

    @raventhorn2000

    Where did I conflate the type of interpretation of laws in which judges engage with the type of “spin doctoring” (a.k.a. advocacy) in which many lawyers engage?

    Also, I never asserted that a person’s poor LSAT score necessarily indicates that the person will be an an unsuccessful lawyer by all measures, even if I suspect that you probably are a bad lawyer. I do, however, think your low LSAT score tends to support a conclusion I had already made based on my interactions with you: you’re not smart. And sure, I’ll take the bait– I also think that my scoring 20 points higher than you scored tends to support the conclusion that my analytical skills are better than yours. I’m being an ass on this forum because I’m frustrated that you can’t even comprehend how dumb some of your comments are!

    Grow some balls and admit when you’ve said something wrong. Just because the United States might disregard an international law doesn’t mean the international law obligation disappears. It doesn’t make sense to describe such a disregarded international law as not being a “customary law” in the United States because that’s now how we describe our laws in the United States, and this description would obscure the fact that the United States still does have a duty under that international law (developed from customary international law), even if the United States disregards it and nobody punishes the United States. You could criticize international law as being ineffective, but that’s a different argument and still doesn’t make the international law obligation disappear for the objects of international law, namely nation states.

    Also, I already cited a case in which a U.S. court affirmed the U.S. government’s obligation to abide by customary international law; it’s an old case, but it’s regarded as the preeminent case on point. Further, what’s troubling about the Humberto Leal case is that the United States ignored its obligation under a treaty (another source of international law). You might recall from law school — but probably don’t recall — that the U.S. Constitution has a Supremacy Clause: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI (emphasis added). Again, the point here is just that U.S. courts haven’t always disregarded international law obligations, and in many cases, U.S. courts are supposed to be bound to affirm the obligations of the United States that arise under international law.

  2. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 14:13 | #2

    “I do, however, think your low LSAT score tends to support a conclusion I had already made based on my interactions with you: you’re not smart.”

    Yeah, OK, if LSAT score is your “support” for conclusion, you are reaching for straws! and that supports my conclusion, that you are not that smart (and pretty desperate) if you are reaching for LSAT scores!! LOL!!

    “Just because the United States might disregard an international law doesn’t mean the international law obligation disappears.”

    Actually, it does. If US doesn’t recognize an international law, BY DEFINITION, US doesn’t recognize its “obligation”, PERIOD!!!

    I just wonder how you are going to enforce the “obligation”, when US government doesn’t recognize the “obligation”. LOL!! Wait outside of the court house for a few more months, and let me know how that goes!!

    “Also, I already cited a case in which a U.S. court affirmed the U.S. government’s obligation to abide by customary international law; it’s an old case, but it’s regarded as the preeminent case on point.”

    Well, it should be easy for you to remind the US government of its “obligations”!

    Go ahead, make your “compelling” case, let us know when you get somewhere with US to recognize the UDHR and UNCLOS as customary international law obligations of US!!

    I can wait. You have PLENTY of time!! 🙂

    “Again, the point here is just that U.S. courts haven’t always disregarded international law obligations, and in many cases, U.S. courts are supposed to be bound to affirm the obligations of the United States that arise under international law.”

    “SUPPOSED to” doesn’t mean any more than “SHOULD be”.

    You are pretty much admitting that US doesn’t recognize UDHR and UNCLOS as “customary international law”, why are you continuing to argue??

    Who cares what you thinks is “SUPPOSED TO BE” or “SHOULD BE”??!! They aren’t law in US!

    “SUPPOSED TO BE” and “SHOULD BE”?? Well, NOT there YET!!

    Let me know when you get the US courts to change it to “IS”!

  3. raventhorn2000
    October 6th, 2011 at 14:41 | #3

    “I also think that my scoring 20 points higher than you scored tends to support the conclusion that my analytical skills are better than yours.”

    Not really, I don’t know you or your score or your skills.

    I just know you saying “Supposed to be” and “should be”, while avoiding what “IS”. That tells me that you tend to INFLATE your facts.

  1. March 13th, 2019 at 03:20 | #1
  2. March 13th, 2019 at 04:14 | #2
  3. March 14th, 2019 at 20:06 | #3
You must be logged in to post a comment.