Thread: Смертная казнь в России

The more I read about Singapore the more I like this country.

Well I have had some very good times in Singapore - I like it.
There are no beggars, no crime, no very poor people, no drugs, no prostitution. Just a very sunny place where people think that shopping is a hobby and where people leave their wallets on the table at McDonald's to mark their seat.

It's got a slightly surreal feeling to it though, like a little miniature "perfect city". Indonesia which is quite poor, is close by - big contrast. Every other family has a maid from the Phillipines. Hm...

The man who kicked off modern Singapore is called Lee Kuan Yew; he is basically a "super-bureacrat". He seems in interviews like a modest, educated and decent person although obviously there is more to him than what meets the eye. He had the good sense to step down before he got senile or too old to run the country efficiently.

The interesting thing is that the whol country was a DUMP in 1965 or so - abandoned by Britain, and with people from all over the world who had nothing in common. It was dirty, dangerous and unpleasant.

Now it's one of the richest countries in the world with good standards of living for everyone and quite a patriotic population. The "price" that they have paid is that the government is rather autocratic. Lately the pro-democracy movement there has started growing though.

I suppose there might be people who might say that Russia actually doesn't necessarily NEED a Western democracy right now. They might think that it really needs a government that can put a stop to corruption, criminality etc.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I suppose there might be people who might say that Russia actually doesn't necessarily NEED a Western democracy right now. They might think that it really needs a government that can put a stop to corruption, criminality etc.

1. Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).
2. A government can't stop corruption because it the source of corruption.

But how can you be positive about a strong government in a place like Singapore and be against it in Russia?

It IS possible for a government not to be corrupt. I guarantee that the Scandinavian governments aren't. The worst scandal for a decade was when one politician was found to have bought snacks at a petrol station with her government credit card, and another had used a nanny who was paid cash-in hand and not declared - only for a month.

Of course, there could be scandals going on that I don't know of: But all the top politicians live in normal neighbourhoods, next door to regular people like electricians and teachers... They don't get rich from being a politician.

The only other thing that I think they do which is a bit "underhand" is making countries that recieve financial aid use it to buy Swedish products. But this has only happened in a few cases.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I guarantee that the Scandinavian governments aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil_corruption_case
А правительство со спецслужбами ничегошеньки не знали?

Oops that's Norway... We (Sweden) should never have let them go...
Now they are too rich with their oil... I guess that's corrupted them.
Frankly I didn't know about that since I have lived in the UK for a while.
But this kind of thing is very much the exception though.

Because there is no real corruption, media blows up the instances that they can find to gigantic proportions. Like the woman who bought snacks at a petrol station.. That story ran for MONTHS and was covered from every imaginable angle. She has since resigned.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Now they are too rich with their oil... I guess that's corrupted them.

There is a popular reference in Karl Marx "Capital" vol.1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 31.htm#n15

With adequate profit, capital is very bold....
300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged

Originally Posted by Johanna

But how can you be positive about a strong government in a place like Singapore and be against it in Russia?

I don't mind strict laws if EVERYONE obeys them. But as it was once said 'the severity of Russian laws is mitigated by their non-observance'.
Thousand years of history proved the fact. It might be that in Singapore they can guarantee total law obedience but this just wouldn't work in Russia.

Originally Posted by Johanna

It IS possible for a government not to be corrupt. I guarantee that the Scandinavian governments aren't.

I am SO GLAD to hear that. Your words are reassuring for some reason.
Power is a crime. Take the North Stream project for example. I can practically guarantee that there were bribes of some sort.

Of course, there could be scandals going on that I don't know of: But all the top politicians live in normal neighbourhoods, next door to regular people like electricians and teachers... They don't get rich from being a politician.

How do you know? Greed is a universal vice and I doubt Scandinavian politicians are immune to that.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).

So, be a slave!
A wine of slavery is sweeter than bitter poison of the Freedom, isn't it?!

I just can't belive in it. Where is your pride? Do not forget: only internal weakness searches for an external strength!

Originally Posted by Звездочёт

Originally Posted by Ramil

Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).

So, be a slave!
A wine of slavery is sweeter than bitter poison of the Freedom, isn't it?!

I just can't belive in it. Where is your pride? Do not forget: only internal weakness searches for an external strength!

Your mind cannot comprehend any other alternative to democracy? Is it going to be slave or a free man? I'll tell you that I AM A SLAVE NOW JUST LIKE YOU ARE. Democracy is a vilest form of slavery when slaves think they are free.

Oh, yes, I know this "demagogy". However, please, say me, what's your slavery? And do not forget, slave does not have the speech freedom like you.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).

Only sovereign!

Originally Posted by Wowik

Originally Posted by Ramil

Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).

Only sovereign!

What for?

Originally Posted by Звездочёт

Oh, yes, I know this "demagogy". However, please, say me, what's your slavery? And do not forget, slave does not have the speech freedom like you.

Those were ancient slaves. The modern ones can tallk the s.it out of their minds but nobody really cares. 90% of our population works for food. What 'rights' are you talking about? Who would be really interested in your opinion about any major political issue? Who will win if you sue the Moscow mayor? What exactly are you free to do? Really?

Originally Posted by Ramil

90% of our population works for food. What 'rights' are you talking about? [...] What exactly are you free to do?

This subject is purely philosophic. You can just equally say a person who has nothing has a real freedom. :"":

First of all. You confuse slavery and injustice.

You said "Those were ancient slaves". "Ancient?" -- I ask you. But what will you say about this:

Originally Posted by http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/80132

По оценкам Международной Организации Труда (International Labor Organization), жертвами принудительного труда, труда по долговым обязательствам, принудительного детского труда и сексуальной эксплуатации в любой момент времени являются 12.3 млн. человек; по другим оценкам, их насчитывается от 4 млн. до 27 млн.

Из примерно 600-800 тыс. человек, которые каждый год становятся жертвами международных торговцев людьми, 80% составляют женщины и девочки и до 50% - несовершеннолетние. Большинство из них становятся жертвами индустрии коммерческого секса. Эти цифры не включают в себя миллионы людей во всем мире, которые становятся объектом торговли внутри стран их проживания.

Понятие "современное рабство" имеет три основных признака. Во-первых, деятельность человека контролируется с помощью насилия или угрозы применения такого насилия. Во-вторых, человек находится в данном месте и занимается данным видом деятельности против своей воли и не может изменить ситуацию по собственному желанию. В-третьих, за свою работу он получает минимальную оплату, либо вообще ее не получает. Современное рабовладение неизбежно сопровождается насилием, убийствами, изнасилованиями, похищениями, нелегальным переходом границ, подделкой документов и т.д.

This is slavery. Do you whant say me, that your "slavery" situation obeys these three signs?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

This subject is purely philosophic.

Indeed! We are talking philosophy here.

Звездочет, I don't quite understand what your point is. You did say (well, implied): either we have democracy or we will be slaves (at least this was how I understood your point). I mentioned that present 'democratic' living standards went not too far away from the ones the slaves were in 2000 years ago. There's more, some slaves in Rome lived in quite comfortable conditions - some were even better than ours (not everyone, of course, but there were some).

I still remain at the point that democracy is an hypocritic and evil form of government. Any soft 'authoritorian' form of government is better than this Western democratic model.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Indeed! We are talking philosophy here.

Philosophically speaking, one could say that the only freedom a person has is to choose a form of his slavery. :"":

Luckily, we don't have to resort to the casuistic reasoning as the slavery has a decisive test: CAN YOU LEAVE IT OR NOT?

Think about it: a person who escaped a "correctional working facility" and dies in taiga alone would die feeling free. (And it's true that for the fact the person is still enslaved by the force of gravity, for example. )

So, the USSR of the past would not allow its citizens to leave at their will, and modern Russia would. Therefore, the USSR was effectively a slavery and Russia is not. Period. No speculations. Feel free to apply that rule to any "soft authoritarian form of government".

My problem lies with the 'kratía' part of the term dēmokratía. This term is hypocrisy all by itself. I could agree with the notion that the only freedom we have is to choose whom to obey, but why call it peoples' rule?

In reality people don't rule, their voting is just a show and does not decide anything. Besides, as it is known, the majority just can't be right because as a mass any number of people are as dumb as the dumbest of them. (Remember that 95% of population are idiots ). Why submit to the will of criminals or idiots?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I could agree with the notion that the only freedom we have is to choose whom to obey, but why call it peoples' rule?

I think what's more important is the substance and not the way you name it. The USSR proclaimed that the factories belonged to the workers and the land belonged to the farmers, but was it true for the fact? There are all kind of "blue pills" in the world, so that people's conscience is freed to live their own lives and deal with their own affairs. Don't take it too harshly.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Why submit to the will of criminals or idiots?

The idiots are only repeating what the criminals said, so it's the rule of the criminals only. In any form of the "cratia" only the criminals can survive at the top. (I think we had a mutual agreement on that.)