Yadda wrote on Mar 19
th, 57018 at 1:56pm:
Hong Kong was 'a more prosperous' jurisdiction, before the 'take-back', by the CCP.
HK is part of China. The problems in HK arose because extremist separatists rejected the 'one country-two systems' approach, and wanted to be an independent state, just as the "freedom" fools on Taiwan want to be free of the CCP government.
[Though supported by the Pentagon, the Taiwanese separatist "freedom" fools don't have, and will never have, a state recognized by the UN).
Today HK is stable and growing once again.
Macao proves 'one country-two systems' works if the extremist "freedom" fools shut up; and even in Taiwan the extremist DDP fools only got 40% of the vote in the last election.
You would be hard put to name
actual freedoms (eg, religious freedom, gender freedom etc which the CCP violates.
Quote:In its lead up to the take-back of Hong Kong, the CCP promoted
One Country, Two Systems.
.....as a slogan, >> as a method << of reassuring Hong Kong residents, of the intentions of the CCP,
towards Hong Kong.
Not a slogan: HK has its own government, just as states in a federation have their own state governments.
Quote:And are you also claiming that the consequential CCP takeover of Hong Kong,
which we all witnessed, was undertaken [by the CCP] in the interests of the securing the sovereignty [i.e. the POLITICAL authority] of [individual] Hong Kong residents ?
No. You are merely asserting
rule by as little as 50%+1, in adversarial democracies, is a better system than government by consensus meritocracy.
Quote:Because such an argument would be B.S.
Correct.
Quote:socialism = a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulatedby the community as a whole.[/b]
Correct, with government representing the interests of the people as a whole, not just the most powerful.