李世默：如果美国不改变，自由这个词就不配放在民主前面

[@adamrosendahl8090]

"What's good about elections if they produce incompetent leaders. What's good about judicial independence if it only benefits the rich. What's so great about freedom of press and freedom of speech if all it does is create division and disfunction." Absolutely spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[@jj4321]

Worst on no election, worst on no fair judiciary system, hahaha, you can move there to enjoy.

[@fenxian]

Liberalism regime failed democracy.

[@gangzhang3901]

what you said is correct. But it still beats the alternatives. YES, it is a little crazy now in the West with coordinated attacks from all over the places to prove autocracy a better form of Government plus in the mid of industry revaluation. However, things will settle down and democracy will shine in the end.

[@kenh4681]

The reasons elections don't produce competent leaders are pretty obvious. Elections simply enable voters to choose whoever they LIKE based on whatever they happen to know and don't know.

[@gangzhang3901]

@@kenh4681 YES, that is true from time to time. But it will correct itself in the end as long as the powers are balanced in a democratic system. Only in a Authoritarian society, power rules and alternative facts created to fool people.

[@lilyge8956]

李世默太厉害太棒了👍👍👍如果中国有多一些像他这样的学者/商人， 中国在国际上的话语权一定会大大提高!!

[@bsbd8822]

诡辩专家李世默，中国人的耻辱。

[@jerryteng9513]

@@bsbd8822 說說哪裡詭辯啊，不要老是張口就噴，一點證據都沒有，這樣很無賴

[@bsbd8822]

@@jerryteng9513 这么低级的谎言，真提不起兴趣驳斥他，这个李世默是个极其无耻的下等流氓。他其实跟别人透露过：他说的这些、他自己并不相信，只是为了自己的利益这么做，你去网上查资料吧。

[@jerryteng9513]

為何我對 bs bd 精采的反擊都被民主了，看來youtube 漸漸演不下去了呵呵...

[@bsbd8822]

@@jerryteng9513 我的很多帖子也不见了，我还没说什么呢！你的精彩反击有多精彩？为谎言辩护能够“精彩”到哪去？

[@vichitvideo6041]

Eric is a very knowledgeable and scholarly businessman. It is very pleasant to listen to what he has to say.

[@lilyge8956]

He is so sharp and knowledgeable, with an in depth understanding of the real issues with the Western democracy, that he is absolutely amazing proposing the sensible solutions...

[@MRTY323]

李先生總是令人驚艷

[@Edward-You]

非常具有启发性的演讲。其实不是自由不配放在民主前面，而是民主不配放在自由的后面。美国根本不是一个民主的国家，他只是个自由的国家，而做主的只是有钱人。

[@lljin4212]

美国也不是真正自由的国家，是有钱人的自由国家。大事小事动辄上法庭，好像很讲法治。而穷人打不起官司，解释权在法官和律师手里，只有富人才请得起好律师。即使证据确凿，被判刑，富人也可以缴纳昂贵的保释金出狱，穷人只能老老实实呆在富人承包的监狱里。富人可以请很多警察保护自己的社区，而穷人只能在没有警察的“自由”社区里内斗。所以美国的“自由”不是真正的自由，它的自由只体现在人性的放纵和自我。富人享受无拘无束的“自由”，穷人只能享受毒品、枪支、滥交、愚昧、疾病、流离失所的“自由”。

[@jieyan7952]

自由民主在我的词典中更多是商业概念，公平理性科学更适合国家治理，做到这些才更接近人权民主

[@painandgain1163]

说得很好，民主放在了自由的后面，是现在西方没落国家乱象的症结所在

[@shinodls]

Very good points Eric! Can't agree more with the new set of KPIs you proposed to measure democracy, rather than so sort of biased measurement by some so called Democratic counties.

[@iqbang9236]

I would say the US deliberately misleads the countries by saying your country will be magically better off if you just simply adopt the "Democratic" voting system like us. The reality is because of the instability, those countries' wealth all fall into American's pocket. They purposely ignored the result measure.

[@小趙的遊戲頻道]

與其去爭"誰的制度比較好"、"誰的民主開放程度高低" 還不如真正意義上、腳踏實地的，去改善、建設人民真正想要的各種生活建設 人民最想要的，就是要先能吃飽、喝足、穿得暖、有錢花 也唯有衣食無缺的環境，才能讓老百姓從農忙中抽出時間 去進一步要求政府改善其他當初沒時間去注意的生活細節 比如說教育提升、交通網絡改善、街道衛生等社會問題 要如何讓百姓都有錢，就是政府做為公僕，該去思考、煩惱與處理的 而人民有了錢，才有餘力去改進社會，也才能進一步讓國家進入"正向循環" #中國人加油！！

[@五浬軒散人]

你說的是從物質層面去改善基礎需求 這點是對的 避免人民遭受疾病 飢餓 犯罪的侵害是所有政府 不論民主或專制 都必須承擔的責任 但政府的職能僅止於此嗎？避免分配不均 貪腐預防 防止政府對人民的違法侵害&任意擴權 不也是它的責任嗎？ 停留於物質層面的滿足 真的就能讓人民滿足了嗎？看看膜蛤跟辱包題材的創作有多少網路聲量 就足以說明 人民渴望的 遠不只是「自己」生活的「小確幸」而已 而專制能比民主更能達成這些嗎？ 所以其實中國政府應該做的 是展現出它如何可以在更少的干預之下 達成比美國更有效的治理 從而「比美國更民主」 畢竟否定民主的價值 等於就是否定了中共當局統治的正當性(人大雖然只是橡皮圖章 形式上還是得辦投票)

[@y99420]

民主或專制.都可能讓人類幸福

[@szeholai4877]

民主不代表自由，人連活下去的权利都沒有，还谈什么民主自由?民主自由要有个限度，如果沒有法律越束，就是为所欲为的野蛮世界，民主不能架淩在法律之上，如果民主人权言論自由，都在法律之上，那只能说是一个毫無秩序的世界，一个国家或社会秩序比什么都重要.

[@nju415]

说的很好。让我想起了很多年前李大师在北大的演讲。他也提起了放弃自由主义，但并没说放弃民主。当时还不太明白

[@汤圆-y7f]

当美国最高法院前几年允许任何人合法的无上限的给政客送钱－或叫政治捐款时，美国的民主制度就是个玩笑了

[@nju415]

@@汤圆-y7f 我觉得理性来说的话，民主制度还是有他存在的必要性和优越性。政治献金本来就是光明正大的交易。关键问题就是民主制度应用的场合，有效性以及实施的可靠性。就拿我生活的加州而言，公民对垃圾处理厂的修建通过地方议员表达不满，对学生录取提出新的法案，对某一条道路的限速提出意见抗议搜是很不错的美国民主社会的应用。咱国内也可以有通过街道，居委会，区办事处进行类似的民主活动，但效率比起美国还是要差一些。有效性来自于利益冲突是否能妥协，很多西方国家的民主弊端就来自于次，利益集团和选票，不同背景文化的人群互相之间的博弈，说实话难题比国内要大很多。所以尝尝就是要么少数服从多数，要么穷人服从权势，民主帮助找到一个更高的底线。最最重要的问题就是美国民主一直被用来站在一个道德制高点来指手画脚别人国家从而达到国家利益的武器。相信这一套的，要么脑子傻要么没读过书。我曾和亲美的人聊过，他们有一种幻觉就是他所遇到的不公不平等可以被美国宣传的民主价值观解决。无论从美国动机还是可行性都是扯淡。所以综上所述我并不认为美国的民主制度是个玩笑，但是很多人把他神话了。这玩意就是一个sop，有他擅长的也有不擅长的地方，和道德没什么关系。民主的普世价值是有意义的，每个国家争取自己最合适最自洽的道路。美国嘴中来抨击其他国家的民主人权是个笑话，因为他们的目的不是为了要改善中国的任何方面。制造分裂，混乱，战争是他们的手段目的就更复杂了。所以我们如果跟着他们聊民主其实也是没办法来在世界舆论挣多一些话语权。但核心思想就一句话，none of your fucking business

[@ruipengli3969]

@@nju415 你说的我大部分赞同，但同时我想指出我的看法：美国领导人即使*对内*宣扬“民主”一词时，也是在巩固建制和精英阶层的利益，因为民意是可以靠资本操控的，越是宣扬泛泛的西式“民主”概念，与选票政治划等号，而闭口不提阶级矛盾和不同阶级“民主”的区别，就越是在为有钱有势的群体服务。这是我自己在美国四年的看法，可能略有偏激。

[@Leo-nn5vx]

放弃自由主义的下一句是换取宪政和法治。大师的意思是请中国人民聪明些，懂得变通和妥协才能改变中国，而并非批评西方自由民主。西方固然有其严重的问题，但是中国也有自身的问题。中国不应该像西方原教旨自由主义者那样一叶障目，而应保持开放的态度，在批判的基础上思考和借鉴各国的经验。

[@朱韬-i4g]

@@Leo-nn5vx 宪政就是指导宪法制定或推动宪法实施的实践。《中华人民共和国宪法》规定中国是中国共产党一党执政，多党参政的，当然是宪政。 是西方国家把宪政赋予了其他“有限政府、权力分立、司法独立”等政治原理。这是需要纠正的。

[@TXSH220]

powerful speech!

[@sawyermcgill2799]

李世默当之不愧的为中国的超级辩手，真是越翻墙越爱国！

[@YoonJintae98]

李先生演說令我腦洞大開👍👍

[@vinwin803]

非常同意Eric 的观点、感谢上传。

[@altina6018]

民主这个概念原本就是属于共产党的，在几十年前，资本主义社会如果谁提倡民主，谁就是共产党，谁就是敌人。 导致这样的结果，主要是苏联倒台的原因，话语权丢失，没人扛得起这面旗帜了，而当时的中国，实在太穷了，没那个实力。 在美苏争霸的时候，或者更早的时候，资本主义阵营对社会主义阵营喊话的是资本主义这边是自由的。来吧，只要你有本事，你就可以实现你的抱负。而社会主义阵营向资本主义阵营喊话的是，社会主义阵营是民主的，团结的，照顾弱势的，帮你提升的。你要是觉得在资本主义社会生活的难受，不公，来我们社会主义阵营吧。 当时资本主义社会的提倡的是自由。 后来苏联解体了，以美国为首的资本主义社会就把自己的口号改为民主与自由了。 所以，说到底，这一切还都是国际话语权的问题。一旦中国将来崛起了，掌握国际话语权了，中国也可以把自己目前的“民主协商集中制”说成是真民主，同时把西方国家的选举投票党争说成是假民主。 中苏争霸的时期，社会主义就是以民主自居，大锅饭公社什么的都是民主平等的产物。资本主义在那个时候是以自由自居的，后来苏联解体后，民主这个词被资本主义重新定义变成了现在的“民主”，并且以美国来霸权解释民主的含义和抨击其他国家不符合其民主定义的地方，所以说的确以前我们就是民主，只不过是失败的民主，现在的民主是美式假民主，以后肯定还需要重新定义民主，不过重新定义肯定是在美国霸权之后了。我们这个年代的人一提到民主肯定想到的是投票，但是投票到底有没有用，有很多的书都有做说明，像是《以大制胜》《suicide of the west》《行为》等等等等。所以说历史上来讲中国（中华民国，中华人民共和国）是民主国家并不为过，只是“不符合”现在的定义，当然这个不符合到底有多不符合我也存疑，就以国外总说中国没有投票来说，中国当然有民主投票，只不过是阶梯性质的选人民代表，然后再以人民代表的形式选参政的人，形式和美国很相似只不过叫法不同而已。中国现在是越来越好，向着好的方向发展，民主自然需要重新定义。

[@wegasleung7699]

部分人的皿煮谓之皿煮，全体人们的民主谓之共产，因为共产所以挞伐，这就是灯塔国的神逻辑

[@leoyu5892]

社会主义这个概念原本是属于德国的，原名叫国家资本主义，其实是比较符合本质的名字

[@jinlancera]

@@leoyu5892 国家资本主义就是税收用于帮助企业发展，而不是用于提供免费的这个那个。也就是Reaganomics, 没毛病， 全社会收益。 我以前也没有看懂，现在明白了它的智慧。

[@zackk4393]

中国蝙蝠应该衮出美国网站 没人请尼来, 拜登说

[@longlilily]

楼主说得太好了，赞👍

[@bernettehelen4060]

The world simply needs more scholars like Eric or Professor Zhang to voice out the real meaning of democracy, so as to build a new concept and new standard for democracy.

[@altina6240]

西方现在的所谓假民主制度，只是党争，只是给民众提供了一种高级的游戏娱乐方式，人们以“选举”为中心参与游戏，乐在其中。 事实上，民主制度并不民主，西方社会的私有制，使得国家的经济命脉，掌握在私人的资本财团手中，政府天然服务于资本家。 当资本、金钱卷入到民主“选举”中时，选民只有选票，而没有任何实质的权力，换句话说，无论怎么选，政府都优先服务于资本家，然后才兼顾民生。这使得政策决策，不能违背资本财团的意志，损害资本家的利益。在强大的资本面前，选民是弱势的，无法对抗的。 之前的散户VS做空机构，被拔网线，掀赌桌，就证明了这点。 看起来假民主 真党争制度下，任何人都可以作为候选人，竞选总统和政府官员，但你要是没有金钱去拉选票，去宣传，你是不可能成功的。这也证明，民主制度，实际是金钱制度。现在还加上了大数据，如脸书操控选举。 事实上，作为候选人的提名，是在党内进行的，最终两个政党提名两个候选人，让选民从中来挑一个，这已经不是什么民主。比如上次的希拉里和特朗普，这2个人被全美多数的人讨厌，所以川普就用脸书把另一个人塑造成更讨厌的，从而让大家投给自己，邪恶的希拉里就是这么诞生的。一个选举只能从2个都讨厌的人里面选这已经是完全失败了，这也证明了民主投票的百姓根本不关心你的政论，投票是根据自己喜欢，或不喜欢一个人来投的。 民主，就是要像大陆一样搞人民代表，从基层干起，责任制度有政绩才能上位。无论你有钱无钱，只要你有能力，就可以参与竞选，而不是二选一，或者三选一。 因此，西方的民主制度，本质上是一个资本制度，并为民众提供了一个高级的“选举”游戏。 但西方硬说自己是民主制度，并上升为意识形态，洗脑全世界。“民主”一词，本来是苏联提的，苏联没了，“民主”这个词，就被美国挪用过来，强加给全世界，宣称自己是民主的。 【民主与否，是要看民众是否能影响政府的政策决策，参政议政，而不是看是否拥有选票，能选总统。】这才是民主的本质。【否则，给你选票，但就是不给你参政议政的权力，选完之后，你天天就去罢工，游行，抗议，绝食，罢免。】 权力分配在哪里，哪里就有斗争。民主制度下，整个国家从上到下，都充满了权力和利益的争斗，就算是选民，也自认为享有充分的“权力”，而参与到无穷的争斗之中，社会空耗实在太大。然而，选出的就是精英吗？就能带领国家走向繁荣富强吗？ 看看美国总统，川普就一个商人，他能领导美国吗？看看台湾蔡英文就是一个搞学运的，他懂政治吗？ 西方“民主”最大的问题，就出在他们的“选举”上。 全民争斗，内耗过大，空耗着社会的资源。

[@柯喜人]

你看过中国宪法吗，每个成年合法中国公民都在选举权和被选举权。

[@zhouyufei5641]

分析的很透彻

[@YZR1]

👍👍👍

[@leochung9752]

中国古代的”党争“ 和西方的”党争“从本质上就不一样，而且我认为你所谓的”党争“在国内仍然存在。任何制度都有好的和不好的地方，重要的是适合本国人的文化、思想和行为方式，还要考虑历史的趋势，不是夸夸而谈一味迎合或者一味否定。

[@balei4731]

@Altina 订了你的频道等着自开节目

[@altina6240]

他们分不清选举制度和选拔制度的区别而已。中国是有一人一票的，不过最高只能在村长。想当高官得一步一步往上爬，经过历练。所以民选代表最高只能在村长。也就是说蔡英文同志是台湾村村长。 村长这个挺真实的，村里搞选举基本就是拉帮结派，有钱的村子就是撒钱，可以说是比较丑陋了……还有很多高校选学生主席也都刻意采用某些民主国家的选举模式，学生会口碑有多差就知道这代受教育的年轻人能不能看懂西式民主的优缺点了。 基本投票率连50%都达不到，你怎么代表真正的民意？出来投票的都是有政治积极性和狂热粉丝，真正理性为了集体好的往往都是沉默干实事的，搞选举不一定行。只有人为设计投票门槛，才能真的为了集体利益。拿湾湾废核举例，一群大学没读过，核裂变是什么都搞不懂的人，决议关闭核电站，他有那个判断能力吗？ 西方民主对抗制度（党争）等于 没有知识的人选出一个领导人。其实很不靠谱的。如果一个村子搞砸了，还有得救，你认为上海被搞砸了，怎么救？要多久时间救？像川普这样要是把一个国家搞砸了，还有救吗？不过台湾是个村，而且有老共救，还是能继续乱搞下去给大陆做反面教材，哈哈！

[@qingdongwu2886]

90后同意，看看中国政府各级官员的履历，大到国家领导人，小到地级市市长，都是从基层干起的。

[@红树懒先生]

不完全对，村委会选举不在国家机构体系内，中国的直接选举存在于县乡两级的人大代表选举，也就是一人一票，然后再往上的选举都是间接选举人大代表，再由人大主席团提名组成行政司法机关的首要领导，在由领导提名组成整个国家机关的领导团体。 不过对于直接选举的乱象是真的，对我来说，即使我没有投票权我也不希望一群煞笔有投票权影响我的生活，想想你们在互联网上遇到的煞笔多还是正常人多，就知道人人有票你的利益无法保障，想想你们在争论中究竟是互骂拉黑多还是达成共识多就知道只有民主没有集中就是扯淡

[@yzhang9265]

Well said Eirc!!! Strong points

[@lsh4406]

李世默這個議題提得太好了。民主並非自由主義所能壟斷，事實上西方民主的現況說明：自由主義對民主已無所貢獻，反而是一種戕害，越來越沒有資格放冠於ˋˋ民主ˊˊ之前。李世默提到實踐民主的方法是多元的，中國儒家思想亦有相當合乎民主理想的元素。他還提到當前西方檢視民主只重視程序的的指標必須有所調整，應把結果以及社會流動放進來。也切中要害，極具前瞻性。沒見過這麼有學問有遠見的商人。李世默，好樣兒的。我愛你。

[@五浬軒散人]

他可不是主張把結果放進來而已 而是認為根本不需要在乎程序喔！可以重新看一下影片 換言之 如果警察靠違反正當程序搜索可以找到罪證 提高定罪率 那麼以後不管能不能找到罪證 警察任何時候任何地點違反正當程序都是可以的 李似乎認為結果和程序是可以分開的 但卻忽略了遵守程序本身也是一種結果 跟大躍進只問產量的思惟基本無二

[@lsh4406]

@@五浬軒散人 你才要重看哩！迷信程序捨本逐末那正是問題所在。把當前的治理效率和大躍進相提並論如果不是腦袋進水，就是非愚即惡。

[@yzcown]

结果是因程序是果，不能分割，要辩证地看。即使是皇帝，也有制度要遵守啊。强调结果不代表否定程序的重要。

[@eileenshen1760]

终于看到李世默坐在国内的主席台中间为中国的制度发声了。果然精彩。主办人非常棒的安排。

[@watchman835]

This is a very good speech. 👏👏👏

[@TexLexx]

Eric has an incredible view of the world. Please write a book Eric. Make it an audiobook too in your own voice.

[@怡安潘-h8y]

再看一次還是深受啟發！好樣的！李世默！🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤

[@yzcown]

Wow, the final comment is so harsh but true. Glad to see competitions for a better democracy.

[@wongjerry520]

Eric has given a very insightful idea！

[@williamc9578]

Those of a Western persuasion will fail to realize that Eric Li's comments here is actually an honest and sincere critique of Western Liberal Democracies, and in good faith, to bring awareness on what ails it, and to seek some form of reform and recovery. It is then instructive to think what the obstacles are, that prevent Western thinkers from seeing this.

[@RossBlah]

李世默真是人才啊，用他们的价值观的角度打破他们的价值观

[@armarillosyellow3962]

Great news Channel. Amazing knowledge Mr Lee!!

[@davidwen7499]

Well Said! well said! just like the same talk you gave several years ago in Ted Talk. Western Peopler should listen and think about it.

[@ZenLH]

Excellent questions and presentation by Eric

[@张天弟]

有深度且有数据支持。

[@elinong1063]

Great speech Very enlightening and refreshing

[@yuemeili1368]

李世默大佬!赞👍!

[@altina6018]

社会主义核心价值观：富强、民主、文明、和谐、自由、平等、公正、法治、爱国、敬业、诚信、友善。 中央从建国开始，一直强调我们中国才是民主国家，所以咱们百姓不要被台湾人和美国忽悠了，事实上，中国是世界上唯一的民主国家。话语权要牢牢把握住，中国是【多党合作协商的新民主主义】。 反观西方假民主就是党争，因为每个人都自私，都要追求自己的自由和利益。两党竞选，这在西方被奉为民主典范，而在中国历史上，却有个很难听的贬义词，叫作【党争】。 【西方的代議民主】和【孫中山倡導的多黨合作，協商民主】的区别要分清。

[@altina6240]

美式的选举民主的本质就是【党争】，这套玩意但凡熟悉一点中国历史的国人都知道意味着什么结果，比如唐末的牛李党争，明末的东林党阉党之争，还有导致北宋灭亡的新旧党争，为啥在中国历史上党争跟王朝末世挂钩， 这个政治逻辑非常简单，分属不同政治利益集团，为了反对而反对，党派的利益置于国家之上。 比如台湾省不是四年一次的选举，是天天选举，选完总统选县市长，年尾公投，年初补选投票和罢免投票。最绝的是罢免前还要准许罢免联署，公投前还要公投联署。365天，不是在去投票所的路上，就是从投票所出来。不管任何议题，就算公安，民生，防疫，谈到最后都能和投票联系起来。 再说的直白一点就是 对方党派上台，我方阵营要使用一切手段，白的，黑的，下三滥的捣乱，分裂，反对，扰乱朝纲，造谣抹黑，总之就是“天下大乱，形势大好”。

[@zhouyufei5641]

@@altina6240 好！

[@zhouyufei5641]

你说的也非常棒👍🏻

[@justing99]

说的挺好

[@potterlin2047]

富强是基石，如果没有富强，不能保证人民的生活和安全，民主从何谈起？所以富强是第一位，然后才是民主，文明，和谐，自由等……中国的核心价值观说得太对了！

[@altina6240]

西方假民主制度的低效率，很难推动社会发展和进步，是奢侈的、需要付出巨额代价的政治制度。因此，西方必须依靠殖民，霸权，来掠夺世界财富，以维持其奢侈的“民主”制度。 中国的民主集中制度，最大的优势就是效率高。统筹高效，社会化大协作，没有全民的争权夺利，没有资本操控政府，经济命脉掌握在国家手中，实行选拔制度，附带选举制度，【任何人都可以通过考试进入政府，并从基层开始历练。】这样就不会出现口译哥等没通过考试直接被任命的问题。 【中国实行的人民代表大会制度，才是给予民众参政议政，制定政策决策，听取民众意见，解决民众问题的广泛的、实质的民主制度。】 【但是话语权和解释权归西方所有，西方说你不民主，你就是专制，说你没人权，你就是威权。】 中国的民主集中协商制度，才是真民主。它的竞争力，远超“西方假民主”制度，这也是西方国家，害怕中国的原因。中国若要实行西方假民主体制，那么中国体制的竞争力就和西方一样了，但是 14 亿人的民粹和利益争斗，那简直不可想象，社会发展将面临严重的低效问题。同时，中国又不能和西方比殖民，比霸权，比科技，加上西方的地缘围堵，技术封锁，渗透颠覆，分化瓦解，在积贫积弱的恶劣环境下，不可能崛起。

[@南非国际主义者名厨毛]

人代是选出来的么？得票率？

[@samliew6610]

Eric, you are really spot-on! Any Systems with no KPI is the big problem.

[@fannyalbi9040]

ideology dogma is extremely dangerous. it is equal to religion

[@AyY846]

Super insightful as the usual!

[@altina6240]

民主选举分为很多种， 只能说美国是总统制的遮羞布，现在这块遮羞布也要掉了， 总统制除了美国全是笑话，现在美国也开始是笑话了。所以别说的一个选票制的国家地区就比选拔制的国家高级一样… 民主的核心是人民主权，政治的核心利益者应该是属于所有人，至少是绝大部分人。这本来就是共产主义的东西，然而西方耍了一个小聪明，造了一个奶头乐。不过也正是因为他们的愚民教育，造就了80%的愚民，所以这样的直观的选举反而非常适合他们的认知。想当年苏联和美国冷战，苏联主打的意识形态就是“民主”，美国主打的意识形态就是“自由”，然而苏联解体后，美国就公告全世界他们拥有了民主和自由，呵呵。 麦迪逊在美国制宪会议中特地强调了宪法要“防止多数人对于少数人权利的侵犯”，又要防止“中央政府对于资产阶级的迫害，而导致资产阶级无法获利”。美国这部“民主的宪法”，根本就不是由民主的方法通过的，在最初几个州由一人一票的投票方法没有通过后，麦迪逊强调“民主应该是以少数社会精英（特指当年美国的动产持有者）代表大众投票”，以制宪会议为代表的资产阶级领袖马上联合剩下的州政府用“迅速的方法”通过了民主投票。所谓美国宪法的民主，大概说的是“资产阶级专制”。 在美苏争霸的时候，或者更早的时候，资本主义阵营对社会主义阵营喊话的是资本主义这边是自由的。来吧，只要你有本事，你就可以实现你的抱负。而社会主义阵营向资本主义阵营喊话的是，社会主义阵营是民主的，团结的，照顾弱势的，帮你提升的。你要是觉得在资本主义社会生活的难受，不公，来我们社会主义阵营吧。 这是欧洲自工业化以来的轨迹，先有工业化，然后为了更好的工业化，于是就需要鼓励一些人去做一些冒险的试验，于是就有自由资本主义，于是就有了对一些资本友好的政策。但是人类并不都能称为资本家，随着工业化的发展，会产生一部分在这次变革中的失败者，或者被剥夺者，于是就有人开始团结这些弱势，争取他们这些弱势团体们的利益。于是就有了第一共产国际，第二共产国际。 事实上，资本家在面对工人们的团结起来争取利益这块，最开始的都是打压，这也是马克思一直受到欧洲各国的迫害，就是因为马克思的思想损害了资本家的利益，而那时候，资本家是欧洲国家快速发展因素，看看德国，看看美国，往往一个优秀的个人推动了某些技术的变革，就会瞬间提高整个国家的进步。所以，这些老牌的资本主义国家对一些优秀的人才的鼓励跟扶持那是非常非常在意的。看看美国，造了多少个科技产业英雄--爱迪生，乔布斯，马斯克。这些人真的那么强吗？很多是包装出来的产业明星。这是美国梦的一环。美国通过很多方式，从世界上很多国家获得了很多很多优秀的留学生，最后使得这些留学生留下了给美国的发展带来 很大很大的促进作用。

[@xxwntt9262]

哈哈哈，李世默用里根口气说出那句“are you better than four year ago”的时候直接笑死了，真是鬼才

[@iqbang9236]

里根的政策故意放松了国家对资本的控制，是今天美国衰落的根源。

[@kshen7485]

“Are You Better Off …?”, or “Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?”

[@zhouyufei5641]

老师们讲的都太好了

[@cherryli5097]

Mr. li made his point.👍👍👍👍👍👍👍💯

[@altina6018]

民選≠民主。這就是話語權的問題，Democracy本意是民選投票製度，跟漢語裡的民主（人民作主）二字相差甚遠，在中文裡翻譯成「民主」是對大中華地區的人民最大的誤導和傷害！【西方的代議民主】和【孫中山倡導的多黨合作，協商民主】是不同的。 選舉本來就是合理貪腐的一種手法。洗腦老百姓說什麼民主，其實還不是雲裡霧裡的去投票，投的是誰，好還是不好，為什麼投他全都不知道。選前沒人問你你需要什麼，選後也沒人來看你活得好不好。只是單單一句「民主自由」口號，全就嗨了以為自己真的當主子了。

[@rockyshi9609]

我觉“民选”这词都不贴切，应该叫“票选”。毕竟美国和台湾大选里死掉的人也能投票

[@lovelycaddie]

謝謝李大哥，說得很棒

[@fionalee3766]

Excellent points. The genuine outcome (data & people value) will tell the truth of the country political system. To add on, personally I think a competent country leader should be bold enough to implement a fair but strict policy and to get rid of corruption, focus on people living standards & country growth & infrastructure development, whether the country leadership team is elected by people vote or by other procedure.

[@frank1369]

Great Point! Procedure is not enough, even not important against Result! No businessman will invest a company which has perfect procedures but hasn't perfect performance!

[@shaoyinglu]

Democracy has its Greek roots: demo means people, and cracy means rule. There is absolutely no mentioning of a multi-party system or direct election in the word "democracy". However, some people have tied the word democracy with a multi-party system and direct election, i.e., the American democracy.

[@YZR1]

👍👍👍

[@Po-village-chief]

The literal meaning of democracy is mob rules in Greek and Plato, who was attributed with the term, never said its the best form of government. He said the best rule is by a benevolent philosopher king. I am a Chinese living in Singapore and Mr Lee Kuan Yew can be considered such a figure and the result is a Singapore that transformed from a third world to a first world country in 2 generations. China needs rulers like him and fortunately has such leaders in position to achieve this.

[@cyqzsqj]

@@Po-village-chief 你怕是李光耀派来的吧，新加坡比中国还专制，不自由，法律严苛到令人发指，你好意思说他是仁慈的哲学家国王的？

[@geapow]

深有感觸....台灣號稱民主自由，媒體卻只能對執政者歌功頌德，打擊嘲笑在野黨，否則關台 校園只能允許獨派與美日觀點的歷史論述，還說年輕人"天然"獨， 人民發出對政府不滿的聲音就被側翼網軍出征，被警察上門查水表 執政黨偷渡叫超買，抄襲叫抄錄，說謊叫口誤....= = 只允許一種聲音的台灣社會，拿什麼臉去嘲笑中國大陸? 至少大陸治理的效率可比台灣好多了

[@neon1300]

@@lamst9721 "大陸起碼還在有進步, 台灣只有退步... " FTFY

[@neon1300]

李先生的演講很好, 應該要專注在結果, 而不是程序, 程序對了(例如有在野黨)就能讓一些人喜孜孜樂翻天的拿出來說嘴, 對這些人說了啥都等於白說, 李先生的演講白聽了。

[@changjiefu7018]

看了很多台湾的节目和报道，我认为台湾和美国一样，打着言论自由的旗号去打压他们看不爽的观点。只能我说A，不准他说B，这很言论自由。

[@JTR008326]

Democracy or not, it has to solve problems.

[@caibrosliew]

excellent argument by Eric Li

[@leexavier8719]

Eric真的是脑子清晰，论据实在，佩服！

[@阿R-x6x]

2021年尾的民主峰会虽烂 但峰会外却引出这么多精彩的演说，民主的概念加速了普及，真是无心插柳。 美国举办的峰会没有促成他们的民主霸权，反而可能反作用力推动了亚洲对民主的重新解释和权利把握。 因吹斯汀

[@altina6018]

Democracy本意是民选投票制度，跟汉语里的民主（人民作主）二字相差甚远，在中文里翻译成“民主”是对大中华地区的人民最大的误导和伤害！

[@user-tomcat999]

没错，把选票和民主挂钩本身就是偷换概念，应该叫一票制，什么民主制

[@leeway777]

请 Google Democracy definition. 下面是Democracy 的定义： a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. government by the whole population 意思就是人民执政， 也就是民主。不存在你说的误导。你在误导大家。

[@xz4377]

美国和其它西方国家给女性和黑人选票是七十年代之后的事，之前还真不是一人一票的。至少在苏联内部以及中国实现男女平等和民族平等的时候美国还不是民主国家。美国说自己自由没问题，民主就有点可笑了，真不够给中国当老师的

[@zhouyufei5641]

自由是相对的，应该受一定约束的。不是像漂亮国一样无拘无束，无法（我指的是国际法，不是他们的国法）无天。漂亮国太自由了，少部分的有钱有势的“豪民”主宰着他们本国的命运也掌握着部分其他国家的命运，以大欺小。这个世界需要正义和和平！

[@alexwang6907]

蠢女人又出来活现世。 下面是维基百科定义。你好好看看。 今天使用之「民主」（古希臘語：δημοκρατία，英語：democracy，法語：démocratie或西班牙語：democracia）一詞源於希臘文兩個字，一個是古希臘語：δῆμος（demos），意指人民或者是公民，一個是古希臘語：κράτος（cracy），意指某種公共權威或統治[11]:1-2。在希臘語中，民主就是demos（暴民，多人）加kratos，即統治[12]:14-15。西文裡「民主」（古希臘語：δημοκρατία或英語：democracy）就是demo加cracy，其含意是「統治歸於人民」或人民主權[11]:2。由全體人民（而不是他們選出之代表）平等、無差別參與國家決策和管理國家，是民主最原始、簡單之含義

[@汤圆-y7f]

当美国最高法院前几年允许任何人合法的无上限的给政客送钱－或叫政治捐款时，美国的民主制度就是个玩笑了

[@picandvideo]

They don’t believe whatever Eric said. They believe in exceptionalism!

[@paulli1535]

I think Aristotle once said there are 3 forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchy invariably leads to tyranny. Aristocracy leads to oligarchy. And democracy eventually degrades into chaos and mob rule. To Aristotle, it seems there’s no good form of government. But Aristotle did not know China. China gradually evolved a form of government that’s based on meritocracy: government officials are promoted based on how well they have done. So most of the officials have to rise through the ranks, not much different from how business leaders are selected (not elected). One may ask, what about accountability? Who are the officials accountable to? In the past, they were accountable to one person, the emperor. You got the good emperor and bad emperor problem. That’s why the emperors have to be educated in Confucian thoughts in order to be a wise ruler. He must understand he has a higher power to answer to, the Heaven. And he has a duty to his people. “The people are like the water and the emperor is like the boat. The water can support the boat, and also overthrow the boat”. Today, they are accountable to one entity/organization, that’s CCP. CCP is a mission driven organization, rather than a partisan organization. CCP’s mission is “bring about rejuvenation for the Chinese nation, and happiness for the Chinese people”. When I say CCP is not exactly a political party like Republican or Democrats, that’s because it doesn’t have a preset ideology or political platform. It is pragmatic and non-political: whatever policy can bring better outcome, they ought to adopt that policy. “It doesn’t matter it’s white cat or black cat, as long as it can catch the mice”. That’s why CCP is so nimble and can reform itself and its policy so quickly. Just look at the transformation of China in the last 70 years since the founding of PRC. It’s unprecedented. CCP must have done something right, right? The other distinction between the Chinese and the Americans: the Americans are taught to believe government is useless and private enterprise is the solution to every problem. But Chinese has always throughout history believed in government and better governing. That’s because the Chinese have been living in a very harsh agricultural environment. Yellow river flooding issue, the issue of water use and irrigation, have to be managed by a central government. That’s why governing and government philosophy are highly emphasized in Chinese education. Governing is a profession that should be reserved for the learned who have high moral standards and right temperament. Again meritocracy rather than democracy. In a democracy the popular guy wins. But in meritocracy, the smart guy wins. I’m not trying to persuade anyone to adopt meritocracy. Chinese system works in China because it has a such history and tradition. Democracy wouldn’t work in China because China did not have a democratic tradition. Each country should choose the form of government that suits its own culture history and tradition. The track record of planting western form democracy in traditional countries in Middle East and Africa is horrible. Please give me a SINGLE example that democracy works in these traditional societies. One single example!

[@yliu2093]

太赞了！

[@yzcown]

Best summary

[@cccr1456]

很赞的演讲，作为在北欧生活工作20年，且因为工作可以跟北欧社会深层次接触的人，中肯的提出一个建议，我认为李先生不了解瑞典，挪威等北欧国家。希望他以后深入研究过这些北欧国家之后再下结论。

[@wanzg]

你是說他把北歐國家想得太好了嗎？但是國內確實有很多人是他那樣想的，包括那些已經對美國嗤之以鼻的人，對北歐還是依然十分嚮往

[@中華情]

希望你讲一讲你的观察。我朋友在瑞典工作了几年，他给我讲了一下他的见闻，北欧并非宣传中那么好。希望听听你的经历。

[@cccr1456]

@@wanzg 对于北欧的宣传过于玫瑰色。很多人已经失去了自己去经历，自己去判断的能力。推荐大家去读一下《北欧，冰与火的寻真之旅》。书中可以说是蜻蜓点水的点到了北欧的一些问题，虽然不深入。对于北欧社会批判性的研究很少，有一本书《the Madhouse》作者 Daniel Hammarberg, 虽然因为作者本身的经历，有些言辞激烈，但是里面的案例是真实的。

[@redcardinal1219]

back panel is fabulous!

[@starsun7086]

自由，来源于个体对自我的认知。对自由的追求，是人性所必然。但，将对个体自由的追求，无限度的放大，以至于失衡，则是无视人类社会的一个基本属性，即社会性。自由主义，有其积极意义。但是，自由主义也难以避免"物极必反"的规律。

[@chriswestwood3289]

Great point. As I have said all along, regime or ideology are just means, not final goals. I changed my view on President Xi when he emphasized that the happiness and prosperity of the people is the goal of the government. This is the way to the real greatness. It moves away from the ideology as a goal, which is what mess America is in right now.

[@jj4321]

yes, Chris, have you considered he said so he can have this permanent position and total power? easy said then done. Do and say are different. Trump fooled just shy of

[@fannyalbi9040]

if my memory serves me right, i thought u r china haters especially china politicians 😅 your account being hacked by chinese?

[@haiguangzheng6527]

精典演讲一一一👏

[@shuzhongyang3741]

自由是个好词，但凡事都有两面性，当无限制的自由，就会变成丛林法则，强者肆无忌惮，不论是商场还是舆论场，皆然！

[@petertang5940]

Well said

[@jeckyli2369]

说得对，说的很好，说的很有道理啊。

[@yzhang9265]

Eric is quite right.

[@andizhang9063]

Using a company as metaphor, is Eric talking about running a firm without procedure and policies as long as the firm generates profit or am I misunderstanding him?

[@yll1334]

被李老师圈粉了

[@christk1847]

@10:00 right in the middle of the great speech I was thinking the west should be taking notes of what Eric was saying. Then I saw these people under the stage actually were taking notes lol 😂 there’s hope after all

[@XiaosChannel]

2:11这里被删的是他说 time is running out, how do we prove socialism works better than capitalism 但是很有趣的是字幕上面显示了这段话的翻译

[@zhouyufei5641]

我也注意到了

[@dongtr00]

太牛了。这就是root cause。自由到了极点，完全是极端主义，而不是为了大多数人的利益。

[@barrievee]

Always interesting to hear Eric speaking.. Noting an 'NGO' he mentions: 'Freedom House'.. 'Freedom House' deserve to be examined more closely - It is their 'output' and 'opinion' as a 'Think:'Tank'!' - that is a driving factor in much of US Aggressive Foreign Policy.. - Freedom House' is an MIC (CIA / NED) 'Cutout'. See: - The Arab Spring was a US MIC regime change plan. #RealityCheck. -- 听到埃里克说话总是很有趣.. 注意到他提到的一个“非政府组织”：“自由之家”--现在好了..“自由之家”值得更仔细地研究--这是他们作为“思考”的“产出”和“意见” ：'坦克'！' - 这是美国侵略性外交政策的一个驱动因素。 - 自由之家是一个 MIC (CIA / NED) 删减。请参阅： Arab Spring 是美国 MIC 政权更迭计划。 ＃现实检查。

[@jjc4232]

Eric is the man!!

[@lyx124]

good point

[@yt1536]

Eric Li 👍👏👏👏

[@wingkei8779]

well said!

[@dongogogo776]

He really raised many sharp questions. However, it's unfortunate that the purpose of these questions is defending an even worse political system than democracy, which is Chinese absolute hereditary monarchies.

[@hambim1360]

What made you think that China is an absolute hereditary monarchy? I don't think you have done a thorough study of the whole process of multi-party consultation and democracy in China. KZbinr jerry shows how people participate in China's deliberative democracy system through several cases, hoping to make you interested in the research of China's democratic system.kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnbLp3qdhLp4bMU&ab_channel=Jerry%27sTakeonChina

[@nj8776]

应该加英文subject line on KZbin, 可以让更多English-speaking 的人看。

[@margaretliu3409]

Eric!!! 👍😍😍😍💪💪💪💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝

[@kshen7485]

As Chinese reveal, democracy is dependent on its outcome, instead of the colorful and eye-catching formalities, like election and multiparty competition.

[@absolutejewel]

Agreed that the Measure of democracy is the outcome or results. Regimes only focus on "democratic procedures n processes" but some if not many had failed their people miserably (note: wellbeing and satisfaction of people is the outcome)

[@XiaosChannel]

李世默的这段话在CGTN的直播中被直接掐掉，让我真的很不明白审核君是在为国家服务只是审核标准很奇怪，还是我们出了内奸

[@liu3gz]

应该是技术问题，因为不光是Eric的发言，他后面，他前面，一共3个人的发言受到影响。我不觉得是特意卡掉这3个人的发言，另外观察者网的版本一直都包含完整的内容，如果真要审查，应该两个版本都受到审查

[@XiaosChannel]

@@liu3gz 嗯。。。。有道理

[@XiaosChannel]

@@liu3gz 但是这种事情上都能出技术问题技术也太差了吧

[@liu3gz]

@@XiaosChannel 这就不清楚了。也许通信卫星遭到美国间谍卫星靠近不得不移动呢？

[@dyanhz3400]

你以为这些人的话之前没有稿子么.这种大动作，稿子都被审核了不知道多少遍了。如果想要直播掐掉，早就不可能让他上了

[@sailer.x1240]

經濟決定上層建築。歐美這種交換型經濟決定了他們需要的是程序正義的海洋法系，決定了他們崇尚個人主義。為了膨脹個人利益，他們需要的是自由主義森林法則，而不是大政府的管理制度，將民主偷換概念和自由無政府畫上等號。

[@aprilsim7604]

Eric, "competitions" is a good word. But beware that as with many good intentions and principles "competitions" can be circumscribed to become a dirty word. Take for example, cunning and wily businesses can set up cartels of likeminded people or relatives/ friends, etc, to mislead that there is/are serious or real competitions. We have seen how some airlines that fixed prices and were caught out. They were fined as a result. There were freight companies in the past that colluded to fix prices so that those executives helped each other to achieve annual targets to benefit themselves. If one company is missing target, the other companies would quote higher rates so that the business would naturally go to the one missing its target.

[@清-u5o]

最后一句话深感认同。从开始去关注美国以来，我都一直把自由民主人权当作贬义词了。 有时也在想，从什么时候这些美好的词汇变味了？ 美国真是擅长毁掉一个好的事物，无论是美丽与和平的国家，还是好的制度，甚至是一个好的词汇，自由，民主，人权。

[@guanda76]

China must continue to work on and changes its shortcomings. China success is because they been learning good practices of other countries. I really doubt America will want to learn form success liberal Democratic countries like Sweden, Norway, new Zealand etc. Monopoly loses its ability to compete, that's why all the sanctions.

[@kwokkwok5606]

講得真好！！

[@fisherfriendman]

I think Liberal democracies falter with big populations. It would seem like countries that have below 20 million in population would well. I also think first of all, there should be an attempt to define what a democracy is and what it looks like, otherwise it becomes a "he said she said" debate.

[@htlow3598]

@ Andrew CHANG, I believe you are from Msia. You can't generalise and say population size especially smaller one works. Well, M'sia is only 30milions and democracy in M'sia is not serving its people.. just the ruling elite.

[@fisherfriendman]

@@htlow3598 Mr Low, unfortunately, liberal democracies require a well-educated population as a base. A smaller population means the democratic process is not too far removed from the lowest rung in the population. The bigger the population, the slower decision making is using the same democratic processes and it will turn constituents off the process altogether. There needs to be a balance between democratic decision making, and speed of decision making. I'm not from Malaysia, but what Malaysia has is not democracy, but rather the start of the nation gave birth to one-party politics, following the lead of Japan post-war. This is endorsed further by both the British and the Americans as a bulwark against the spread of communism, so full-fledged democracy never had the chance to take root.

[@carbunkleX]

Big population is just one of the problems, my guess is that the risk of failing increases also with the number of etnicities, religions and poverty. Eric mentioned success stories of democratic nations which are the smaller and simple nations like the nordic countries which are nowhere near as complex as China

[@htlow3598]

@@carbunkleX , completely agree. With 56 ethnicities to deal with, I imagine it's like dealing with the combination of the whole of Europe + North Africa + Eastern Europe as one unit. Try keeping unity and integrity for size!

[@fisherfriendman]

@@carbunkleX Europe also had huge complex multiethnic, multi-national entities like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia, Turkey, Spain, France, UK, Italy. After a number of wars, they seemed to settle on nationally coherent borders that divide on ethnic lines for Eastern Europe. Western Europe is still multiethnic, just that the national governments are much stronger in holding the country together. All the European colonial creations are multiethnic and multinational, reflecting what Europe was. We tend to attribute to the complex makeup of the population when a country fails to be held together when really it is about how strong the national government is.

[@gcscao]

我最喜欢听Eric Li的演讲。

[@redcardinal1219]

我也是，很有魅力

[@bsbd8822]

听他鬼扯?本来明白人都可以给你扯糊涂.

[@alantan9863]

Moral of the story: Singapore style democracy is considered the best then, as it has the best of both worlds.

[@paulskiye6930]

It is more likely a Meritocracy.

[@taijistar9052]

It has the best results for sure

[@quanfung5958]

Definitely NOT a Liberal Democracy !!!!

[@joeching]

let's see how they handle covid-19. today's hongkong and korea's covid surge is more demonstrative of the licentious nature of democracy.

[@samtang1678]

讲的太棒了！

[@chiehhsu6802]

可否請將標題 加上英文

[@fuye13]

Democracy is the flag of the Left (socialist camp, see the full names of Laos, North Korea, and East Germany), but it was taken away by the European and American capitalist camp (the Right, their flag is freedom) after the end of the cold war.

[@qingzhou9983]

Actually the Pros and Cons of Liberal Democracy vs Authoritarian System are well-known. The current situation is no surprise at all. Anyone who feels surprised did not understand the two system well.

[@henli-rw5dw]

Have to disagree again. Never seen a government like CCP. It's like AI, self improving. I actually think the CCP can become less autocratic and more democratic if it produce better results over time. But the government practice by the west are static systems locked by procedure to never change.

[@qingzhou9983]

@@henli-rw5dw Actually Chinese History shows CCP will not last forever. It will not survive the corruption and power infight for long, no Dictatorship did in human history for every good reasons. Even though there is no doubt it is doing Great right now.

[@henli-rw5dw]

@@qingzhou9983 no governments have lasted very long anywhere in the world. China is actually the most stable country in history of mankind. This is not a joke, look at world history. I think you have been taught a version of history that doesn't have the complete picture. Plus, government china developed today is an beast that has too many contradictions, and is changing all the time. It's an evolving government. Of course it won't last. It changes itself. Mao won't even recognize it. It's a self improving government, the first of its kind in the world. Nobody have an idea what it can do. Maybe it'll keep getting better. Chess playing AI can just keep improving.

[@qingzhou9983]

@@henli-rw5dw I know the Pros and Cons of PRC and US government systems. I am against both over-estimating and under-estimating to both systems.

[@wf645]

Fact is every governing system evolves. Like China's communism which has changed and evolved since Deng to now. And in some ways, China may be more capitalistic that US ... that said all systems have flaws. Its about recognizing the flaws, improve them and providing for their citizen (as in KPI / Outcomes) which sadly US liberal democracy despite is blusterous is failing to provide ...

[@fannybirot2362]

讲得真的很好。唯有一点，最好不要那样笑，显得不太尊重别人。话可以说得狠，态度一定要谦逊，才会让更多人听得进去。当然，说起来容易做起来难，我也就随口一说。😅

[@riojoe5156]

说的真对，可以看到整个论坛其他的论述吗？

[@hanfresco]

有：v=IVFqExIbTwg 【FULL】A Dialogue on Democracy - What is democracy and who defines it? “中外学者谈民主”高端对话会【英文原声完整版】

[@lynnj7693]

左邊那位先生是王冠吧？

[@什么样子世界]

Eric 的说话方式 态度 比较有趣

[@mingsoutdoorlife]

One Policy or one way of right for all is dangerous for whole human as if it fails then all human fail. We should encourage different way of Political forms exist to allow them to compete with each other as long as it makes people’s live better. Nothing works forever!

[@henli-rw5dw]

If you use a system that never change people will figure out how to take advantage of the system, and corrupt a system against it's initial purpose.

[@fredbing1813]

Democracy and liberty used to be opposite during the cold war and the USSR represent the democracy instead of the USA at that moment

[@wowyzaoy]

it gives me hope, that revolution and evolution is separated by merely one letter.

[@kshen7485]

Eric is always provocative, like Kishore. My opinion, all our liberties and freedoms shouldn’t be above our social responsibilities. The bloody lessons of those western “democratic” countries in the pandemic would be the best proof.