That has nothing to do with rule of law. Laws are definitely enforced on China, it’s just up to the officials on what laws to enforce when and on whom.
They will enforce pesticide bans, for example, on farmers they don’t like or where it is politically convenient to do so. Likewise, one can get away with murder if they are politically connected enough and in good grace (well, until the publicity gets bad and they become pariahs like Bo Xilai).
"Rule of law" is a name attributed to societies where laws are supreme (no-one is above the law), and where the same crime results in the same sentence, no matter who you are.
Western societies pride themselves as abiding by the rule of law, and it is an important ideal IMO, but the application in reality is more on a Bell curve.
>Western societies pride themselves as abiding by the rule of law, and it is an important ideal IMO, but the application in reality is more on a Bell curve.
I agree that the rule of law is a nice ideal, but there appears to be an emerging split between the effectiveness of rule of law systems and their proposed values.
The historical arguments were not just that the rule of law is ethical, but also that it is effective at delivering for its citizens. So when the OP points to murder rates or the article points to atrocious health standards that fall below even middle-income trap countries, then that doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.
>societies where laws are supreme (no-one is above the law), and where the same crime results in the same sentence, no matter who you are...
If that's the definition then, um, yeah, I think "bell curve" is a very diplomatic term for the de facto reality in Western Nations. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the de facto reality in all nations, Western or not, falls well short of this rule of law ideal.
I've no evidence to support the following suspicion, but I think whenever humans are involved in a system, all of those well known human failings we have are going to manifest themselves in that system's output. I don't think there is a way around it actually.
In practice, there probably is no society governed by rule of law if equal treatment is going to be your measuring stick. I honestly don't think such a place exists.
Rule of law isn’t a binary. It is an ideal that a country aspires to to whatever degree.
Thing is, the current Chinese government sees “rule of law” completely undesirable as a concept, judiciary must acquiesce to the official class (which is synonymous with the party), whose opinion is the only one that matters.
>...judiciary must acquiesce to the official class (which is synonymous with the party), whose opinion is the only one that matters.
Since we've gone down this rabbit-hole, doesn't that mean or infer that the states is no longer a "rule of law" country, since the current idyllic seems to be overturning laws - based purely on political alignment (e.g.: the "sudden rash" of states banning abortion because the end-goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade)?
Nobody cares if you get killed in China. They need to pay less if you die then if you're wounded. So they run you over again to be sure that you are dead.
Video surveillance isn't launching everywhere, because of corrupcy.
And they don't care about foreigners ( with something happens). Chinese protects Chinese, no one else. They will also work with favors above law.
Here's an example, not the article that opinionated me in the past though. Since that was more a discussion about Chinese "culture", it was an fictive example there that happens regularly.
>Nobody cares if you get killed in China. They need to pay less of you die then if your wounded. So they run you over again to be sure that you are dead.
People protesting police/army violence in USA share the same view of our state agents.
I don't know about that, slightly unrelated but I'm 4 times less likely to get murdered in China than in the USA.
The population seems to adhere to laws against harming fellow humans better than we do in the USA.