Which may or may not be good.

What you are speaking of is freedom; political, economic, religious and expression. Bearing in mind that Singapore still has the Speaker’s Corner tradition carried over from colonial days. Bearing in mind that the typical S’porean also still stereotypically cares mostly about the 4Cs – Car, Condo, Cash and credit Card – and as long as the government doesn’t get in the way, they couldn’t care much less.

Bearing in mind also that most S’poreans are actually proud of their National Service (universal male conscription). First thing any two Singaporeans ask each other is “which [armed force/regiment/battalion/squad/name your organisational unit] did you serve in?”

Bearing in mind also that the opposition in Singapore does not get ‘offed’.

Now, here in Malaysia, maybe you could say it was symbolic. But not even then – Terengganu remains a thorn in BN’s flesh. Sarawak remains stubbornly UMNO-free.

Just a thought.

The same is true in Singapore, where the natives have been forced to cede real rights to the government in order to preserve the stability of the government. That is Putin’s model and in Russia I would submit it is the same way-he is allow ing people to gain wealth as long as they play the game his way. Sort of a harsher version Lee Kwan Yeu. Plus I think the Russians secertly applaud his efforts to restore greatness to Russia.

I also find it interesting that many are so comfortable in always marrying certain economic systems with certain political systems, despite there being no compelling nor fundamental reason to do so.

Next I thought the “progressive model” was just opposite of what you stated, in it hoping to “supercede” the “rights of individuals against government.” Did I misread? Indeed while I’ve been hearing conservative support for, there has been a progressive outcry against our government’s recent attacks on Habeas Corpus and other erosions of our personal rights and freedoms supposedly Constitutionally guaranteed.

Finally, income redistribution is not an evil, but is a necessary function of government. Income redistribution occurs in most all-democratic countries, and with reason. Without some reasonable redistribution, radical extremes in incomes and wealth result. This disequilibrium engenders the entropy and chaos that ultimately leads to radical reform including in the extreme, civil conflicts, coups and revolutions. Much better to have some balance and a tendency toward social and economic equilibrium than the converse, I think.

We do thankfully agree, however… History is hardly dead after all.

In all fairness to Mr. Fukuyama, what he meant was not that lots of bad stuff wouldn’t happen, but that with the end of Communism the last credible alternative to western style freedom/democracy/capitalism had failed. Lots of country’s might chose to stay in their historical cul-de-sacs, but they would be seen as such by most “right thinking” people. Think that’s problematic but it not quite as stupid as it sometimes is made to sound.