Are the Olympic Games a Demostration of the Superiority of a Free Society?

here is where even a liberal like me can agree with Andrew that a free society is the best form of society ... not just for the Olympics but for everything.

While the runners from Kenya may devote their entire live to training, its not a well rounded existence. and its not without its shortcomings.

A Chinese athlete may be quite motivated, but what is the origin of that motivation?

Phelps smokes the weed and is otherwise kind of a slacker, but he still comes back with the GOLD because he has a life to come back to and freedom to make of it whatever he wants.

that's something NONE of us should lose sight of.

Thank you! Great response!

From my observance China starts Olympic training while still in diapers. We are a nation of 'late bloomers' by comparison.....we need to step up our game if we want Olympic
presidence.

But we have just one quarter of their population so we must be doing something right!

Not sure why anyone thinks the medal count vs population has any correlation.

India has 1,200,000,000+ and they've only eeked out 3 medals?

In the US our kids fall in love with a sport and work their butts off practicing and need a lot of help from sponsors of some sort to get that good. In China the kid is scouted as a good fit for a sport and the state puts them in the program and pays for his training.

It isn't about population, or freedom, it's about money. What is more impressive is the US does this well being privately funded.

So are you contending that Socialism and Communism are usually more successful at training their athletes? I've been following the Olympics for 50 years and the USA always dominates. Sorry, but a free and privatized sports probgram ALWAYS is better than a Communistic one! Exactly like a free economic system is ALWAYS better than a communist one!

No, I'm saying that population doesn't have anything to do with it. Just because they have 1.3 billion people doesn't mean they would churn out more world class athletes.

I'm also saying it's about money. A lot of money is pumped into the USOC to help these athletes, and it's all private money. A lot of money is pumped into China's sports as well, all from the state. If China had to operate off private funds they probably wouldn't bring in as much as the USOC, so they would have lesser world class athletes.

That the US produces this many world class athletes entirely on private funds is unique, and reflects on a sport culture that promotes it.

If China were to go democratic, with no other change in their system, they wouldn't produce a much larger amount of world class athletes than they already do.

You are making my point. Capitalism breeds abundance of wealth and therefore frees us to pursue even kids sport with abandon!

Then I guess you need to explain China. Without capitalism they're still putting a lot of world class athletes in the field.

We know it isn't about population, India isn't all that far behind and yet doesn't have near the level of competition.
It can't be about freedom, there are other free countries that aren't near the level of competition.
It must be about the amount of money pumped into sports. Where that money comes from isn't the only difference, US and China put a lot of money into sports but one is capitalist and the other isn't.

I fail to see where, then, a free society (or capitalism since you're mixing both terms) has created better athletes? The difference in where the money comes from is explained more by the American culture of sport than by a free democratic society.

First, it does have to do with population to some degree, but not al. If you have more people, you have a larger talent pool from which to draw. However, the other difference is that a free people have the opportunity to pursue their own passions and not the one assigned to them by the state for whaich they are ambivilent! This is why the United States has as large an economy as China while having only a quarter of Chinas population. The key to my question is simple. A free people will always outperform slaves because they are able to keep the fruits of their labor and need not share not with the state!

I agree with you on almost all points, and what I don't is negligible. It still doesn't explain how and why China would be on par with the US in athletic competition.

Having the larger pool may help some, but India certainly isn't putting out as many world class athletes. India doesn't put in as much money either. So population has to have less to do with it than how much money is going into sports competition.

Jamaica puts out a disproportionate number of world class sprinters, that's explained more by the sprint races being a large part of their sports culture than most anything else.
The US puts out the same number and level of world class athletes as China, seems disproportionate, but is explained more by the competitive culture (esepecially sports) of the US than by the free market society.

As for the economy quesiton, that same competitive culture in the US might also have something to do with it. However, I would tend to agree that being free to pursue ones own passions in the marketplace would have, at the least, an equal weight.

The competitive sports culture is a direct relationship with a free society. We Americans compete in everything including business! Competition makes the free society work for all as competition drives prices downward and makes them more affordable to those in the lower classes. That's why electronic products keep becoming more and more powerful and lower in price. I can but a computer today that is 1000 times more powerful thann the one that sent astronauts to the moon at a fraction of the cost!

Americans are disproportionately represenrted in sports for one reason. The glory and financial gain from their exploits belong to the individual who attained the goal rather than the state who stole that glory for themselves!

And India is disproportionately underrepresented because they don't pump as much money into their sport.

I'll agree and disagree with you at the same time. If America pumped as much money into the sports as India did we wouldn't have the same number of world class athletes (in the range like the Olympics). If China pumped the same amount in as India they wouldn't have the same number.
That the USOC is funded completely by private money, I think, reflects on what you say.

The government of the United States pumps very little into the Olympics, similar to India. It is private industry, which is again my point. Free people make the investment. In India, the government does not either, but it is not a priority to their private industry, so they don't either. I agree it is cultural, but the point is when the cultures share the same priorities, a free people will always be more successful then the slaves!

You lost the debate.

One man's opinion!

You won the debate.

YOU know it isn't about population, don't say "we"! If you had an island with 1000 people on it, would you expect that nation to be able to field an Olympic team to compete with China all things being otherwise equal. China has 1.3 billion people and therefore a much larger pool of individuals to sift through to glean athletic talent. The USA outperforms others because of the freedom to pursue ones dreams, regardless of what they might be. India isn't that interested in the sports and if they were they would be quite comparable to Chian. Money is a big factor as well and therefore, a free society with its abundance of money created through capitalism WILL have an advantage!

China cheats.

They could actually improve if their society was as free as America!

But, you are right, they do cheat!

i doubt that China will ever be free. nations that have suffered from real despotism tend to be scarred for a very very long time.

That's why Russia is creeping back towards totalitarianism!

it sure seems to be doing so ...