3 ms·

Singapore promotes racial harmony, religious acceptance. They are opposed to drugs, corruption, and littering. About the only place I would suggest they perha

Singapore promotes racial harmony, religious acceptance. They are opposed to drugs, corruption, and littering. About the only place I would suggest they perhaps are behind in terms of what I would consider important modern civil liberties are their attitudes towards LGBT issues, and, honestly, they aren't particularly strict about it, even though it is technically illegal for homosexual men (but not women) to have sex with each other. Ironically, you probably run into more serious discrimination issues in certain states/towns in the United States than you would in Singapore. It's just something that's frowned upon, rather than very actively prosecuted - and there is a healthy gay rights movement here. And, once again, I would much rather cede my rights and freedoms to a government that creates a safe, clean, and tolerant environment, where I, and my family can live in safety, than a government which, while protecting my rights/freedoms, created an environment that was unsafe, dirty, and intolerant, and in which I and my family were not safe to walk around in.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
Singapore is a police state governed by a single party/family with very limited freedom of press (enforced via strict libel laws). Granted, the rulers are enlightened, and it is very much a stable "rule of law" country...it is also multi-cultural with necessary tolerance on religion. Hopefully Singapore can evolve into something a bit less authoritarian while keeping those qualities.
StanislavPetrov 11y ago
>And, once again, I would much rather cede my rights and freedoms to a government that creates a safe, clean, and tolerant environment, where I, and my family can live in safety, than a government which, while protecting my rights/freedoms, created an environment that was unsafe, dirty, and intolerant, and in which I and my family were not safe to walk around in. That's like saying, "I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a pen then a pencil". My point is that nobody who values their dignity and freedom ever cedes their rights to any government, for any reason. >About the only place I would suggest they perhaps are behind in terms of what I would consider important modern civil liberties are their attitudes towards LGBT issues If you don't see a civil liberties issue with the government putting censors on you, your vehicle, and every street corner to monitor everything you do, everywhere you go, when you sleep, when you eat, and when you take a shit, and to regulate your personal behavior in each of these matters, as they claim it relates "to the public good" we have a very different definition of "civil liberties". “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
nickpsecurity 11y ago
As Stanislav says, it's about whether the government is in the threat profile. All of human history, including in Asia, shows that the protective government eventually go corrupt. The more power they have then, the worse things will be for the citizens. This already happened more than once in Asia. So, the question isn't no rights/freedoms for safety vs rights/freedoms without safety. What are you even talking about? Aren't you aware that there are countries with plenty freedom and low violence? And even areas of my country (U.S.) that are similar due to culture? You can keep free speech/expression, free press, due process, and so on without it turning into the Wild Wild West. At worst, people will be more honest and blunt with a bad guy here and there going free instead of innocent people being locked up.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

Singapore is a police state governed by a single party/family with very limited freedom of press (enforced via strict libel laws). Granted, the rulers are enlightened, and it is very much a stable "rule of law" country...it is also multi-cultural with necessary tolerance on religion. Hopefully Singapore can evolve into something a bit less authoritarian while keeping those qualities.

StanislavPetrov 11y ago

>And, once again, I would much rather cede my rights and freedoms to a government that creates a safe, clean, and tolerant environment, where I, and my family can live in safety, than a government which, while protecting my rights/freedoms, created an environment that was unsafe, dirty, and intolerant, and in which I and my family were not safe to walk around in. That's like saying, "I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a pen then a pencil". My point is that nobody who values their dignity and freedom ever cedes their rights to any government, for any reason. >About the only place I would suggest they perhaps are behind in terms of what I would consider important modern civil liberties are their attitudes towards LGBT issues If you don't see a civil liberties issue with the government putting censors on you, your vehicle, and every street corner to monitor everything you do, everywhere you go, when you sleep, when you eat, and when you take a shit, and to regulate your personal behavior in each of these matters, as they claim it relates "to the public good" we have a very different definition of "civil liberties". “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams

nickpsecurity 11y ago

As Stanislav says, it's about whether the government is in the threat profile. All of human history, including in Asia, shows that the protective government eventually go corrupt. The more power they have then, the worse things will be for the citizens. This already happened more than once in Asia. So, the question isn't no rights/freedoms for safety vs rights/freedoms without safety. What are you even talking about? Aren't you aware that there are countries with plenty freedom and low violence? And even areas of my country (U.S.) that are similar due to culture? You can keep free speech/expression, free press, due process, and so on without it turning into the Wild Wild West. At worst, people will be more honest and blunt with a bad guy here and there going free instead of innocent people being locked up.