6 ms·

> I can no longer proudly claim the West is free. We are living in a surveillance state. Anarchy is the only true freedom. Any social contract (i.e. government

by ythn 10y ago

> I can no longer proudly claim the West is free. We are living in a surveillance state. Anarchy is the only true freedom. Any social contract (i.e. government) limits freedom. Still, saying the west is not free is disingenuous. One can still have many freedoms in a surveillance state. For example, I can criticize Trump without fear of being sent to a labor camp in a surveillance state. I can attempt to spread my religious beliefs without being randomly kidnapped.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yakult 10y ago
You can criticize the devil all you want in medieval europe, too. You can attempt to spread your religious beliefs without being kidnapped so long as your king and your bishop share the same beliefs. Try copypasting a few lines from 4chan's /pol/ in other mediums and see how far your freedom gets you.
- ythn 10y ago
  Trump is the worst president ever and I hope he gets impeached. Are jack-booted federal thugs going to kick in my door tonight and kidnap me now? Tell me more about my lack of freedom as I shoot my glock out my car window while spinning donuts on my property. In Iran you go to prison for criticizing the president. In Malaysia (and other Muslim countries) you get kidnapped for trying to spread Christianity. In China you disappear if you start agitating for dissension on any medium. Someone merely observing you isn't taking away your freedom to say or do things.
  - yakult 10y ago
    Criticising Trump on HN is like criticizing US imperialism in China or criticizing Israeli settlements in Iran. It is a safe subject. Everybody agrees with you, including those who pays the people in jackboots. Obviously nobody will kick your door in. What happens to people with the unpopular opinions? Well, Berkeley.
    - ythn 10y ago
      No, that's where you are fundamentally wrong. There is no comparison because we have more freedom than China or Iran. We can criticize the president. People in China and Iran can't - at least not without high risk. I can say things in America that people deeply disagree with, including the government, and I still will won't go to jail. I can join the KKK or Neo-Nazis without repercussion. I can call for genocide or revolution on facebook or twitter, and the government will ignore me. That is the freedom we have in the USA.
      - yakult 10y ago
        You can criticise the president because it's a safe subject. If you join the neo-nazis (or any similarly unpopular group) and posts that on facebook, you will lose your job, your customers will shun you, and if you are sufficiently famous the media will make sure it stays on your record forever. You will also have no platform and no way to gather like-minded people. Whatever social media you use will ban you or seek to limit your voice constantly and in imaginative ways (cf shadowban). Whatever hosting service you use to communicate with your group will shut you down unannounced when you are of sufficient size, forcing you to move, bleeding members all the while. Paypal will refuse to process your donations. At some point somebody will dig through your past writings/interviews and misconstrue you as a pedophile. At the end of the day you will be just another destitute crackpot that nobody pays attention to. Why bother with the jackboots?
        ythn 10y ago
        So what's your point? Are you trying to argue the USA has the same level of freedom as China or Iran?
        yakult 10y ago
        I'm arguing that it's a more sophisticated and on the whole more humane system of suppressing dissent, but we shouldn't deny that it exists and serves the same functions.
  - Gigablah 10y ago
    > In Malaysia (and other Muslim countries) you get kidnapped for trying to spread Christianity. As a Malaysian, there's plenty to criticize about my country, but this is the first time I've heard of this. Got a source?
    - ythn 10y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-jcxSZGS-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-jcxSZGS-8
      - Gigablah 10y ago
        A bit early to speculate about the motive, no?
        ythn 10y ago
        Possibly, yes. I just assume it's the government because from the articles I've read, they have the most motive (they want to pass some sharia law corporal punishment bills, and this Christian pastor dude was influential and opposed to it).
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    So your point is Iran, Malaysia and China have more freedom to put people in prison, kidnap and disappear people ? If the US didn't have one of the worst prison record of the world, been known for kidnapping, assassinating and disappearing people all over the world you may have a point. Right now you're just looking like a fool boasting about not being black, muslim and having the privileges of not having been the target of what the US government has been known for doing for decades.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      There is no such thing as a perfect country. The United States comes out looking very bad in incarceration per capita rates. China and Iran comes out looking bad in execution rate per capita. Malaysia still retains caning, a concept many in the West find barbaric. "Who is worse" will depend on your focus. Regarding freedom of speech, the United States does have the concept more strongly encoded in law than the other 3. China's Constitution has Article 35, but apparently there is little enforcement of these rights (http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/constitution-day-protest-12042014105615.html http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/constitution-day-prote...), so such is toothless. I am not aware of a freedom of speech law in Iran, nor I was able to Google one. Malaysia does have freedom of speech protections with Article 10. Having said that, the legalese is not as strong as the US's Amendment 1 -- the Sedition Act overrules Article 10, for instance. So criticizing the leader in Malaysia could bring you into legal trouble, unlike in the United States. The First Amendment is not completely unbounded either, but unless you can demonstrate a US equivalent to Malaysia's Sedition Act (Malaysia being the country with the strongest freedom of speech protections of the three being compared), well, I think the OP has a point.
fetbaffe 10y ago
> Anarchy is the only true freedom. Any social contract (i.e. government) limits freedom. Limits on freedom does not always translate into less free. Limits on owning nuclear bombs can be seen as an increase in freedom for those who don't own them.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  > Limits on owning nuclear bombs can be seen as an increase in freedom for those who don't own them. I would disagree here, limits on owning nuclear weapons is sort of capping the decrease of freedom for those who don't. A strict ban of nuclear weapons is required not to impact freedom of others. So your analogy fails as a ban on freedom always translate into less free. Actually I fails to see how putting limits on freedom would not limit freedom. Arguing otherwise does not make much sense. Having the freedom to do something does not imply that this freedom will be used. Pretty much anybody is free to commit suicide, but does not.
  - fetbaffe 10y ago
    Not at all. To say that less limits always translates into more freedom is very simplistic idea that I proved wrong. If the freedom exists, it will be used by someone, because people do commit suicide. Less limits can lead to more freedom, but some restrictions of freedom can also increase freedom. For instance by having conscription a lesser evil government can protect itself against bigger evil government. Case in point, Finland against Soviet Union during World War 2. By forcing Fins to serve in the Finnish army, Finland kept their independence from a totalitarian communistic rule and evolved themselves to one of the most free countries in the world.

by ythn 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

yakult 10y ago

You can criticize the devil all you want in medieval europe, too. You can attempt to spread your religious beliefs without being kidnapped so long as your king and your bishop share the same beliefs. Try copypasting a few lines from 4chan's /pol/ in other mediums and see how far your freedom gets you.

ythn 10y ago
Trump is the worst president ever and I hope he gets impeached. Are jack-booted federal thugs going to kick in my door tonight and kidnap me now? Tell me more about my lack of freedom as I shoot my glock out my car window while spinning donuts on my property. In Iran you go to prison for criticizing the president. In Malaysia (and other Muslim countries) you get kidnapped for trying to spread Christianity. In China you disappear if you start agitating for dissension on any medium. Someone merely observing you isn't taking away your freedom to say or do things.
- yakult 10y ago
  Criticising Trump on HN is like criticizing US imperialism in China or criticizing Israeli settlements in Iran. It is a safe subject. Everybody agrees with you, including those who pays the people in jackboots. Obviously nobody will kick your door in. What happens to people with the unpopular opinions? Well, Berkeley.
  - ythn 10y ago
    No, that's where you are fundamentally wrong. There is no comparison because we have more freedom than China or Iran. We can criticize the president. People in China and Iran can't - at least not without high risk. I can say things in America that people deeply disagree with, including the government, and I still will won't go to jail. I can join the KKK or Neo-Nazis without repercussion. I can call for genocide or revolution on facebook or twitter, and the government will ignore me. That is the freedom we have in the USA.
    - yakult 10y ago
      You can criticise the president because it's a safe subject. If you join the neo-nazis (or any similarly unpopular group) and posts that on facebook, you will lose your job, your customers will shun you, and if you are sufficiently famous the media will make sure it stays on your record forever. You will also have no platform and no way to gather like-minded people. Whatever social media you use will ban you or seek to limit your voice constantly and in imaginative ways (cf shadowban). Whatever hosting service you use to communicate with your group will shut you down unannounced when you are of sufficient size, forcing you to move, bleeding members all the while. Paypal will refuse to process your donations. At some point somebody will dig through your past writings/interviews and misconstrue you as a pedophile. At the end of the day you will be just another destitute crackpot that nobody pays attention to. Why bother with the jackboots?
      - ythn 10y ago
        So what's your point? Are you trying to argue the USA has the same level of freedom as China or Iran?
        yakult 10y ago
        I'm arguing that it's a more sophisticated and on the whole more humane system of suppressing dissent, but we shouldn't deny that it exists and serves the same functions.
- Gigablah 10y ago
  > In Malaysia (and other Muslim countries) you get kidnapped for trying to spread Christianity. As a Malaysian, there's plenty to criticize about my country, but this is the first time I've heard of this. Got a source?
  - ythn 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-jcxSZGS-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-jcxSZGS-8
    - Gigablah 10y ago
      A bit early to speculate about the motive, no?
      - ythn 10y ago
        Possibly, yes. I just assume it's the government because from the articles I've read, they have the most motive (they want to pass some sharia law corporal punishment bills, and this Christian pastor dude was influential and opposed to it).
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  So your point is Iran, Malaysia and China have more freedom to put people in prison, kidnap and disappear people ? If the US didn't have one of the worst prison record of the world, been known for kidnapping, assassinating and disappearing people all over the world you may have a point. Right now you're just looking like a fool boasting about not being black, muslim and having the privileges of not having been the target of what the US government has been known for doing for decades.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    There is no such thing as a perfect country. The United States comes out looking very bad in incarceration per capita rates. China and Iran comes out looking bad in execution rate per capita. Malaysia still retains caning, a concept many in the West find barbaric. "Who is worse" will depend on your focus. Regarding freedom of speech, the United States does have the concept more strongly encoded in law than the other 3. China's Constitution has Article 35, but apparently there is little enforcement of these rights (http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/constitution-day-protest-12042014105615.html http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/constitution-day-prote...), so such is toothless. I am not aware of a freedom of speech law in Iran, nor I was able to Google one. Malaysia does have freedom of speech protections with Article 10. Having said that, the legalese is not as strong as the US's Amendment 1 -- the Sedition Act overrules Article 10, for instance. So criticizing the leader in Malaysia could bring you into legal trouble, unlike in the United States. The First Amendment is not completely unbounded either, but unless you can demonstrate a US equivalent to Malaysia's Sedition Act (Malaysia being the country with the strongest freedom of speech protections of the three being compared), well, I think the OP has a point.

fetbaffe 10y ago

> Anarchy is the only true freedom. Any social contract (i.e. government) limits freedom. Limits on freedom does not always translate into less free. Limits on owning nuclear bombs can be seen as an increase in freedom for those who don't own them.

bigbugbag 10y ago
> Limits on owning nuclear bombs can be seen as an increase in freedom for those who don't own them. I would disagree here, limits on owning nuclear weapons is sort of capping the decrease of freedom for those who don't. A strict ban of nuclear weapons is required not to impact freedom of others. So your analogy fails as a ban on freedom always translate into less free. Actually I fails to see how putting limits on freedom would not limit freedom. Arguing otherwise does not make much sense. Having the freedom to do something does not imply that this freedom will be used. Pretty much anybody is free to commit suicide, but does not.
- fetbaffe 10y ago
  Not at all. To say that less limits always translates into more freedom is very simplistic idea that I proved wrong. If the freedom exists, it will be used by someone, because people do commit suicide. Less limits can lead to more freedom, but some restrictions of freedom can also increase freedom. For instance by having conscription a lesser evil government can protect itself against bigger evil government. Case in point, Finland against Soviet Union during World War 2. By forcing Fins to serve in the Finnish army, Finland kept their independence from a totalitarian communistic rule and evolved themselves to one of the most free countries in the world.