7 ms·

It's interesting to me how much China is behaving very much like a "gang", like the Crips or Bloods from the 80's. "You take one of ours, we'll grab some of yo

It's interesting to me how much China is behaving very much like a "gang", like the Crips or Bloods from the 80's. "You take one of ours, we'll grab some of yours." Doesn't matter what the reasons for the grabs are, it's just posturing. It's sad when you're international relations are at the level of hoodlums.

mdpopescu 8y ago
That's always the case. Interpreting international relations as spats between gang members (or 8 year-olds) clarifies a lot of things.
- mikeash 8y ago
  International relations become a lot more comprehensible once you realize that it is the one example of a true, pure anarchy you can find on this planet.
- fermienrico 8y ago
  I’d take a step deeper and realize that this is glorified tribalism that’s stuck in humans. We evolved into a civilized species but the idea of territorial tribalism is embedded deep into our very psyche.
  - mdpopescu 8y ago
    Yeah, but it can be fought. I was never a nationalist, but I didn't realize how ingrained a lot of habits are until I started traveling through Europe. I've once read that "weirdoes start 10 miles from home" - well, it's not that bad but it's still amazing to realize that yes, people in different countries are still people.
    - fermienrico 8y ago
      I think it can be fought on an individualist level but difficult as it goes against the grain with political objectives and nationalist motifs. It’s so deeply engrained - see 1985 UN speech by Jiddu Krishnamurthy. It was a real eye-opener but everyone goes back to normality the next day. Tribalism is very active and impossible to get rid of in my view unless something totally disruptive happens (Alien invasion at which point we will engage in interplanetary tribalism).
      - chillacy 8y ago
        It’s pretty interesting reading through some of the psychology experiments on ingroup/out group formation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Reminds me of the sarcastic and cynical inversion - referring to gangs as baby governments. Historically that isn't wrong given that strongmen charging protection fees (by consent or coercion) and making an example of any "bandits" harming his income by robbing them or harming their paying subjects. This creates the monopoly on violence and things can progress from there for better or worse. Given an apocalyptic collapse and enough time you might see the Crip Nation eventually become literal.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    people really don't like this line of argument on HN. I am curious to find out why.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Probably because it often is too couched in ideals that seem for lack of better words childish - they already know that it is backed by a monopoly on violence and power vacuums tend to make any idyllic situations rare and short lived so there is little interesting there even to avowed anarchists. They're aware and usually consider it the lesser of evils unless things go /seriously/ wrong. Better received are nuance and reality bound arguements. Talking about viable schemes to de-hiarch institutions and their limitations is far more interesting. For instance one more viable concept is the "when everybody is the police nobody is" - a situation where everyone has the same policing powers and a tribunal legal system would be very radical but it is interesting conceptually to explore. Specialization still produces premiums so one could discuss in said hypothetical if there was a "security fund" that people pay in and could get paid by consent for operating as a dedicated policeman despite lacking any privledged position legally. Even if one thinks the whole operation would probably be doomed to failure by collapse or hierarchy entrenchment it gives plenty to discuss in facts and opinions.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  The analogy works for many US states and even some city politics as well. There's just less bloodshed than when real street gangs fight. Remember that limo that crashed and killed 20-ish people? The NTSB and the State Police gang are still fighting each other over who's turf it is.
leetcrew 8y ago
at risk of sounding like an edgy libertarian, what do you think is the difference between a government and a gang with internal rules?
- adventured 8y ago
  Properly governments operate by the consent of those they govern. Gangs rule territory and the people within it almost strictly by violence. The closest similar in governments is a dictatorship, which must rule by the constant arbitrary application of violence to keep people terrified. A proper government operates by the peaceful consent - representative government, democratic systems, constitutional rights protections - of citizens of that government. This is obviously not always the case with governments, however it is overwhelmingly (nearly exclusively) the case in the more prosperous, stable nations. Gangs don't operate by the democratic vote of those that suffer/live within their dominion, they operate by the stray, subjective, whim based application of extreme violence. Codes of honor that are strictly adhered to within the mafia or gangs is wholly a fantasy, a lie, cheap hollywood bullshit at odds with all of history. Brutal behavior is a requirement of maintaining power as a gang. Gangs must also constantly murder or intimidate other neighboring gangs, to maintain their territorial control. Properly a government does not behave that way. The US doesn't need to kill everyone in Canada and take what they have, in order for the US to be prosperous or to maintain US sovereignty and power; the same goes for the relations between eg Finland and Sweden, or Australia and New Zealand. Gangs very specifically do not primarily operate by an objective application of rules of justice. Stable, prosperous nations & their governments tend to thrive precisely due to the application of objective laws, the steady enforcement of and protection of human liberty. Gangs operate by the subjective command at the top and the effective enslavement of productive people through terror. The rules are subject to arbitrary, often extreme, change when it's convenient to the gang's ruler/s. A new gang leadership can pivot the gang to an entirely different behavior on a whim; such behavioral change is wrong in a civilized nation, where human rights protections should be the primary concern and are not up for arbitrarily being tossed out the window. When the next leadership of the governments of Australia or Sweden come into being, they aren't going to randomly decide to murder a lot of people to establish their dominance. This list doesn't stop, the differences between a proper government and a gang is elaborate. They're nearly polar opposites.
rando444 8y ago
If you read the article, you'll note that he was already arrested and convicted before all of this began. It's his sentencing that is being used to "make an example". Clearly this is done for political reasons to "send a message" .. and judges in the US routinely use sentencing as a means to do the same. The only thing here is the disconnect between the harsh sentencing and the perceived reasons for it. I mean, you're not wrong, but I feel like you're missing the angle of what's going on here.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > judges in the US routinely use sentencing as a means to do the same American judges are fiercely independent. Where “messaging” is concerned it’s within the context of deterring future crime, not messaging to foreign states.
  - pseudolus 8y ago
    Not as independent as you would believe. The number of applications judges actually refuse for search warrants and wiretaps is miniscule. All too often they act merely as extensions for police departments.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > All too often [judges[ act merely as extensions for police departments Empirical data disagrees with your assertion [1]. Judges act as an effective check on prosecutors. There are systemic issues which mitigate this check, e.g. cash bail and plea bargaining. But the difference between America and China in judicial independence and prosecution procedure is night and day. [1] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2668&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
      - pseudolus 8y ago

mdpopescu 8y ago

That's always the case. Interpreting international relations as spats between gang members (or 8 year-olds) clarifies a lot of things.

mikeash 8y ago
International relations become a lot more comprehensible once you realize that it is the one example of a true, pure anarchy you can find on this planet.
fermienrico 8y ago
I’d take a step deeper and realize that this is glorified tribalism that’s stuck in humans. We evolved into a civilized species but the idea of territorial tribalism is embedded deep into our very psyche.
- mdpopescu 8y ago
  Yeah, but it can be fought. I was never a nationalist, but I didn't realize how ingrained a lot of habits are until I started traveling through Europe. I've once read that "weirdoes start 10 miles from home" - well, it's not that bad but it's still amazing to realize that yes, people in different countries are still people.
  - fermienrico 8y ago
    I think it can be fought on an individualist level but difficult as it goes against the grain with political objectives and nationalist motifs. It’s so deeply engrained - see 1985 UN speech by Jiddu Krishnamurthy. It was a real eye-opener but everyone goes back to normality the next day. Tribalism is very active and impossible to get rid of in my view unless something totally disruptive happens (Alien invasion at which point we will engage in interplanetary tribalism).
    - chillacy 8y ago
      It’s pretty interesting reading through some of the psychology experiments on ingroup/out group formation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
Nasrudith 8y ago
Reminds me of the sarcastic and cynical inversion - referring to gangs as baby governments. Historically that isn't wrong given that strongmen charging protection fees (by consent or coercion) and making an example of any "bandits" harming his income by robbing them or harming their paying subjects. This creates the monopoly on violence and things can progress from there for better or worse. Given an apocalyptic collapse and enough time you might see the Crip Nation eventually become literal.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  people really don't like this line of argument on HN. I am curious to find out why.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Probably because it often is too couched in ideals that seem for lack of better words childish - they already know that it is backed by a monopoly on violence and power vacuums tend to make any idyllic situations rare and short lived so there is little interesting there even to avowed anarchists. They're aware and usually consider it the lesser of evils unless things go /seriously/ wrong. Better received are nuance and reality bound arguements. Talking about viable schemes to de-hiarch institutions and their limitations is far more interesting. For instance one more viable concept is the "when everybody is the police nobody is" - a situation where everyone has the same policing powers and a tribunal legal system would be very radical but it is interesting conceptually to explore. Specialization still produces premiums so one could discuss in said hypothetical if there was a "security fund" that people pay in and could get paid by consent for operating as a dedicated policeman despite lacking any privledged position legally. Even if one thinks the whole operation would probably be doomed to failure by collapse or hierarchy entrenchment it gives plenty to discuss in facts and opinions.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
The analogy works for many US states and even some city politics as well. There's just less bloodshed than when real street gangs fight. Remember that limo that crashed and killed 20-ish people? The NTSB and the State Police gang are still fighting each other over who's turf it is.

leetcrew 8y ago

at risk of sounding like an edgy libertarian, what do you think is the difference between a government and a gang with internal rules?

adventured 8y ago
Properly governments operate by the consent of those they govern. Gangs rule territory and the people within it almost strictly by violence. The closest similar in governments is a dictatorship, which must rule by the constant arbitrary application of violence to keep people terrified. A proper government operates by the peaceful consent - representative government, democratic systems, constitutional rights protections - of citizens of that government. This is obviously not always the case with governments, however it is overwhelmingly (nearly exclusively) the case in the more prosperous, stable nations. Gangs don't operate by the democratic vote of those that suffer/live within their dominion, they operate by the stray, subjective, whim based application of extreme violence. Codes of honor that are strictly adhered to within the mafia or gangs is wholly a fantasy, a lie, cheap hollywood bullshit at odds with all of history. Brutal behavior is a requirement of maintaining power as a gang. Gangs must also constantly murder or intimidate other neighboring gangs, to maintain their territorial control. Properly a government does not behave that way. The US doesn't need to kill everyone in Canada and take what they have, in order for the US to be prosperous or to maintain US sovereignty and power; the same goes for the relations between eg Finland and Sweden, or Australia and New Zealand. Gangs very specifically do not primarily operate by an objective application of rules of justice. Stable, prosperous nations & their governments tend to thrive precisely due to the application of objective laws, the steady enforcement of and protection of human liberty. Gangs operate by the subjective command at the top and the effective enslavement of productive people through terror. The rules are subject to arbitrary, often extreme, change when it's convenient to the gang's ruler/s. A new gang leadership can pivot the gang to an entirely different behavior on a whim; such behavioral change is wrong in a civilized nation, where human rights protections should be the primary concern and are not up for arbitrarily being tossed out the window. When the next leadership of the governments of Australia or Sweden come into being, they aren't going to randomly decide to murder a lot of people to establish their dominance. This list doesn't stop, the differences between a proper government and a gang is elaborate. They're nearly polar opposites.

rando444 8y ago

If you read the article, you'll note that he was already arrested and convicted before all of this began. It's his sentencing that is being used to "make an example". Clearly this is done for political reasons to "send a message" .. and judges in the US routinely use sentencing as a means to do the same. The only thing here is the disconnect between the harsh sentencing and the perceived reasons for it. I mean, you're not wrong, but I feel like you're missing the angle of what's going on here.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> judges in the US routinely use sentencing as a means to do the same American judges are fiercely independent. Where “messaging” is concerned it’s within the context of deterring future crime, not messaging to foreign states.
- pseudolus 8y ago
  Not as independent as you would believe. The number of applications judges actually refuse for search warrants and wiretaps is miniscule. All too often they act merely as extensions for police departments.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > All too often [judges[ act merely as extensions for police departments Empirical data disagrees with your assertion [1]. Judges act as an effective check on prosecutors. There are systemic issues which mitigate this check, e.g. cash bail and plea bargaining. But the difference between America and China in judicial independence and prosecution procedure is night and day. [1] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2668&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
    - pseudolus 8y ago