5 ms·

It's frustrating to consider how that same standard applies to the USA. We certainly have enough laws that everyone is a criminal and selective enforcement per

It's frustrating to consider how that same standard applies to the USA. We certainly have enough laws that everyone is a criminal and selective enforcement perverts the idea of justice. Of course, I'm not saying things are equally as corrupt as they are in China, but we're definitely on the same spectrum. Maybe the difference is, in the USA, "The Party" includes both big business AND the government.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
It is always a spectrum. America is hardly perfect, but rule of law in the states is much more developed than in China. Especially constitutional law, which the CCP sees as a western abomination (so the Chinese constitution garauntees freedom of speech, religion, and so on, but is meaningless because the judiciary is not a check on the party).
- threeseed 8y ago
  You only have to look at China's religious "re-education" camps to know that the government in no way defers to the Constitution or any other laws.
- logicchains 8y ago
  "Article 51. Non-infringement of rights Citizens of the People's Republic of China, in exercising their freedoms and rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens." So the constitution, even if followed perfectly, technically only guarantees such rights when they don't interfere with the interests of the state.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Sure. It basically means “the right is guaranteed, unless we don’t want to”. Which makes it meaningless in practice.
toxik 8y ago
The US has an independent and democratic justice system. They are not on the same spectrum.
- _delirium 8y ago
  In principle, yes, but the proliferation of broadly defined crimes has made the formal guarantees much less valuable than they might otherwise be. In current US law, especially federal criminal law, prosecutors have a huge amount of discretionary power, and the discretion itself, i.e. who they choose to investigate and charge and who they don't, is subject to very weak judicial oversight (they can more or less only get in trouble for it if they're dumb enough to say on the record something like, "I looked for something to charge this person with because they're black"). And if a federal prosecutor does decide they want to charge you with something and is willing to spend resources on a fishing expedition, they're pretty likely to find some charge that will stick.
  - swagasaurus-rex 8y ago
    What are some broadly defined crimes I should be careful not to commit?
    - chrischen 8y ago
      Well in my local city before (Troy, MI) it was illegal to spit on the ground. Apparently it was a law designed to be selectively enforced to allow police to target who they want.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      Well, one that got a bit of press recently is making false statements which I found out about when they got Flynn for it [0]. I thought it was interesting, because the test for lying is 'is it material to the case', so there might be no crime but if you mis-remember some relevant fact while explaining the situation to government a crime suddenly comes into existence. Particularly when you are up against entities that potentially have a better idea of your online and call activity than you do and have lawyers with a better understanding of what 'material' means. But realistically, the problem is that America has more laws than anyone can read and has also developed a secret legal apparatus so has case law on the books that essentially nobody is allowed to know about [1]. Since an American can't possibly know what the law is, it seems like a stretch if they claim to be following it. Particularly if they do something off the beaten track like run a business, live overseas (byzantine tax system), talk to government officials (see above) or communicate with other people using the cell phones or internet (I think teen sexting laws in the US might be a federal crime, for example, which is sometimes a nasty shock to many minors). Also note that for all this stuff the tests involve dangerous legal words like 'reasonable' and 'contemporary adult community standards', which we all think we know what we mean up until it turns out that they mean something slightly different to everyone and the lawyers have very different standards to on some topic. Everyone is unreasonable on something, hopefully there not on something there is a law about, eh? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secrecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
threeseed 8y ago
> but we're definitely on the same spectrum That is absolutely ridiculous. USA has an independent judicial system, investigations of government behaviour via congressional committees, oversight over consumer impacts via Bureau of Consumer Protection, oversight over corporate governance via SEC. China has none of this. I would also refer you to the Corruption Perceptions index: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 USA has a score of 71/100 and for China it is 39/100.
- gammateam 8y ago
  You wrote about the federal government Now how about the 55+ autonomous regions in the US where only the richest get to afford their rights all the way up to a Federal appeal's court. There are user experience problems impacting a large swatch of the population. I would bet that you aren't exempt from them even if you don't experience it, I'd also bet that would also have a great experience in China and not experience their problems either.
  - cbnotfromthere 8y ago
    "the 55+ autonomous regions in the US where only the richest get to afford their rights in a Federal appeal's court." What are you talking about???
    - gammateam 8y ago
      The states and territories have to be treated separately, they are all structured completely differently, have completely different checks and balances of different efficacy and have as many civil rights nuances as any separate country. The luxury of the Federal umbrella isn't accessible to the vast majority of the population that becomes ensnared in the whims of any particular state.
    - treme 8y ago
      takes bunch of money to take a case all the way up federal courts. Peter Thiel, verbatim: "If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system."
jeffbax 8y ago
This is silly. In China it's nearly LITERALLY both government and big business. You cannot be a big business without the government saying so, and most of the business leaders are party members. This is a far cry from in the states, where while crony capitalism is an issue -- it isn't the actual law like in China when it comes to large firms and the amount of state intervention.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  So true and yet what effective difference does that make to a person earning avg income to 10x avg income ? What is the difference between that and oh say Halliburton There is a distinction that say google/Facebook founders can take a position opposing the government so what is achieved ? Ok maybe I’m in a mood ;)

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

It is always a spectrum. America is hardly perfect, but rule of law in the states is much more developed than in China. Especially constitutional law, which the CCP sees as a western abomination (so the Chinese constitution garauntees freedom of speech, religion, and so on, but is meaningless because the judiciary is not a check on the party).

threeseed 8y ago
You only have to look at China's religious "re-education" camps to know that the government in no way defers to the Constitution or any other laws.
logicchains 8y ago
"Article 51. Non-infringement of rights Citizens of the People's Republic of China, in exercising their freedoms and rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens." So the constitution, even if followed perfectly, technically only guarantees such rights when they don't interfere with the interests of the state.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Sure. It basically means “the right is guaranteed, unless we don’t want to”. Which makes it meaningless in practice.

toxik 8y ago

The US has an independent and democratic justice system. They are not on the same spectrum.

_delirium 8y ago
In principle, yes, but the proliferation of broadly defined crimes has made the formal guarantees much less valuable than they might otherwise be. In current US law, especially federal criminal law, prosecutors have a huge amount of discretionary power, and the discretion itself, i.e. who they choose to investigate and charge and who they don't, is subject to very weak judicial oversight (they can more or less only get in trouble for it if they're dumb enough to say on the record something like, "I looked for something to charge this person with because they're black"). And if a federal prosecutor does decide they want to charge you with something and is willing to spend resources on a fishing expedition, they're pretty likely to find some charge that will stick.
- swagasaurus-rex 8y ago
  What are some broadly defined crimes I should be careful not to commit?
  - chrischen 8y ago
    Well in my local city before (Troy, MI) it was illegal to spit on the ground. Apparently it was a law designed to be selectively enforced to allow police to target who they want.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Well, one that got a bit of press recently is making false statements which I found out about when they got Flynn for it [0]. I thought it was interesting, because the test for lying is 'is it material to the case', so there might be no crime but if you mis-remember some relevant fact while explaining the situation to government a crime suddenly comes into existence. Particularly when you are up against entities that potentially have a better idea of your online and call activity than you do and have lawyers with a better understanding of what 'material' means. But realistically, the problem is that America has more laws than anyone can read and has also developed a secret legal apparatus so has case law on the books that essentially nobody is allowed to know about [1]. Since an American can't possibly know what the law is, it seems like a stretch if they claim to be following it. Particularly if they do something off the beaten track like run a business, live overseas (byzantine tax system), talk to government officials (see above) or communicate with other people using the cell phones or internet (I think teen sexting laws in the US might be a federal crime, for example, which is sometimes a nasty shock to many minors). Also note that for all this stuff the tests involve dangerous legal words like 'reasonable' and 'contemporary adult community standards', which we all think we know what we mean up until it turns out that they mean something slightly different to everyone and the lawyers have very different standards to on some topic. Everyone is unreasonable on something, hopefully there not on something there is a law about, eh? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secrecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

threeseed 8y ago

> but we're definitely on the same spectrum That is absolutely ridiculous. USA has an independent judicial system, investigations of government behaviour via congressional committees, oversight over consumer impacts via Bureau of Consumer Protection, oversight over corporate governance via SEC. China has none of this. I would also refer you to the Corruption Perceptions index: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 USA has a score of 71/100 and for China it is 39/100.

gammateam 8y ago
You wrote about the federal government Now how about the 55+ autonomous regions in the US where only the richest get to afford their rights all the way up to a Federal appeal's court. There are user experience problems impacting a large swatch of the population. I would bet that you aren't exempt from them even if you don't experience it, I'd also bet that would also have a great experience in China and not experience their problems either.
- cbnotfromthere 8y ago
  "the 55+ autonomous regions in the US where only the richest get to afford their rights in a Federal appeal's court." What are you talking about???
  - gammateam 8y ago
    The states and territories have to be treated separately, they are all structured completely differently, have completely different checks and balances of different efficacy and have as many civil rights nuances as any separate country. The luxury of the Federal umbrella isn't accessible to the vast majority of the population that becomes ensnared in the whims of any particular state.
  - treme 8y ago
    takes bunch of money to take a case all the way up federal courts. Peter Thiel, verbatim: "If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system."

jeffbax 8y ago

This is silly. In China it's nearly LITERALLY both government and big business. You cannot be a big business without the government saying so, and most of the business leaders are party members. This is a far cry from in the states, where while crony capitalism is an issue -- it isn't the actual law like in China when it comes to large firms and the amount of state intervention.

zaphirplane 8y ago
So true and yet what effective difference does that make to a person earning avg income to 10x avg income ? What is the difference between that and oh say Halliburton There is a distinction that say google/Facebook founders can take a position opposing the government so what is achieved ? Ok maybe I’m in a mood ;)