7 ms·

None of these things are new things. They're things the west largely has evolved past. "reeducation camps" are not an alternative to war. They're slow burn r

by ep103 8y ago

None of these things are new things. They're things the west largely has evolved past. "reeducation camps" are not an alternative to war. They're slow burn racial suppression and replacement, and used to enforce subservience through fear and torture. Populations have been erasing rival populations over territory, ideology and resources since the beginning of time. Since the holocaust, the west has at least begun attempting to move in a new direction. "ignoring all legal opposition to ... development" is not a new take on government infrastructure programs, its a return to the medieval period where a Lord didn't have to consider the needs of the peasants when deciding how to use and develop their land. Even serfdom granted the masses more rights than this. "with boom bust cycle by printing money" - This is just financial and political regulation. The west values boom / bust, if only because cyclical creation and destruction creates opportunities for those with enough resources to play, and so long as the 'bust' isn't so large as to destabilize the system. China values strict stability for a large number of political and social reasons. And 'severely punishing bad actors' has very little to do with regulating the economy, and very, very much to do with ensuring the stability and status quo (of the hierarchy) of the one party system. "using social credit to control bad behavior without prisons" - Does it matter if you have prisons, if you have turned your entire country into a prison? The purpose of the social credit system is not to control bad behavior, it is to control behavior. "it's like they are trying to invent the next level of society, while our system thrives on growing and making industries out of its irresolvabe conflicts" - They are trying to create a different society, though it is hardly a "new" or "next level" one. They are recreating the same type of dynastic society they have had for thousands of years, in a modern setting. As for us, our system thrives on the assumption that cyclical war/peace, famine/growth, boom/bust creates opportunity for those who survive to innovate the society. Our downsides are that when we entire long periods of peace, growth, and stability we tend to become overly lax and allow our most major economic actors to attempt to warp the system to lock in their dominant positions. If that then settles into a stagnant, stable or regressive economic period where such opportunity is increasingly unavailable, large segments of the population will desire to ditch the system entirely and desire radical change, usually to a strong-man system, such as the one once found in Germany, or currently found in China.

narrator 8y ago
If you look at the history of China and the Taiping rebellion[1] 20 - 30 million died over essentially a religious extremism driven civil war. If China can stop religious uprising with minimal damage to society and death, isn't that an improvement, or are big civil wars somehow more fair? In all things they take a pragmatic cost/benefit approach instead of solely thinking about dictums handed down from ancient books as the religious extremists do. The key question is: what is to stop all this from working? In the 20s, Hayek and Von Mises wrote "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"[2] and gave a great criticism of Socialism that eventually predicted its collapse. Mainly that planning without prices would be extremely inefficient. There really isn't a good argument that doesn't rely on natural rights to explain why China's system won't work from a utilitarian perspective, only ones that pull on the heart strings. For example, I often argue with Nazis on racist boards in order to talk them out of their false beliefs in the master race theories of the Nazis and how those false theories directly led to their downfall. The Nazis thought they could take over the world because they were a superior race and exterminating certain classes of people would solve all their problems. They really believed that. Those theories though were wrong, not only in a moral sense, but in a practical sense too. They invaded Russia in the winter thinking it would be easy and also did a lot of other really stupid tactical errors because they got high on their own supply. Many Jewish scientists immigrated and helped develop key technologies that gave the west massive advantages in the war, etc. Point being, you have to not just rely on emotional arguments if you really want to deeply understand the forces underlying and changing history instead of focusing on what makes one feel morally justified. Feeling morally justified is good, but a lot of people who end up participating in their own failure to achieve their goals feel morally justified, but what they are doing is not working. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_Socialist_Commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_So...
- ep103 8y ago
  I wrote you a very long response, I will have to split it into 2 separate posts. Post 1/2 : I appreciate the response to my comment that you've made here, and the links provided to sources, though they weren't necessary in this case : ) To respond to your post, I think we need to break it down into its constituent parts. I think you made 5 smaller points, each of which I would like to refute, and one larger, overall point, which I would like to address. With no intention of reducing or summarizing the substance of your post above, I will refer to your points as 1-5, with each rephrased as the following: 1) If a society has a history of mass death and suffering, but the society organizes itself in a such a way as to reduce the chance of mass death and suffering in the future, does that not justify whichever way the society chooses to so organize itself? Or more simply: Is the evil of mass death and warfare not sufficiently morally awful to justify all attempts to prevent such strife? 2) What makes us think the Chinese model will not work? 3) Societal organization is not the same as an engineering blueprint. Societal organization induces certain behaviors among its people, who then influence their government, which then influences its people. This cycle is a resonance point, a catch-22, that means even similar societies with small differences can have larger social and cultural differences which may themselves be very good or bad. These second order effects are just as important as the initial on-paper social organization of the society itself, but they also tend to be unpredictable. 4) Moral philosophy is nice, but ultimately what really matters in this world is not whether things work on paper, but whether things work in reality. A thing that works in reality, is many times more important and more meaningful than something that seems better, but hasn't been proven. Particularly in topics as complex as politics, where point #3 comes into play very strongly, and the stakes are so high (as mentioned in point #1) 5) You then impugned my character. But I believe this was mostly unintended and a result of your wording as you attempted to explain point #4. You also lightly imply that change is not possible, but the result of the narrative of history, which may be true on the macro sense, but is not what we are discussing here today, and does not impact your ability to decide your thoughts after having this conversation. So ignoring that last point, I understand your argument to be: China's model works. With so many people in the country, small changes can result in mass death and suffering, but the Chinese model keeps the Chinese people safe. We may not like the Chinese model, but we have no reason to believe it will not work. In fact, it appears to be working. And any change we introduce is likely to have 2nd and 3rd order effects which we cannot predict, but which, because they are unpredictable, potentially reintroduce the possibility of political fracture, and suffering back into the Chinese system. So don't fix what isn't broken. Moral justifications and ideological musings are important, but more important, is keeping 1 billion people alive and happy and not risking their lives on unproven reform. ------------------------ My responses below will be to each of your points one at a time. Starting with your #1 above, and continuing in order: 1) This argument only validates that some form of governance is _needed_ and that that form of governance is only acceptable if it can keep the people within it safe and provide decent lives. It is not a sufficient argument to promote one form of government over another. All governments keep their people safe from uprisings and civil war! That is one of the primary purposes of governments! If your objective is to keep people safe, then, we must ask whether the current structure of government is the best method of doing so. While I agree that, particularly so soon after China's bloody most recent civil war there is, and should, be significant resistance to major political overhaul in China itself... fundamentally the question still stands: of the types of government available, is the current form of government the best at, or even good at, keeping its people safe? If the answer is no, then some form of movement from the current type of government to a better version, even if in the form of small, incremental reform, I would argue is warranted. The exact degree of reform the populace should or would be willing to risk and experience will vary, but whether or not the populace should attempt such a thing is not. If this seems like a counter-intuitive, or overly naive viewpoint, I would argue two separate things. 1) all governments are constantly changing. The current Chinese model is currently under reformation. The question is not whether a government and society should change, but whether it is doing so in a positive direction, and the speed at which the change is occurring. If you are unwilling to consider the ways in which other governments may do a better job than your own, then you will also be unable to see the ways in which your own system will need to be improved in order to solve the problems your country faces. I would also point out, that you specifically point out two major problems that are facing the Chinese government currently, namely religious extremism, and the potential for civil war. But my counter, is that both of those things are only the main threats to stability in china... BECAUSE of the type of government that it has. Similarly to what you mentioned in your point #3, different forms of government have different forms of weakness. Historically, systems close to the Chinese system have a GREATER chance of exacerbating religious fundamentalism and violent revolt than most other governmental types, or said another way, if China was not an authoritarian government these particular threats would not be threats that need worrying about. As such, if your desire is to keep people safe, and prevent a future Taiping rebellion, then your goal should be to move China _away_ from an authoritarian model, not further towards it. In short: increasing the possibility of non-violent reform decreases the possibility of mass violence, radicalism, and extremism.

by ep103 8y ago

narrator 8y ago

If you look at the history of China and the Taiping rebellion[1] 20 - 30 million died over essentially a religious extremism driven civil war. If China can stop religious uprising with minimal damage to society and death, isn't that an improvement, or are big civil wars somehow more fair? In all things they take a pragmatic cost/benefit approach instead of solely thinking about dictums handed down from ancient books as the religious extremists do. The key question is: what is to stop all this from working? In the 20s, Hayek and Von Mises wrote "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"[2] and gave a great criticism of Socialism that eventually predicted its collapse. Mainly that planning without prices would be extremely inefficient. There really isn't a good argument that doesn't rely on natural rights to explain why China's system won't work from a utilitarian perspective, only ones that pull on the heart strings. For example, I often argue with Nazis on racist boards in order to talk them out of their false beliefs in the master race theories of the Nazis and how those false theories directly led to their downfall. The Nazis thought they could take over the world because they were a superior race and exterminating certain classes of people would solve all their problems. They really believed that. Those theories though were wrong, not only in a moral sense, but in a practical sense too. They invaded Russia in the winter thinking it would be easy and also did a lot of other really stupid tactical errors because they got high on their own supply. Many Jewish scientists immigrated and helped develop key technologies that gave the west massive advantages in the war, etc. Point being, you have to not just rely on emotional arguments if you really want to deeply understand the forces underlying and changing history instead of focusing on what makes one feel morally justified. Feeling morally justified is good, but a lot of people who end up participating in their own failure to achieve their goals feel morally justified, but what they are doing is not working. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_Socialist_Commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_So...

ep103 8y ago
I wrote you a very long response, I will have to split it into 2 separate posts. Post 1/2 : I appreciate the response to my comment that you've made here, and the links provided to sources, though they weren't necessary in this case : ) To respond to your post, I think we need to break it down into its constituent parts. I think you made 5 smaller points, each of which I would like to refute, and one larger, overall point, which I would like to address. With no intention of reducing or summarizing the substance of your post above, I will refer to your points as 1-5, with each rephrased as the following: 1) If a society has a history of mass death and suffering, but the society organizes itself in a such a way as to reduce the chance of mass death and suffering in the future, does that not justify whichever way the society chooses to so organize itself? Or more simply: Is the evil of mass death and warfare not sufficiently morally awful to justify all attempts to prevent such strife? 2) What makes us think the Chinese model will not work? 3) Societal organization is not the same as an engineering blueprint. Societal organization induces certain behaviors among its people, who then influence their government, which then influences its people. This cycle is a resonance point, a catch-22, that means even similar societies with small differences can have larger social and cultural differences which may themselves be very good or bad. These second order effects are just as important as the initial on-paper social organization of the society itself, but they also tend to be unpredictable. 4) Moral philosophy is nice, but ultimately what really matters in this world is not whether things work on paper, but whether things work in reality. A thing that works in reality, is many times more important and more meaningful than something that seems better, but hasn't been proven. Particularly in topics as complex as politics, where point #3 comes into play very strongly, and the stakes are so high (as mentioned in point #1) 5) You then impugned my character. But I believe this was mostly unintended and a result of your wording as you attempted to explain point #4. You also lightly imply that change is not possible, but the result of the narrative of history, which may be true on the macro sense, but is not what we are discussing here today, and does not impact your ability to decide your thoughts after having this conversation. So ignoring that last point, I understand your argument to be: China's model works. With so many people in the country, small changes can result in mass death and suffering, but the Chinese model keeps the Chinese people safe. We may not like the Chinese model, but we have no reason to believe it will not work. In fact, it appears to be working. And any change we introduce is likely to have 2nd and 3rd order effects which we cannot predict, but which, because they are unpredictable, potentially reintroduce the possibility of political fracture, and suffering back into the Chinese system. So don't fix what isn't broken. Moral justifications and ideological musings are important, but more important, is keeping 1 billion people alive and happy and not risking their lives on unproven reform. ------------------------ My responses below will be to each of your points one at a time. Starting with your #1 above, and continuing in order: 1) This argument only validates that some form of governance is _needed_ and that that form of governance is only acceptable if it can keep the people within it safe and provide decent lives. It is not a sufficient argument to promote one form of government over another. All governments keep their people safe from uprisings and civil war! That is one of the primary purposes of governments! If your objective is to keep people safe, then, we must ask whether the current structure of government is the best method of doing so. While I agree that, particularly so soon after China's bloody most recent civil war there is, and should, be significant resistance to major political overhaul in China itself... fundamentally the question still stands: of the types of government available, is the current form of government the best at, or even good at, keeping its people safe? If the answer is no, then some form of movement from the current type of government to a better version, even if in the form of small, incremental reform, I would argue is warranted. The exact degree of reform the populace should or would be willing to risk and experience will vary, but whether or not the populace should attempt such a thing is not. If this seems like a counter-intuitive, or overly naive viewpoint, I would argue two separate things. 1) all governments are constantly changing. The current Chinese model is currently under reformation. The question is not whether a government and society should change, but whether it is doing so in a positive direction, and the speed at which the change is occurring. If you are unwilling to consider the ways in which other governments may do a better job than your own, then you will also be unable to see the ways in which your own system will need to be improved in order to solve the problems your country faces. I would also point out, that you specifically point out two major problems that are facing the Chinese government currently, namely religious extremism, and the potential for civil war. But my counter, is that both of those things are only the main threats to stability in china... BECAUSE of the type of government that it has. Similarly to what you mentioned in your point #3, different forms of government have different forms of weakness. Historically, systems close to the Chinese system have a GREATER chance of exacerbating religious fundamentalism and violent revolt than most other governmental types, or said another way, if China was not an authoritarian government these particular threats would not be threats that need worrying about. As such, if your desire is to keep people safe, and prevent a future Taiping rebellion, then your goal should be to move China _away_ from an authoritarian model, not further towards it. In short: increasing the possibility of non-violent reform decreases the possibility of mass violence, radicalism, and extremism.