4 ms·

The argument that dealing with China will somehow make them change their values makes as much sense as saying we should deal directly with drug cartels and they

The argument that dealing with China will somehow make them change their values makes as much sense as saying we should deal directly with drug cartels and they'll change their values. It may be true, it may not be true, but either way it's basically the same argument. Somehow that by bringing them into the system will make them more like us. I'm honestly not sure how effective it is. A more moral stance would be not to deal with people who don't share your values and let them actively change if they want a seat at the table (and of course this ideal goes both ways), but there's less money to be made that way.

luckylion 7y ago
> I'm honestly not sure how effective it is. Personally, I think that's the right question to ask, and I'm not sure either. Did the Change Through Rapprochement policies help changing the Soviet Union, or would that change and the eventual dissolving have happened anyway? What's ethical depends on what you value more highly, I guess: principles or outcomes. Start a world war on principle or do shady realpolitik but keep the peace? The same is true here. And sure, money is a factor, but conflict is good for business, too, so I'm not so sure that it's only pulling in one direction.
jaredklewis 7y ago
The argument seems pretty easy to follow to me. If you trade with someone, you help them get richer. Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable, as citizens have so much more to lose. Poverty and crazy authoritarian leaders are like peas and carrots. In your metaphor, the more you trade with the drug dealer, the more they come to depend on income from selling drugs, and the less likely they will be to want to engage in armed conflict with rivals. After all, why risk dying when things are going so well? They’re making lots of money selling drugs. Think of your own behavior. Would you break into a house to steal? Under normal circumstances, of course not. If you were starving, you’d think nothing of it. People under pressure behave violently.
- CogitoCogito 7y ago
  > The argument seems pretty easy to follow to me. > If you trade with someone, you help them get richer. Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable, as citizens have so much more to lose. > Poverty and crazy authoritarian leaders are like peas and carrots. Honestly nothing here really is much of an argument. It's more of an aspiration. We want to trade with them and we want to do it morally and so we want your line of reasoning to be true. Put it another way. We _are_ trading with many nations _despite_ of their moral short-comings. Why should they change? Our current trade issues with China have nothing to do with their human rights issues and everything to do with some belief (in some circles) that we can do better. We've known about abuses by the CCP for years and never batted an eye. Honestly I think a huge test of your argument _is_ the current trade situation. Will China open up their markets more now or double-down and become more isolationist? The US seems to be finally putting monetary interests in second place so why not China? Personally given that China has grown more powerful over the past few decades yet never let up on its threats of military belligerence against Taiwan (and in fact focused much of their military growth with that belligerence in mind), I see little to support the following statement: > Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable But I definitely hope you're right! edit: Another issue I take with this quote: > If you trade with someone, you help them get richer. Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable, as citizens have so much more to lose. We are not trading with "someone" we are trading with many different people. The wealth isn't spread around equally. Those people on both sides don't have the same goals and interests. So even if one side is getting richer on average, it doesn't mean that there will be popular support for continuing that path. For example, the US has gotten richer on average over the years, but that hasn't stopped the backlash against many of the policies that helped that to be in place. Not everyone sees the same money.
coldtea 7y ago
>The argument that dealing with China will somehow make them change their values makes as much sense as saying we should deal directly with drug cartels and they'll change their values. It may be true, it may not be true, but either way it's basically the same argument. Somehow that by bringing them into the system will make them more like us Well, the US has been dealing directly with drug cartels and it did turn them to have closer ties (e.g. funding them against communists in latin america etc). And of course drug cartels that get rich enough tend to diversify and branch into legal businesses in a generation or two (they'd rather invest their riches than keep living under constant threat). Finally, if drugs are made legal, drug cartels are forced to change into mere drug businesses (or branch into other types of much less lucrative and impactful crime, like smuggling).

luckylion 7y ago

> I'm honestly not sure how effective it is. Personally, I think that's the right question to ask, and I'm not sure either. Did the Change Through Rapprochement policies help changing the Soviet Union, or would that change and the eventual dissolving have happened anyway? What's ethical depends on what you value more highly, I guess: principles or outcomes. Start a world war on principle or do shady realpolitik but keep the peace? The same is true here. And sure, money is a factor, but conflict is good for business, too, so I'm not so sure that it's only pulling in one direction.

jaredklewis 7y ago

The argument seems pretty easy to follow to me. If you trade with someone, you help them get richer. Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable, as citizens have so much more to lose. Poverty and crazy authoritarian leaders are like peas and carrots. In your metaphor, the more you trade with the drug dealer, the more they come to depend on income from selling drugs, and the less likely they will be to want to engage in armed conflict with rivals. After all, why risk dying when things are going so well? They’re making lots of money selling drugs. Think of your own behavior. Would you break into a house to steal? Under normal circumstances, of course not. If you were starving, you’d think nothing of it. People under pressure behave violently.

CogitoCogito 7y ago
> The argument seems pretty easy to follow to me. > If you trade with someone, you help them get richer. Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable, as citizens have so much more to lose. > Poverty and crazy authoritarian leaders are like peas and carrots. Honestly nothing here really is much of an argument. It's more of an aspiration. We want to trade with them and we want to do it morally and so we want your line of reasoning to be true. Put it another way. We _are_ trading with many nations _despite_ of their moral short-comings. Why should they change? Our current trade issues with China have nothing to do with their human rights issues and everything to do with some belief (in some circles) that we can do better. We've known about abuses by the CCP for years and never batted an eye. Honestly I think a huge test of your argument _is_ the current trade situation. Will China open up their markets more now or double-down and become more isolationist? The US seems to be finally putting monetary interests in second place so why not China? Personally given that China has grown more powerful over the past few decades yet never let up on its threats of military belligerence against Taiwan (and in fact focused much of their military growth with that belligerence in mind), I see little to support the following statement: > Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable But I definitely hope you're right! edit: Another issue I take with this quote: > If you trade with someone, you help them get richer. Rich nations with rich citizens tend to be a lot less belligerent and much more reasonable, as citizens have so much more to lose. We are not trading with "someone" we are trading with many different people. The wealth isn't spread around equally. Those people on both sides don't have the same goals and interests. So even if one side is getting richer on average, it doesn't mean that there will be popular support for continuing that path. For example, the US has gotten richer on average over the years, but that hasn't stopped the backlash against many of the policies that helped that to be in place. Not everyone sees the same money.

coldtea 7y ago

>The argument that dealing with China will somehow make them change their values makes as much sense as saying we should deal directly with drug cartels and they'll change their values. It may be true, it may not be true, but either way it's basically the same argument. Somehow that by bringing them into the system will make them more like us Well, the US has been dealing directly with drug cartels and it did turn them to have closer ties (e.g. funding them against communists in latin america etc). And of course drug cartels that get rich enough tend to diversify and branch into legal businesses in a generation or two (they'd rather invest their riches than keep living under constant threat). Finally, if drugs are made legal, drug cartels are forced to change into mere drug businesses (or branch into other types of much less lucrative and impactful crime, like smuggling).