3 ms·

This article feels like what you get when you feel obligated to write something, drawing grand meanings out of disjointed realities. Taiwan was relatively rece

This article feels like what you get when you feel obligated to write something, drawing grand meanings out of disjointed realities. Taiwan was relatively recently an autocracy. It still can resort to its historical behavior overnight. In the West the sort of actions that Taiwan took absent an emergency are politically unpalatable. This is a political/ideological reality. Comparing that with empires that have lost their way is intellectually devoid of any basis and just seems incredibly lazy. From a purely functional perspective it's worth noting that much of the West has a much closer intertwining with China than Taiwan does. This seems counter-intuitive -- China is right beside it, after all -- but multiples more Chinese nationals live in Canada than Taiwan. There were magnitudes more flights between the US and China (purely from a flight # perspective, and certainly much larger from a passenger perspective) than between China and Taiwan. That Taiwan has been somewhat spared thus far is partly explained by this reality.

bitwize 7y ago
I think that the coronavirus situation will teach liberal-minded folks that individual rights are always contingent on public health and public well-being, and it will teach Americans in particular the need for a notwithstanding clause in the Constitution so that the government can take action if necessary. We tend to interpret First Amendment rights as absolute, but only a Sith deals in absolutes.
- frenchy 7y ago
  I think many liberally minded people realize that (nothwithstanding a few libertarians). In the US then even have the concept of "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", and during WWII a lot of free speach was limited. I think the reality is that most people don't view COVID-19 as an existenial threat to the liberal regime the live in. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...
- mcguire 7y ago
  Risks are ever-present. Choosing a liberal democracy involves accepting those risks, and not just in terms of public health and public well-being. A society that guarantees perfect public health and well-being would be unlivable. Various forms of authoritarian government are well known as being able to respond to crises quicker and more effectively. So, yes, being able to declare a state of emergency is an important ability, but living in a permanent state of emergency is to be avoided.
majormajor 7y ago
> Taiwan was relatively recently an autocracy. It still can resort to its historical behavior overnight. In the West the sort of actions that Taiwan took absent an emergency are politically unpalatable. The difference is that Taiwan saw the emergency coming and decided to make a decision early instead of dithering. Falling back on "we just can't do stuff like that BECAUSE DEMOCRACY" is intellectually lazy and self-sabotaging. Arguing about principles instead of considering specific circumstances is exactly how organizations lose their way.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Forgetting about principles in favor of specific circumstances is also how organizations lose their way.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Giving up on some principles can also be a starting point for erosion of more principles. It’s a very slippery slope that needs to constantly be reconsidered. See the slow building up of surveillance states where the principle of privacy is slowly being eroded because of profit and safety.
- endorphone 7y ago
  `Falling back on "we just can't do stuff like that BECAUSE DEMOCRACY" is intellectually lazy and self-sabotaging' I didn't say that, but okay. In the widespread expectation of personal freedoms, however, it's harder to implement draconian controls without evidence it's clearly needed and of obvious benefits. Autocratic societies will always have the advantage in such situations because you can stomp the boot down at a moment's notice with little resistance. It's also easier when your country is a homogeny with extremely few immigrants, extremely few travelers, etc. For a country like Canada or the United States to do what Taiwan could do, with literally millions to tens of millions of citizens returning from overseas, is logistically in a different universe. And let's be clear that those situations are rare. "But it's just like Compaq because..." -- whatever that stupid noise was. Yeah, I'd rather be "Compaq" in that stupid analogy 99.9% of the time.
- quietthrow 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stereolambda 7y ago
The root of civic liberties is preserving autonomy of the individual. To the extent that actions making an epidemic spread directly endanger lives of other people, it's kind of obvious to me that we have to have means to control that. I'm saying this as a strong, I think, civic libertarian. The difference between this situation and the usual pretexts used to curb liberties is that 1. we know pretty well, scientifically, what is the problem and how it acts (not this specific virus, but in terms what diseases are in general) and 2. it's comparatively clear when such a crisis begins and ends. Compare that with the typical scenario of some dangerous people doing shady things, we don't know who and where, the government can't tell us, and we are to just give the state permanent and not clearly delineated powers. Epidemic and war are the textbook legitimate emergency states. To that extent I almost feel that talking about this crisis in terms of civil liberties may be harmful, in that it may make people more susceptible and desensitized in the long term in these discussions.
dreamlayers 7y ago
Seems to me like Taiwan reacted to an emergency as soon as information was available, while Western countries ignored the emergency until things got so bad they couldn't be ignored anymore.

bitwize 7y ago

I think that the coronavirus situation will teach liberal-minded folks that individual rights are always contingent on public health and public well-being, and it will teach Americans in particular the need for a notwithstanding clause in the Constitution so that the government can take action if necessary. We tend to interpret First Amendment rights as absolute, but only a Sith deals in absolutes.

frenchy 7y ago
I think many liberally minded people realize that (nothwithstanding a few libertarians). In the US then even have the concept of "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", and during WWII a lot of free speach was limited. I think the reality is that most people don't view COVID-19 as an existenial threat to the liberal regime the live in. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...
mcguire 7y ago
Risks are ever-present. Choosing a liberal democracy involves accepting those risks, and not just in terms of public health and public well-being. A society that guarantees perfect public health and well-being would be unlivable. Various forms of authoritarian government are well known as being able to respond to crises quicker and more effectively. So, yes, being able to declare a state of emergency is an important ability, but living in a permanent state of emergency is to be avoided.

majormajor 7y ago

> Taiwan was relatively recently an autocracy. It still can resort to its historical behavior overnight. In the West the sort of actions that Taiwan took absent an emergency are politically unpalatable. The difference is that Taiwan saw the emergency coming and decided to make a decision early instead of dithering. Falling back on "we just can't do stuff like that BECAUSE DEMOCRACY" is intellectually lazy and self-sabotaging. Arguing about principles instead of considering specific circumstances is exactly how organizations lose their way.

mcguire 7y ago
Forgetting about principles in favor of specific circumstances is also how organizations lose their way.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
Giving up on some principles can also be a starting point for erosion of more principles. It’s a very slippery slope that needs to constantly be reconsidered. See the slow building up of surveillance states where the principle of privacy is slowly being eroded because of profit and safety.
endorphone 7y ago
`Falling back on "we just can't do stuff like that BECAUSE DEMOCRACY" is intellectually lazy and self-sabotaging' I didn't say that, but okay. In the widespread expectation of personal freedoms, however, it's harder to implement draconian controls without evidence it's clearly needed and of obvious benefits. Autocratic societies will always have the advantage in such situations because you can stomp the boot down at a moment's notice with little resistance. It's also easier when your country is a homogeny with extremely few immigrants, extremely few travelers, etc. For a country like Canada or the United States to do what Taiwan could do, with literally millions to tens of millions of citizens returning from overseas, is logistically in a different universe. And let's be clear that those situations are rare. "But it's just like Compaq because..." -- whatever that stupid noise was. Yeah, I'd rather be "Compaq" in that stupid analogy 99.9% of the time.
quietthrow 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

stereolambda 7y ago

The root of civic liberties is preserving autonomy of the individual. To the extent that actions making an epidemic spread directly endanger lives of other people, it's kind of obvious to me that we have to have means to control that. I'm saying this as a strong, I think, civic libertarian. The difference between this situation and the usual pretexts used to curb liberties is that 1. we know pretty well, scientifically, what is the problem and how it acts (not this specific virus, but in terms what diseases are in general) and 2. it's comparatively clear when such a crisis begins and ends. Compare that with the typical scenario of some dangerous people doing shady things, we don't know who and where, the government can't tell us, and we are to just give the state permanent and not clearly delineated powers. Epidemic and war are the textbook legitimate emergency states. To that extent I almost feel that talking about this crisis in terms of civil liberties may be harmful, in that it may make people more susceptible and desensitized in the long term in these discussions.

dreamlayers 7y ago

Seems to me like Taiwan reacted to an emergency as soon as information was available, while Western countries ignored the emergency until things got so bad they couldn't be ignored anymore.