4 ms·

> 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

> 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
Totally agree. See my recent posts on this kind of sentiment. I was surprised that those post didn’t get any traction. It told me that in a way people don’t care or are mired by such losses busy lives that they can’t have a discourse when it’s needed the most. Anyways yes the countries that were able to contain this may be autocracies but their people will live. We can’t do this because a we are a democracy is just a flawed argument and one that allows status who to prevail when change is needed. As for the govt futzing around in the us and Giving itself 10 out of 10, somebody on one of my posts said it best - “drain the swamp my a$$, let it burn”. In a way a lazy citizenry deserves the govt it gets. Also all the countries - Taiwan, Singapore , China etc whole dealt with this effectively - this was not their first rodeo. They had the foresight due to experience of sars and swine flu etc. the west only has experimented with military type attacks..

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

Totally agree. See my recent posts on this kind of sentiment. I was surprised that those post didn’t get any traction. It told me that in a way people don’t care or are mired by such losses busy lives that they can’t have a discourse when it’s needed the most. Anyways yes the countries that were able to contain this may be autocracies but their people will live. We can’t do this because a we are a democracy is just a flawed argument and one that allows status who to prevail when change is needed. As for the govt futzing around in the us and Giving itself 10 out of 10, somebody on one of my posts said it best - “drain the swamp my a$$, let it burn”. In a way a lazy citizenry deserves the govt it gets. Also all the countries - Taiwan, Singapore , China etc whole dealt with this effectively - this was not their first rodeo. They had the foresight due to experience of sars and swine flu etc. the west only has experimented with military type attacks..