4 ms·

The founding fathers of the US did not write the US constitution with practical freedom in mind. They wrote it with the principles of freedom as sacred. The bat

The founding fathers of the US did not write the US constitution with practical freedom in mind. They wrote it with the principles of freedom as sacred. The battles they fought weren't for being able to buy groceries or walk the streets. They fought the battles over things like the right to not being taxed, to not be under the bank of England's monetary regulations, to have their own voice in the political system and legal system. These things don't affect the majority of the population, but they are extremely, extremely important. Why? This is because systematically, over the course of hundreds of years, those in power abused those without power, over and over and over and over again, based on their own personal gain. ESPECIALLY if you don't care about the people you're in power over. This is basically why the American Revolution happened, England ran out of money fighting wars and tried to squeeze America for it. America said, no way, you don't give 2 pence about us. Yes, your practical freedoms may not be affected in the micro timescale of the days and weeks, but over the course of centuries, countless people lose their lives and livelihoods, not their freedom, because of any number of reasons, none of them being that they did a crime to deserve it. If history has taught us anything, you could lose your life for being: 1) A religious minority 2) A racial minority 3) A friend of someone who the person in power wants to get rid of 4) Too rich / powerful and a threat to governance 5) Well educated or with radical ideas and much more. You could also lose your livelihood or future by any number of means: 1) being taxed unfairly so that you make next to nothing 2) being forced to do things in a way that would benefit your mother country, at the expense of yourself 3) needing to follow laws that you have no control over that inconvenience or ruin your trade or businesses 4) needing to report to the government suspicious persons or activities And just to be clear, I'm talking about themes from the American Revolution and escaping from the tyranny of European influence, not current affairs. This situation is not in the same ballpark of possible outcomes as "Facebook exposing your private data to advertisers", of which only minor inconvenience is at stake. It's a lot more than that.

supernova87a 6y ago
Well, I ask again -- the specific proposed laws under discussion don't touch on any of those principles. They're about sedition, secession, national security, terrorism, etc. We have laws about those things too in the US. So is this actually an argument about the influence / authority of China and the extent of their power, or about the specific laws being passed? Or is it about making sure the 27 years left on the clock are as close to the system that people knew before as possible? Because I don't think the influence of China battle in Hong Kong going to be won, in the long run. -- edit: btw I equally don't understand (well I do, but for the sake of argument) why China/Xi is so in a rush to accelerate the 27 years left for Hong Kong. If it's going to be reverted to 1 system guaranteed eventually, what's the need to do this right now? -- further edit: btw I also don't understand why Carrie Lam is so eager to do Beijing's bidding. If she's an independent/educated/Hong Kong native, what's her motivation? Or do they have some dirt on her? If she's worried about being extradited, you would think she'd be most advocating for an independent legal system.
- ep103 6y ago
  China desires to merge Hong Kong into the rest of mainland China, as a one state solution, in the long term. This means ending its status as a somewhat-democratic, relatively-free, relatively-free-market, rule-of-law based system. China does not want to see any of this happen today, because mainland China is still developing. But theoretically, once China has developed, it would no longer need an independent and semi-free or semi-autonomous Hong Kong any longer, and Hong Kong could be merged into China with relatively little impact to China as a whole. Peacefully or otherwise. The United States and the west generally do not want to see any of this occur, for reasons that should be painfully obvious. So nothing about either China's actions towards Hong Kong, the people of Hong Kong's desires, or America's response here has anything to do with the freedoms of individual people today, China's current influence, or current laws proposed or being passed by any of the three participating societies. Its about what everyone knows is going to be passed in a year, or 5, 10, or 40. The play from Hong Kong and the west is too draw out the unification period as long as possible, because you never know what could happen in the future. China feels the opposite. This is happening now, because China has been pulling democratic governors out of Hong Kong legislative bodies by force. And because they are currently setting up a secret police network, legally, in Hong Kong, to enforce their power structure there, the same way it is done in mainland China. That means, that regardless of what "laws" Hong Kong passes, Hong Kong is no longer independent. And America is responding that if China is going to rule Hong Kong as part of its mainland country, and abandon the rule of law that currently exists in Hong Kong, then America will no longer respect Hong Kong as a rule-of-law based, independent, society. Quite simply, it will no longer be safe for the west to invest money into Hong Kong, the way it has in the past. This is both good self-preservation for the west, as well as making good on what, previously to today, was one a limited number of good reasons for China to respect Hong Kong's separate legal system and status. Theoretically, China could, tomorrow, roll back their pressure on Hong Kong, and America would roll back this announcement, though I rather doubt that either country is incentivized for that outcome. As for your last two questions: 1 - Internal Chinese politics. I can't imagine you would ever get a correct answer about this on the internet. China does not work like the west. No one who understands it well is going to discuss it in a public forum (you understand why?), unless, possibly, you're talking about a western academic. 2 - Because she is legitimately a stooge, in the fundamental sense of the word. Its worth looking up Hong Kong's governmental structure. Its not a real democracy. Its more or less what you would expect a government to look like, if the wealthiest people in a country all knew each other, and the country wanted a democracy, but the wealthy wanted to ensure that they always held all the positions of power, with limited accountability. Hong Kong is only, really, democratic compared to China. There's a reason the protests were demanding universal elections... Hong Kong doesn't have them. So Hong Kong's government is just doing what it has been designed from the start to do: give the Hong Kong people some semblance of democracy, while simultaneously bowing to the most powerful people in the society, who are, increasingly, placed there by China.

supernova87a 6y ago

Well, I ask again -- the specific proposed laws under discussion don't touch on any of those principles. They're about sedition, secession, national security, terrorism, etc. We have laws about those things too in the US. So is this actually an argument about the influence / authority of China and the extent of their power, or about the specific laws being passed? Or is it about making sure the 27 years left on the clock are as close to the system that people knew before as possible? Because I don't think the influence of China battle in Hong Kong going to be won, in the long run. -- edit: btw I equally don't understand (well I do, but for the sake of argument) why China/Xi is so in a rush to accelerate the 27 years left for Hong Kong. If it's going to be reverted to 1 system guaranteed eventually, what's the need to do this right now? -- further edit: btw I also don't understand why Carrie Lam is so eager to do Beijing's bidding. If she's an independent/educated/Hong Kong native, what's her motivation? Or do they have some dirt on her? If she's worried about being extradited, you would think she'd be most advocating for an independent legal system.

ep103 6y ago
China desires to merge Hong Kong into the rest of mainland China, as a one state solution, in the long term. This means ending its status as a somewhat-democratic, relatively-free, relatively-free-market, rule-of-law based system. China does not want to see any of this happen today, because mainland China is still developing. But theoretically, once China has developed, it would no longer need an independent and semi-free or semi-autonomous Hong Kong any longer, and Hong Kong could be merged into China with relatively little impact to China as a whole. Peacefully or otherwise. The United States and the west generally do not want to see any of this occur, for reasons that should be painfully obvious. So nothing about either China's actions towards Hong Kong, the people of Hong Kong's desires, or America's response here has anything to do with the freedoms of individual people today, China's current influence, or current laws proposed or being passed by any of the three participating societies. Its about what everyone knows is going to be passed in a year, or 5, 10, or 40. The play from Hong Kong and the west is too draw out the unification period as long as possible, because you never know what could happen in the future. China feels the opposite. This is happening now, because China has been pulling democratic governors out of Hong Kong legislative bodies by force. And because they are currently setting up a secret police network, legally, in Hong Kong, to enforce their power structure there, the same way it is done in mainland China. That means, that regardless of what "laws" Hong Kong passes, Hong Kong is no longer independent. And America is responding that if China is going to rule Hong Kong as part of its mainland country, and abandon the rule of law that currently exists in Hong Kong, then America will no longer respect Hong Kong as a rule-of-law based, independent, society. Quite simply, it will no longer be safe for the west to invest money into Hong Kong, the way it has in the past. This is both good self-preservation for the west, as well as making good on what, previously to today, was one a limited number of good reasons for China to respect Hong Kong's separate legal system and status. Theoretically, China could, tomorrow, roll back their pressure on Hong Kong, and America would roll back this announcement, though I rather doubt that either country is incentivized for that outcome. As for your last two questions: 1 - Internal Chinese politics. I can't imagine you would ever get a correct answer about this on the internet. China does not work like the west. No one who understands it well is going to discuss it in a public forum (you understand why?), unless, possibly, you're talking about a western academic. 2 - Because she is legitimately a stooge, in the fundamental sense of the word. Its worth looking up Hong Kong's governmental structure. Its not a real democracy. Its more or less what you would expect a government to look like, if the wealthiest people in a country all knew each other, and the country wanted a democracy, but the wealthy wanted to ensure that they always held all the positions of power, with limited accountability. Hong Kong is only, really, democratic compared to China. There's a reason the protests were demanding universal elections... Hong Kong doesn't have them. So Hong Kong's government is just doing what it has been designed from the start to do: give the Hong Kong people some semblance of democracy, while simultaneously bowing to the most powerful people in the society, who are, increasingly, placed there by China.