7 ms·

Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?

by mdoms 6y ago

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome? Last I checked, American companies can’t challenge Beijing in court the way Tik Tok is here.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  So because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable The existence of an independent judiciary makes the two incomparable. The American executive is constrained in his actions by the law. That gives the landscape a degree of predictability (albeit less than I’d like). Comparing this to China, where the law begins and ends with the party’s whims, is a slippery slope fallacy.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Make no mistake, the US judiciary is also fully captured by the two parties. Just because one person doesn't have total power means nothing, Xi Jinping doesn't have total power either. But the the two US parties and sometimes even one party alone can totally make anything legal. The judiciary is independent only instantenaousely, not long term. Mind you, this is because the US political system is not made to deal with parties. When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down. That, makes the two comparable.
      - bassman9000 6y ago
        Recent SCOTUS actions disprove your point.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        I never said that the judiciary was controlled by the president, I said it was controlled by the parties through nomination. If you have control over the parties for long enough, you get total control over the judiciary. Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. In the same way, Xi Jinping doesn't have total control over China - the National People's Congress has the authority to remove the President at any time. But because the CCP is by far the most popular party in China, the party is truly in charge, and the checks and balances do not really work. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies with an unlimited amount of parties and separation of power! And actually, 20% of congressional representatives in China are independent. But in practice, it's mathematically unlikely that another party would achieve a majority. In the US, too, it's mathematically unlikely that either of the two parties get replaced by a third party. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. But, in practice, the US has more diversity between the two parties, while in China there is more diversity inside one party. In both cases, the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties.
        bassman9000 6y ago
        Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. the CCP is by far the most popular party in China The CCP is the only party in china. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties. And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    It's not diversity of differences that matters but rather the magnitude of those differences. Being different in one substantive way is infinitely better than being different in a myriad of little ways.
- yorwba 6y ago
  How did you check? If there's some kind of resource for answering questions like that, I'd be very interested in learning about it.
  - Hnaomyiph 6y ago
    I don’t have a resource to answer this question, but the lack of court proceedings and the fact that just about every big tech company is barred and has been barred for over a decade by the great firewall indirectly answers that question. If there was a way to sue yourself into the Chinese market, you would see that happening.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > How did you check? Legal counsel.
justicezyx 6y ago
Additionally, TikTok represents major US and international interests through its users and investors. I doubt the app would continue to be successful without the original creative minds behind it.
khuey 6y ago
I think the specific ways Trump is going about it (targeting individual companies, and the insane bit about the treasury deserving a I-bankers commission) are awful but I also think that taking zero action towards reciprocal market access because "we don't want to become more like China" is also a fool's game.
ponker 6y ago
Bob slaps Steve in the face repeatedly. Steve stands with his hands by his side. Finally right as he starts to defend himself Jason sees him raising his arms and gasps “Steve! For shame! Do you want to be more like Bob?! Put your arms down where they belong!” (Nothing about retaliating against China has anything to do with TikTok’s “ban” which is just a paroxysm from a deranged moron)
- Talanes 6y ago
  This, but every time Bob and Steve slap one another, they end up backhanding one of their kids on the backswing. China's great firewall is to the detriment of their citizens, and retaliating in kind is to the detriment of ours.
rasz 6y ago
America becoming more like China when dealing with China is by all means a desirable outcome!
- nitrogen 6y ago
  To an extent the iterated prisoner's dilemma game must be played with the tit-for-tat response to a defection, but if the US can't find a way to play that game without sacrificing its core values, then the US implicitly loses the game anyway (people more versed in game theory please feel free to correct me).
- kelnos 6y ago
  You have to be careful not to become what you dislike in the process, though. That's certainly not a desirable outcome. I think the US can toe this line successfully, with care[0]. Countries that don't give us meaningful access to their internal markets should just not get meaningful access to ours. Simple to implement ahead of the fact, but unfortunately too many US interests are tied up in China to simply unravel it all right now. [0] Care that I do not trust the current administration to wield, but also sadly do not expect the hopefully-next administration to want to wield at all. A fear of mine is that Biden will choose to bend over backward to appease China after Trump's ham-fisted trade war, and things will go back to the way they were, with China's interests running roughshod over the US's.
gruez 6y ago
I would have a problem if it involved america devolving to china's level, making life worse for its citizens (eg. surveillance, censorship). However, I don't have any problems with america engaging in tit-for-tat exchange against china.
typ 6y ago
When you respond to the guys who follow nasty strategies with niceness, you are literally rewarding the bad behaviors. If being cooperative wouldn't get much differences than being exploitative, then the nice guys will vanish and only the bad guys will remain. A reciprocal strategy is necessary and beneficial long-term for the world IMO. The well-known book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins has an interesting chapter titled Nice Guys Finish First giving a good illustration relevant to this idea.
shard972 6y ago
If china launched physical warfare against America, Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?

Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?

by mdoms 6y ago

Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?

> Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome? Last I checked, American companies can’t challenge Beijing in court the way Tik Tok is here.

colejohnson66 6y ago
So because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable The existence of an independent judiciary makes the two incomparable. The American executive is constrained in his actions by the law. That gives the landscape a degree of predictability (albeit less than I’d like). Comparing this to China, where the law begins and ends with the party’s whims, is a slippery slope fallacy.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Make no mistake, the US judiciary is also fully captured by the two parties. Just because one person doesn't have total power means nothing, Xi Jinping doesn't have total power either. But the the two US parties and sometimes even one party alone can totally make anything legal. The judiciary is independent only instantenaousely, not long term. Mind you, this is because the US political system is not made to deal with parties. When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down. That, makes the two comparable.
    - bassman9000 6y ago
      Recent SCOTUS actions disprove your point.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        I never said that the judiciary was controlled by the president, I said it was controlled by the parties through nomination. If you have control over the parties for long enough, you get total control over the judiciary. Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. In the same way, Xi Jinping doesn't have total control over China - the National People's Congress has the authority to remove the President at any time. But because the CCP is by far the most popular party in China, the party is truly in charge, and the checks and balances do not really work. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies with an unlimited amount of parties and separation of power! And actually, 20% of congressional representatives in China are independent. But in practice, it's mathematically unlikely that another party would achieve a majority. In the US, too, it's mathematically unlikely that either of the two parties get replaced by a third party. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. But, in practice, the US has more diversity between the two parties, while in China there is more diversity inside one party. In both cases, the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties.
        bassman9000 6y ago
        Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. the CCP is by far the most popular party in China The CCP is the only party in china. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties. And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges.
- tathougies 6y ago
  It's not diversity of differences that matters but rather the magnitude of those differences. Being different in one substantive way is infinitely better than being different in a myriad of little ways.
yorwba 6y ago
How did you check? If there's some kind of resource for answering questions like that, I'd be very interested in learning about it.
- Hnaomyiph 6y ago
  I don’t have a resource to answer this question, but the lack of court proceedings and the fact that just about every big tech company is barred and has been barred for over a decade by the great firewall indirectly answers that question. If there was a way to sue yourself into the Chinese market, you would see that happening.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > How did you check? Legal counsel.

justicezyx 6y ago

Additionally, TikTok represents major US and international interests through its users and investors. I doubt the app would continue to be successful without the original creative minds behind it.

khuey 6y ago

I think the specific ways Trump is going about it (targeting individual companies, and the insane bit about the treasury deserving a I-bankers commission) are awful but I also think that taking zero action towards reciprocal market access because "we don't want to become more like China" is also a fool's game.

ponker 6y ago

Bob slaps Steve in the face repeatedly. Steve stands with his hands by his side. Finally right as he starts to defend himself Jason sees him raising his arms and gasps “Steve! For shame! Do you want to be more like Bob?! Put your arms down where they belong!” (Nothing about retaliating against China has anything to do with TikTok’s “ban” which is just a paroxysm from a deranged moron)

Talanes 6y ago
This, but every time Bob and Steve slap one another, they end up backhanding one of their kids on the backswing. China's great firewall is to the detriment of their citizens, and retaliating in kind is to the detriment of ours.

rasz 6y ago

America becoming more like China when dealing with China is by all means a desirable outcome!

nitrogen 6y ago
To an extent the iterated prisoner's dilemma game must be played with the tit-for-tat response to a defection, but if the US can't find a way to play that game without sacrificing its core values, then the US implicitly loses the game anyway (people more versed in game theory please feel free to correct me).
kelnos 6y ago
You have to be careful not to become what you dislike in the process, though. That's certainly not a desirable outcome. I think the US can toe this line successfully, with care[0]. Countries that don't give us meaningful access to their internal markets should just not get meaningful access to ours. Simple to implement ahead of the fact, but unfortunately too many US interests are tied up in China to simply unravel it all right now. [0] Care that I do not trust the current administration to wield, but also sadly do not expect the hopefully-next administration to want to wield at all. A fear of mine is that Biden will choose to bend over backward to appease China after Trump's ham-fisted trade war, and things will go back to the way they were, with China's interests running roughshod over the US's.

gruez 6y ago

I would have a problem if it involved america devolving to china's level, making life worse for its citizens (eg. surveillance, censorship). However, I don't have any problems with america engaging in tit-for-tat exchange against china.

typ 6y ago

When you respond to the guys who follow nasty strategies with niceness, you are literally rewarding the bad behaviors. If being cooperative wouldn't get much differences than being exploitative, then the nice guys will vanish and only the bad guys will remain. A reciprocal strategy is necessary and beneficial long-term for the world IMO. The well-known book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins has an interesting chapter titled Nice Guys Finish First giving a good illustration relevant to this idea.

shard972 6y ago

If china launched physical warfare against America, Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?