8 ms·

Which governments are "bad"? Who gets to make that decision? The UK government is defying international law in the Chagos Islands and has broken its treaty wit

Which governments are "bad"? Who gets to make that decision? The UK government is defying international law in the Chagos Islands and has broken its treaty with the EU over checks to/from N. Ireland. Does that make it a "bad" government that private companies should not do business with? If the UK demands that an app is withdrawn from the app store, or that private communications should be turned over to government agents with no justification, should a private business refuse to do that? The same arguments can be made for the USA (as the article does). People generally get the government they deserve. If a country is authoritarian, then it's up to the people of that country to deal with that problem, not private companies. China's government is representative of the wishes of its people, and if it's not then China's people will deal with that. Contrast that with Myanmar: the democratically elected government has been overthrown by the military, who are in the process of killing anyone who protests about it. This is clearly different. There can clearly be no international co-operation with this regime, because it's obviously been taken over by bad people. There should be international outrage over this, and action from the international diplomatic community - part of which should be guidance to private companies about whether to co-operate with the military regime.

simonh 6y ago
Your attitude to Myanmar is directly at odds with your criticism that people deserve the government they get. There's no difference between what the junta in Myanmar is doing now and what the CCP did to reformist protesters in Tiananmen Square. You can't say the Chinese people deserve that, but the people of Myanmar don't. That's completely inconsistent. Belarus is still under the control of an autocratic dictator despite many months of protests, which will almost certainly fail. Do the people of Belarus deserve to lose?
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  This is a good point. I would say there is a difference of degree, but it's very debatable. My stance has been heavily influenced by my experience living in Cambodia. They have an authoritarian government. But they have also an authoritarian culture. Attempts to create a democratic government there haven't failed because the regime are a bunch of bastards (they are, but that's not the point), but because the people generally haven't supported it. Part of this, I'm sure, is their traumatic experience with the Khmer Rouge. I see so many parallels with what's going on with Myanmar. I don't see so many parallels with what's going on in China. Can we measure the legitimacy of a government by the number of protesters it has killed? Seems like a better measure that "compatibility with Western economic interests" which seems to be the current measure.
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    This relativism is ridiculous. As much as western governments have their own problems - are you seriously going to pretend individuals are protected similarly between China and EU or US ?
    - fsloth 6y ago
      I think the topic was overall quality of governance. This affects the lives of all citizens, not just those in the political opposition. There is quite large variance in the capability to govern with CCP and Tatmadaw.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      I don’t think GP has made any such claim. I think really all they’ve said is that different countries has different cultures, and that in turn result in different types of government being acceptable. I’m not going to get involved in the details here, because there are many countries and governments out there, and everyone has different views on which is “best”.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      What protection? And from what angle? Sure western governments do treat their own citizens better comparatively. But at the same time as soon as some country starts refusing to dance their tune they'd be more than happy to "democratize" it into oblivion and ruin with the bombing being cherry on top. They're also happy to prop and support murderous regimes when it suits their overall goals. Outsider does not give a shit how well western countries treat their own citizens. If one comes home and starts picking up bits and pieces of their family members in the rubble that used to be their house they might hold very different opinion.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the Chinese people have the right to determine what government they should have. No-one else gets to decide that for them. But saying that one government is "better" than another can be seen as imposing your standards of "better" on another culture. Especially if you choose to ignore some criteria and select others - the USA has by far the highest percentage of its population in prison in the entire world[0], so yes you can make a serious claim that China "protects its citizens" better than the USA. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...
- fsloth 6y ago
  You can't really compare CCP with the likes of Tatmadaw or Lukashenko's clique. While all of them are authoritarian, the quality of their governance is quite different. The difference with CCP and Tatmadaw (Myanmar army) generals, is that the CCP actually understands how to govern. Tatmadaw is making things objectively worse for everyone economically, while CCP has succeeded in improving the lives of Chinese people. (Yes, and it is authoritarian and suppresses ethnic minorities but these qualities do not signify it as inept). Or in DD terms, Tatmadaw is borderline chaotic evil while CCP is lawful evil.
  - BBC-vs-neolibs 6y ago
    CCP is borderline lawful evil, too. After all, their laws means nothing without without a nod and wink from the CCP. China is not a nation of laws. Edit: fsloth nailed it below
    - fsloth 6y ago
      Lawful evil in the context of DD does not mean "law abiding". "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve." I find this characterization quite fitting with the worst aspects of CCP rule. Of course "order over human rights" is part of legalism as a framework for governance so labeling it as "evil" may or may not be culturally insensitive.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      >"After all, their laws means nothing without without a nod" Let's say there is a trial in regards to some schmuk killing his neighbor over some argument. Do you think that Mr. Xi are hawking over judges shoulder making sure the outcome is proper? I have a news for you - he is not. Or look at this case for example: https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-houses/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-house... . Where do you see big hairy paw of CCP? I am pretty sure if outcome of some particular case really threatens CCP they'll interfere. But in the course of a normal life their laws do work. >"China is not a nation of laws." They are, just not your laws.
- AniseAbyss 6y ago
  If a dictatorship still has control of the military clearly its not as unpopular as Western media likes to portray. The soldiers in Myanmar shooting protestors are also Myanmar citizens after all- an inconvenient truth nobody ever brings up in their news reports.
bb123 6y ago
Well the U.K. government is a democratically elected one for a start. On the Northern Ireland border, wasn’t it the EU that that unilaterally broke the protocol by invoking article 16 without even checking with Ireland? My point is that governments do things that anger other countries all the time. That doesn’t make them a bad government, that’s just politics. There is however a clear and significant difference between a democratically elected government and an authoritarian regime.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  The UK is a literal kingdom with a first past the post voting system and a media dominated by Tories (including the BBC). Recently they’re trying to ban all protest while the police is beating up those of us that resist. China’s elected national congress that includes easy recall and competence-based civil servant positions doesn’t seem any less democratic.
  - bb123 6y ago
    Come on bud, that’s a silly argument disproved with a 2 second google search. The U.K. ranks 16th on the democracy index, and China ranks 151st. At this point I can only assume you’re arguing in bad faith for fun.
    - xtian 6y ago
      Oh, “the democracy index”? Good thing we have a neutral and objective measure of each country’s quantity of abstract democracy. I’m sure there’s no cultural chauvinism or politically-motivated biases at play here.
      - bb123 6y ago
        They publish extremely detailed methodology for each country, so feel free to browse and let me know which parts you disagree with (assuming you're not in China, because you probably won't be able to access this there. All that democracy hey ;) https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2021 https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2021 Some highlights for China: * There are no direct or competitive elections for national executive leaders. * Elections are not administered by an independent body. * China’s one-party system rigorously suppresses the development of any organized political opposition * The political system is dominated in practice by ethnic Han Chinese men. Societal groups such as women, ethnic and religious minorities, and LGBT+ people have no opportunity to gain meaningful political representation * China is home to one of the world’s most restrictive media environments and its most sophisticated system of censorship, particularly online. * None of China’s national leaders are freely elected, and the legislature plays a minimal role in policymaking and the development of new laws. * The CCP regime has established a multifaceted apparatus to control all aspects of religious activity It goes on and on. All of this seems pretty tangible to me? Again please let me know what I'm missing.
tazjin 6y ago
Also, "authoritarian" is defined as: > favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom This currently describes a lot of European countries. The proponents will make the argument that this is only "temporary authoritarianism" in the pursuit of "safety", but we've seen how that works out before.

simonh 6y ago

Your attitude to Myanmar is directly at odds with your criticism that people deserve the government they get. There's no difference between what the junta in Myanmar is doing now and what the CCP did to reformist protesters in Tiananmen Square. You can't say the Chinese people deserve that, but the people of Myanmar don't. That's completely inconsistent. Belarus is still under the control of an autocratic dictator despite many months of protests, which will almost certainly fail. Do the people of Belarus deserve to lose?

marcus_holmes 6y ago
This is a good point. I would say there is a difference of degree, but it's very debatable. My stance has been heavily influenced by my experience living in Cambodia. They have an authoritarian government. But they have also an authoritarian culture. Attempts to create a democratic government there haven't failed because the regime are a bunch of bastards (they are, but that's not the point), but because the people generally haven't supported it. Part of this, I'm sure, is their traumatic experience with the Khmer Rouge. I see so many parallels with what's going on with Myanmar. I don't see so many parallels with what's going on in China. Can we measure the legitimacy of a government by the number of protesters it has killed? Seems like a better measure that "compatibility with Western economic interests" which seems to be the current measure.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  This relativism is ridiculous. As much as western governments have their own problems - are you seriously going to pretend individuals are protected similarly between China and EU or US ?
  - fsloth 6y ago
    I think the topic was overall quality of governance. This affects the lives of all citizens, not just those in the political opposition. There is quite large variance in the capability to govern with CCP and Tatmadaw.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    I don’t think GP has made any such claim. I think really all they’ve said is that different countries has different cultures, and that in turn result in different types of government being acceptable. I’m not going to get involved in the details here, because there are many countries and governments out there, and everyone has different views on which is “best”.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    What protection? And from what angle? Sure western governments do treat their own citizens better comparatively. But at the same time as soon as some country starts refusing to dance their tune they'd be more than happy to "democratize" it into oblivion and ruin with the bombing being cherry on top. They're also happy to prop and support murderous regimes when it suits their overall goals. Outsider does not give a shit how well western countries treat their own citizens. If one comes home and starts picking up bits and pieces of their family members in the rubble that used to be their house they might hold very different opinion.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the Chinese people have the right to determine what government they should have. No-one else gets to decide that for them. But saying that one government is "better" than another can be seen as imposing your standards of "better" on another culture. Especially if you choose to ignore some criteria and select others - the USA has by far the highest percentage of its population in prison in the entire world[0], so yes you can make a serious claim that China "protects its citizens" better than the USA. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...
fsloth 6y ago
You can't really compare CCP with the likes of Tatmadaw or Lukashenko's clique. While all of them are authoritarian, the quality of their governance is quite different. The difference with CCP and Tatmadaw (Myanmar army) generals, is that the CCP actually understands how to govern. Tatmadaw is making things objectively worse for everyone economically, while CCP has succeeded in improving the lives of Chinese people. (Yes, and it is authoritarian and suppresses ethnic minorities but these qualities do not signify it as inept). Or in DD terms, Tatmadaw is borderline chaotic evil while CCP is lawful evil.
- BBC-vs-neolibs 6y ago
  CCP is borderline lawful evil, too. After all, their laws means nothing without without a nod and wink from the CCP. China is not a nation of laws. Edit: fsloth nailed it below
  - fsloth 6y ago
    Lawful evil in the context of DD does not mean "law abiding". "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve." I find this characterization quite fitting with the worst aspects of CCP rule. Of course "order over human rights" is part of legalism as a framework for governance so labeling it as "evil" may or may not be culturally insensitive.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    >"After all, their laws means nothing without without a nod" Let's say there is a trial in regards to some schmuk killing his neighbor over some argument. Do you think that Mr. Xi are hawking over judges shoulder making sure the outcome is proper? I have a news for you - he is not. Or look at this case for example: https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-houses/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-house... . Where do you see big hairy paw of CCP? I am pretty sure if outcome of some particular case really threatens CCP they'll interfere. But in the course of a normal life their laws do work. >"China is not a nation of laws." They are, just not your laws.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
If a dictatorship still has control of the military clearly its not as unpopular as Western media likes to portray. The soldiers in Myanmar shooting protestors are also Myanmar citizens after all- an inconvenient truth nobody ever brings up in their news reports.

bb123 6y ago

Well the U.K. government is a democratically elected one for a start. On the Northern Ireland border, wasn’t it the EU that that unilaterally broke the protocol by invoking article 16 without even checking with Ireland? My point is that governments do things that anger other countries all the time. That doesn’t make them a bad government, that’s just politics. There is however a clear and significant difference between a democratically elected government and an authoritarian regime.

lucian1900 6y ago
The UK is a literal kingdom with a first past the post voting system and a media dominated by Tories (including the BBC). Recently they’re trying to ban all protest while the police is beating up those of us that resist. China’s elected national congress that includes easy recall and competence-based civil servant positions doesn’t seem any less democratic.
- bb123 6y ago
  Come on bud, that’s a silly argument disproved with a 2 second google search. The U.K. ranks 16th on the democracy index, and China ranks 151st. At this point I can only assume you’re arguing in bad faith for fun.
  - xtian 6y ago
    Oh, “the democracy index”? Good thing we have a neutral and objective measure of each country’s quantity of abstract democracy. I’m sure there’s no cultural chauvinism or politically-motivated biases at play here.
    - bb123 6y ago
      They publish extremely detailed methodology for each country, so feel free to browse and let me know which parts you disagree with (assuming you're not in China, because you probably won't be able to access this there. All that democracy hey ;) https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2021 https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2021 Some highlights for China: * There are no direct or competitive elections for national executive leaders. * Elections are not administered by an independent body. * China’s one-party system rigorously suppresses the development of any organized political opposition * The political system is dominated in practice by ethnic Han Chinese men. Societal groups such as women, ethnic and religious minorities, and LGBT+ people have no opportunity to gain meaningful political representation * China is home to one of the world’s most restrictive media environments and its most sophisticated system of censorship, particularly online. * None of China’s national leaders are freely elected, and the legislature plays a minimal role in policymaking and the development of new laws. * The CCP regime has established a multifaceted apparatus to control all aspects of religious activity It goes on and on. All of this seems pretty tangible to me? Again please let me know what I'm missing.

tazjin 6y ago

Also, "authoritarian" is defined as: > favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom This currently describes a lot of European countries. The proponents will make the argument that this is only "temporary authoritarianism" in the pursuit of "safety", but we've seen how that works out before.