4 ms·

No, I’m not sure they did not. I disagree with the parent poster who praises a dictator regime for being able to dispose of people at will.

by yreg 4y ago

anigbrowl 4y ago
This assumption also seems un warranted. The history of legal thought in China dates back thousands of years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencius China strikes me as a somewhat oppressive society, whose norms and mores I would prefer not to live under. However, I do not have the impression that it is ruled by fiat. They have harsh laws against corruption, though my impression is that enforcement is uneven and many choose to gamble, on either not getting caught or being able to bribe their way out of trouble. Isn't it possible that you're just defaulting to assuming business operators are generally innocent and public authorities generally dictatorial?
- yreg 4y ago
  I don’t know what are you talking about and why are you arguing with me. Read the original comment I replied to. It’s along the lines of “It is bad that in US there are no consequences when no law is broken or when it cannot be proven. In China they can just charge you with corruption in general or whatever and hang you.”
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I did read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34363208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34363208 I felt you misrepresented it, and that you have done again here. It makes a simple policy argument that there should be sterner consequences for lying to the public, contrasting the US with some other countries. You have rewritten it to say something quite different.
    - yreg 4y ago
      What do you think 'No law was broken, you would say. Still. There should be consequences.' means? What do you think 'In China, prosecutors would chalk it up to general charges of "corruption" or "public dishonesty" or whatever.' means?
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        It's simple; China has strong laws against self-dealing, and (in the poster's view) their legal code is not riddled with loopholes and getout clauses. We have the same concept in the USA, but it is rarely applies to financial crimes. It's called 'strict liability.' And have you not noticed how people sometimes get longer prison terms for small crimes than large ones? As of 2021, the US incarcerates ~5x more people than China (per capita), but penalties for untoward business activity are generally light. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...
    - sn0w_crash 4y ago
      GP did not misrepresent the comment. It’s clear as day. “We should look to China, where they executed a corrupt CEO.” I can glean no other message from the comment. What you’re describing would require quite a bit of mental gymnastics on my part. I think you’re ignoring what the comment says in clear plain English and interpreting it in a way you think is less controversial.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        The point is that that country has strong general laws against corruption. The US does not; deceiving consumers is largely excused here, and stiff punishments are reserved for deceiving investors.

No, I’m not sure they did not. I disagree with the parent poster who praises a dictator regime for being able to dispose of people at will.

by yreg 4y ago

No, I’m not sure they did not. I disagree with the parent poster who praises a dictator regime for being able to dispose of people at will.

anigbrowl 4y ago

This assumption also seems un warranted. The history of legal thought in China dates back thousands of years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencius China strikes me as a somewhat oppressive society, whose norms and mores I would prefer not to live under. However, I do not have the impression that it is ruled by fiat. They have harsh laws against corruption, though my impression is that enforcement is uneven and many choose to gamble, on either not getting caught or being able to bribe their way out of trouble. Isn't it possible that you're just defaulting to assuming business operators are generally innocent and public authorities generally dictatorial?

yreg 4y ago
I don’t know what are you talking about and why are you arguing with me. Read the original comment I replied to. It’s along the lines of “It is bad that in US there are no consequences when no law is broken or when it cannot be proven. In China they can just charge you with corruption in general or whatever and hang you.”
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I did read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34363208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34363208 I felt you misrepresented it, and that you have done again here. It makes a simple policy argument that there should be sterner consequences for lying to the public, contrasting the US with some other countries. You have rewritten it to say something quite different.
  - yreg 4y ago
    What do you think 'No law was broken, you would say. Still. There should be consequences.' means? What do you think 'In China, prosecutors would chalk it up to general charges of "corruption" or "public dishonesty" or whatever.' means?
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      It's simple; China has strong laws against self-dealing, and (in the poster's view) their legal code is not riddled with loopholes and getout clauses. We have the same concept in the USA, but it is rarely applies to financial crimes. It's called 'strict liability.' And have you not noticed how people sometimes get longer prison terms for small crimes than large ones? As of 2021, the US incarcerates ~5x more people than China (per capita), but penalties for untoward business activity are generally light. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...
  - sn0w_crash 4y ago
    GP did not misrepresent the comment. It’s clear as day. “We should look to China, where they executed a corrupt CEO.” I can glean no other message from the comment. What you’re describing would require quite a bit of mental gymnastics on my part. I think you’re ignoring what the comment says in clear plain English and interpreting it in a way you think is less controversial.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      The point is that that country has strong general laws against corruption. The US does not; deceiving consumers is largely excused here, and stiff punishments are reserved for deceiving investors.