4 ms·

> and trying to force every country around the world to adopt their 'values'. Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up gover

by dvt 3y ago

> and trying to force every country around the world to adopt their 'values'. Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up government has done more for the advancement of humankind than sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done. Let's stop pretending like all values have the same ethical valence.

goodbyesf 3y ago
> Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up government has done more for the advancement of humankind than sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done. That's not 'the west' and has never been. The US was born protectionist and pretty much stayed protectionist til today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Of course today we wrap our protectionism with 'national security'. If a free market exists, then let me know because I've never come across one. All markets are protected and certainly not free. And if there is a bottom-up government, I've never heard of one in history. Can you show me an example of a bottom-up government? I'd love a good laugh. > Let's stop pretending like all values have the same ethical valence. And lets stop making up values to suit ones agenda. Edit: Also, you might want to brush up on your history. 'sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done' have given us civilization and nearly all human progress since the dawn of time. Everything from agriculture, to writing, to the laws of physics were produced outside of 'classical liberalism'.
- meowtimemania 3y ago
  Many people (both poor and rich) are leaving china, places with sharia law, and moving to the west. Why are they leaving to the west? The west isn't perfect, but people seem to see it as an improvement to their homelands.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    > Many people (both poor and rich) are leaving china, places with sharia law, and moving to the west. The countries with the highest per capita immigration are in the middle east, not in 'the west'. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-immigration-by-country-as-a-percentage-of-the-population/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-immigration-by-co... Do you think they are moving to the middle east because of their love of sharia law? Or do you think they are moving they for economic opportunities? People move to 'the west' for the same reason tens of millions of europeans moved to america in the 19th and 20th century. For money. We were the land of milk and honey or that's what they were told. Do you think millions of italians, germans, irish, etc came to america for the nonexistent classic liberalism? People come here for the economic opportunity that doesn't exist in their countries - much of the time because 'the west' invaded, destroyed or destabilized it. China being one of the many countries 'the west' invaded, destroyed and destabilized.
    - dvt 3y ago
      Your point is straight-up bonkers and the data you yourself cite disproves it. Comparing the UAE (one country, an outlier at that, due to their subsidized incentives) to the collective immigration to Australia + USA + Western Europe + Japan + South Korea is beyond disingenuous. But hey, you do you. > much of the time because 'the west' invaded, destroyed or destabilized it You know who destabilized my country? The USSR. I've heard nightmare stories from my grandparents and parents (who lived 35+ years under communism). Boy am I glad to be an American and I wouldn't give up my citizenship for anything. I'll gladly pay taxes even if end up living elsewhere.
      - goodbyesf 3y ago
        > Your point is straight-up bonkers and the data you yourself cite disproves it. Ad hominems isn't an argument. > Comparing the UAE (one country, an outlier at that, due to their subsidized incentives) to the collective immigration to Australia + USA + Western Europe + Japan + South Korea is beyond disingenuous. I wrote the middle east, not the UAE. Very curious. So you are being disingenuous here by misrepresenting my claim. The wealthy countries of the middle east - uae, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, etc have more immigration per capita than the US and any country in europe. Why are you including Japan and South Korea when both are highly averse to immigration and are not part of 'the west'? > You know who destabilized my country? The USSR. What country is that? It's a good thing the USSR is gone then. Maybe the same should happen to 'the west'? Are you saying it's okay for 'the west' to destabilize countries but not the USSR? I don't even know what your point is here. > Boy am I glad to be an American and I wouldn't give up my citizenship for anything. Why would you? Did I say you should? > I'll gladly pay taxes even if end up living elsewhere. What? Go ahead. It's like you build up a strawman on top of a strawman and got confused along the way. All I'm saying is people immigrate to 'the west' for the same reason they immigrate to the middle east. For money and economic opportunities. Like you and everyone else did. Take australia. The biggest immigrant group in australia is the british. Do you think the british moved to australia for 'classical liberalism' and 'western values'?
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Question. Do people get shot trying to break out of your country, or into it? That's really the only question that matters, when comparing economic/political systems.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > 'sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done' have given us civilization and nearly all human progress since the dawn of time. "Given" is a bit of a weird way to put that. We had those things not because they were the best, or were even desired, but because people accumulated power and forced those forms of government on their local populations. Maybe civilization and human progress could have gone much faster, and better, without as much death and strife, if people hadn't lived under repressive regimes for most of human history. These forms of government concentrate power among a relative, unaccountable few. I hopefully don't need to enumerate all the bad things those kinds of people often end up doing. Western democracy has a ton of problems, certainly. And the US's practice of secretly and overtly interfering in the development of other nations nearly always ends poorly for both sides. But I'd much rather live in a world where Western democracy exists, if the alternatives are sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.
deciplex 3y ago
Well, Marxism-Leninism did more good for the Soviet Republics in its first 40 years there (beating back an imperialist invasion, rapidly developing industry, beating the Nazis, putting the first man in space, raising the standard of living nearly to par with the West despite being a feudal backwater in 1917, etc) than capitalism has done for those countries since we finally beat them thirty years ago. And, public opinion bears that fact out. So, I'd say the jury's out on just how much of our improvements to standards of living can be attributed to giving 10 people all the money in the world, vs (for example) attributing it to scientific advancement in general. edit: sadly dang has once again taken it upon himself to stop communists from posting on HN. I'm sure most of y'all agree with this in the first place. at any rate take this as an open invitation to drag me in the comments with whatever ridiculous nonsense you can dream up. I won't be responding to any of it because I literally can't. thanks
- dannyobrien 3y ago
  Beyond all the other contestable statements in your comment, I think you might have the biggest problem convincing the former Baltic Soviet Republics that they were doing better under the USSR versus now.
  - deciplex 3y ago
    Yes, it's true - they're still very mad that their Nazi collaborators who helped murder tens of thousands of Jews during the war had to face actual justice instead of getting paperclipped off to the West.
    - chrysler 3y ago
      [dead]
- dvt 3y ago
  > raising the standard of living Ah yes, you must be referencing the Holodomor here. That sure raised the standard of living. Marxism-Leninism is, without a shadow of a doubt, a fundamentally evil ideology. > rapidly developing industry What industry are you even talking about (-oh that's right, the Soviet obsession with steel)? Have you ever actually been in the industrial cities of the Eastern Bloc? Have you toured their inefficient brutalist factories? The same factories that ended up being shuttered in the 1970s. Even ignoring the grave human rights abuses, the communist satellite states were bureaucratic behemoths that collapsed under their own weight. It's like you've never even heard the word "Perestroika." But in any case, the communists not only persecuted my great-grand-parents for their religion (they had to flee from Ukraine), but also stole my grandparents' land, and destroyed my parents' youth. I was also born in communism (I barely remember the Romanian revolution as I was an infant) and posts like this remind me how quickly people forget and that the Jewish people are really onto something in never letting us forget the horrors of the Holocaust. In similar ways, I've taken it upon myself to never let people forget the horrors of communism. > despite being a feudal backwater in 1917 Imagine calling regions that gave birth to cultural gems like Prague, Budapest, Kyiv, or Warsaw "feudal backwaters." Did you know that in 1884, Timișoara (the Romanian city I grew up in), became the first European city to implement DC electric street lighting? Backwaters my ass.
veave 3y ago
You came to hacker news, posted an American-centric progressive argument, and called it a hot take?

by dvt 3y ago

goodbyesf 3y ago

> Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up government has done more for the advancement of humankind than sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done. That's not 'the west' and has never been. The US was born protectionist and pretty much stayed protectionist til today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Of course today we wrap our protectionism with 'national security'. If a free market exists, then let me know because I've never come across one. All markets are protected and certainly not free. And if there is a bottom-up government, I've never heard of one in history. Can you show me an example of a bottom-up government? I'd love a good laugh. > Let's stop pretending like all values have the same ethical valence. And lets stop making up values to suit ones agenda. Edit: Also, you might want to brush up on your history. 'sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done' have given us civilization and nearly all human progress since the dawn of time. Everything from agriculture, to writing, to the laws of physics were produced outside of 'classical liberalism'.

meowtimemania 3y ago
Many people (both poor and rich) are leaving china, places with sharia law, and moving to the west. Why are they leaving to the west? The west isn't perfect, but people seem to see it as an improvement to their homelands.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > Many people (both poor and rich) are leaving china, places with sharia law, and moving to the west. The countries with the highest per capita immigration are in the middle east, not in 'the west'. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-immigration-by-country-as-a-percentage-of-the-population/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-immigration-by-co... Do you think they are moving to the middle east because of their love of sharia law? Or do you think they are moving they for economic opportunities? People move to 'the west' for the same reason tens of millions of europeans moved to america in the 19th and 20th century. For money. We were the land of milk and honey or that's what they were told. Do you think millions of italians, germans, irish, etc came to america for the nonexistent classic liberalism? People come here for the economic opportunity that doesn't exist in their countries - much of the time because 'the west' invaded, destroyed or destabilized it. China being one of the many countries 'the west' invaded, destroyed and destabilized.
  - dvt 3y ago
    Your point is straight-up bonkers and the data you yourself cite disproves it. Comparing the UAE (one country, an outlier at that, due to their subsidized incentives) to the collective immigration to Australia + USA + Western Europe + Japan + South Korea is beyond disingenuous. But hey, you do you. > much of the time because 'the west' invaded, destroyed or destabilized it You know who destabilized my country? The USSR. I've heard nightmare stories from my grandparents and parents (who lived 35+ years under communism). Boy am I glad to be an American and I wouldn't give up my citizenship for anything. I'll gladly pay taxes even if end up living elsewhere.
    - goodbyesf 3y ago
      > Your point is straight-up bonkers and the data you yourself cite disproves it. Ad hominems isn't an argument. > Comparing the UAE (one country, an outlier at that, due to their subsidized incentives) to the collective immigration to Australia + USA + Western Europe + Japan + South Korea is beyond disingenuous. I wrote the middle east, not the UAE. Very curious. So you are being disingenuous here by misrepresenting my claim. The wealthy countries of the middle east - uae, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, etc have more immigration per capita than the US and any country in europe. Why are you including Japan and South Korea when both are highly averse to immigration and are not part of 'the west'? > You know who destabilized my country? The USSR. What country is that? It's a good thing the USSR is gone then. Maybe the same should happen to 'the west'? Are you saying it's okay for 'the west' to destabilize countries but not the USSR? I don't even know what your point is here. > Boy am I glad to be an American and I wouldn't give up my citizenship for anything. Why would you? Did I say you should? > I'll gladly pay taxes even if end up living elsewhere. What? Go ahead. It's like you build up a strawman on top of a strawman and got confused along the way. All I'm saying is people immigrate to 'the west' for the same reason they immigrate to the middle east. For money and economic opportunities. Like you and everyone else did. Take australia. The biggest immigrant group in australia is the british. Do you think the british moved to australia for 'classical liberalism' and 'western values'?
CamperBob2 3y ago
Question. Do people get shot trying to break out of your country, or into it? That's really the only question that matters, when comparing economic/political systems.
kelnos 3y ago
> 'sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done' have given us civilization and nearly all human progress since the dawn of time. "Given" is a bit of a weird way to put that. We had those things not because they were the best, or were even desired, but because people accumulated power and forced those forms of government on their local populations. Maybe civilization and human progress could have gone much faster, and better, without as much death and strife, if people hadn't lived under repressive regimes for most of human history. These forms of government concentrate power among a relative, unaccountable few. I hopefully don't need to enumerate all the bad things those kinds of people often end up doing. Western democracy has a ton of problems, certainly. And the US's practice of secretly and overtly interfering in the development of other nations nearly always ends poorly for both sides. But I'd much rather live in a world where Western democracy exists, if the alternatives are sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.

deciplex 3y ago

Well, Marxism-Leninism did more good for the Soviet Republics in its first 40 years there (beating back an imperialist invasion, rapidly developing industry, beating the Nazis, putting the first man in space, raising the standard of living nearly to par with the West despite being a feudal backwater in 1917, etc) than capitalism has done for those countries since we finally beat them thirty years ago. And, public opinion bears that fact out. So, I'd say the jury's out on just how much of our improvements to standards of living can be attributed to giving 10 people all the money in the world, vs (for example) attributing it to scientific advancement in general. edit: sadly dang has once again taken it upon himself to stop communists from posting on HN. I'm sure most of y'all agree with this in the first place. at any rate take this as an open invitation to drag me in the comments with whatever ridiculous nonsense you can dream up. I won't be responding to any of it because I literally can't. thanks

dannyobrien 3y ago
Beyond all the other contestable statements in your comment, I think you might have the biggest problem convincing the former Baltic Soviet Republics that they were doing better under the USSR versus now.
- deciplex 3y ago
  Yes, it's true - they're still very mad that their Nazi collaborators who helped murder tens of thousands of Jews during the war had to face actual justice instead of getting paperclipped off to the West.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    [dead]
dvt 3y ago
> raising the standard of living Ah yes, you must be referencing the Holodomor here. That sure raised the standard of living. Marxism-Leninism is, without a shadow of a doubt, a fundamentally evil ideology. > rapidly developing industry What industry are you even talking about (-oh that's right, the Soviet obsession with steel)? Have you ever actually been in the industrial cities of the Eastern Bloc? Have you toured their inefficient brutalist factories? The same factories that ended up being shuttered in the 1970s. Even ignoring the grave human rights abuses, the communist satellite states were bureaucratic behemoths that collapsed under their own weight. It's like you've never even heard the word "Perestroika." But in any case, the communists not only persecuted my great-grand-parents for their religion (they had to flee from Ukraine), but also stole my grandparents' land, and destroyed my parents' youth. I was also born in communism (I barely remember the Romanian revolution as I was an infant) and posts like this remind me how quickly people forget and that the Jewish people are really onto something in never letting us forget the horrors of the Holocaust. In similar ways, I've taken it upon myself to never let people forget the horrors of communism. > despite being a feudal backwater in 1917 Imagine calling regions that gave birth to cultural gems like Prague, Budapest, Kyiv, or Warsaw "feudal backwaters." Did you know that in 1884, Timișoara (the Romanian city I grew up in), became the first European city to implement DC electric street lighting? Backwaters my ass.

veave 3y ago

You came to hacker news, posted an American-centric progressive argument, and called it a hot take?