5 ms·

> It's arguably treason. If I can give some feedback, this last line undermines the rest of your points. Not everything selfish is treason.

engineer_22 3y ago
No, it's cogent to the argument. Undermining US economic and industrial capacity could be argued treasonous.
- wbl 3y ago
  We literally have a clause in the Constitution defining what treason is, and that's not it.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    Aid and comfort to the enemy, or making war against the US government. I'd say the terms under which many investments in PRC were made fall under the first standard.
    - lettergram 3y ago
      Companies in china are not defined as an enemy. I say this agreeing that these investors really hallowed out America. My father was in one of those factories and I remember him specifically training his Chinese replacement (who they flew over for 6 months). It devastated my family. That said, I don’t think treason is the correct term.
      - marnett 3y ago
        What if the company is nationalized?
      - lenerdenator 3y ago
        There is no such thing as a "company" in China as we understand it in the United States. There are CCP-controlled/tolerated commercial ventures that participate in the market economy. If you're investing in China, you can be sure there's a Party boss who's getting to wet his beak and dictate terms on which the deal will be accepted. Investments in China are not handled for the benefit of private interests; they are handled for the benefit of a strategic goal of the state.
    - voxic11 3y ago
      That's not what the Constitution says, it says treason is "adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort." So there are actually two separate conditions that both need to be satisfied, aiding the enemies of the United States and adhering to them. By saying you think aiding the enemies of the United States alone is sufficient you are disagreeing with the Supreme Court. If simply aiding the enemies of the United States is sufficient for a treason conviction then would everyone who goes on strike at a factory that makes something important to the US military (steel lets say) be committing treason? The Supreme Court and myself say its only treason if the strike was done out of adherence to a foreign power and not if done for other reasons (like better working conditions). I think the Supreme Court's interpretation is much more practical and less prone to abuse then yours. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  Treason is a Constitutional thing.
- voxic11 3y ago
  Its only treason if you undermine the US economic and industrial capacity with the intent of betraying the United States for the enemy. If you do it for other reasons such as profit then there is no treason. For example there are teachers striking in my town right now, they may be undermining a essential US government function and you could argue that this aids our enemies but because that isn't their intent it is not treason. > "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." > the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy “aid and comfort.” As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
  - engineer_22 3y ago
    Well here we are... Arguing. Ergo it's arguable.
klipklop 3y ago
How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? Especially if a war does break out and those weapons are used against the US. Remember China is not the ally of the US. You don’t ship fentanyl and other synthetic drugs to a country you are friends with. China actively works to disrupt the US. They only go as far as they currently think they can get away with.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  It’s not treason because words have meanings. It ain’t good, but it sure ain’t treason.
  - staplers 3y ago
    Similarly, was it treason to supply Afghan militias with weapons during the 80s? They were used later against US forces but wasn't something the US necessarily expected.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > It’s not treason because words have meanings There's an argument for it, which is sufficient to leave alone unless you want to argue the merits (not quibble about a specific definition).
- some_random 3y ago
  I largely agree with you, but fwiw treason has a specific and pretty limited definition encoded in the Constitution. My understanding is that since the US and China aren't at war it can't be treason under that definition.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> Remember China is not the ally of the US. The raft of trade deals, tourism, cultural exchange, investment and massive trade relationship would say otherwise.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  > How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? For one, because treason refers to an enemy, not an adversary, and China is not legally an enemy of the US (at war). You can't just assert that China is an enemy in court without some legal basis. Note that not even the Rosenbergs were charged with treason for sharing US nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union. That's how high the bar for treason is.
lenerdenator 3y ago
Tell that to the parts of the American populace who suffered most from the lack of lower-education jobs. Deaths of despair have risen in that population sector over the last four decades. Wages have become stagnant. The generation that was born after this shift to China will be the first American generation in centuries to have a lower standard of living than their parents. These companies tossed the heavy manufacturing capabilities of the United States to a geopolitical rival. To be clear: there is no China with superpower ambitions if the American shareholder class hadn't made it happen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  Jobs moving to where they can be performed cheapest is simple economic force. Through black market or white market, communism or capitalism, that populaces goose was cooked as soon as other parts of the world could perform and deliver their jobs cheaper. The strategy at that point is better comparative advantage. Education, capital improvements, infrastructure. Protectionism doesn't generate value .
  - staplers 3y ago
    Another point to add, if there are less local manufacturing/physical labor jobs, market forces will incentivize innovation in other areas like infotech jobs, etc. Not saying it's overall beneficial but it likely pushes the working class towards other areas like infotech and more specialized trades which could lead to innovation in those spaces. Creates a trade dependency however.
    - lenerdenator 3y ago
      It does not likely do those things consistently on a national level. Information technology was great for a handful of states - well, cities, really; I can't help but notice the lack of a MacOS Bakersfield - but not across the geography of the United States. The capital concentrated in those areas to an absurd extent. During the low interest rate days, VCs in these areas were far more likely to invest in an absolutely terrible idea within a fifty-mile radius of their offices than they were to invest in a good idea 800 miles away. They also drastically overvalue businesses that can throw on a thin whitewash of "tech company" on an otherwise-conventional business model, even if the execution of that business model does poorly in actually producing value for the non-shareholder parts of the market economy.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
In our society money is power. With great power comes great responsibility. Put your own desires over those of the people in your own country to a large enough extent and it sure starts to feel like something treasonous.

engineer_22 3y ago

No, it's cogent to the argument. Undermining US economic and industrial capacity could be argued treasonous.

wbl 3y ago
We literally have a clause in the Constitution defining what treason is, and that's not it.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  Aid and comfort to the enemy, or making war against the US government. I'd say the terms under which many investments in PRC were made fall under the first standard.
  - lettergram 3y ago
    Companies in china are not defined as an enemy. I say this agreeing that these investors really hallowed out America. My father was in one of those factories and I remember him specifically training his Chinese replacement (who they flew over for 6 months). It devastated my family. That said, I don’t think treason is the correct term.
    - marnett 3y ago
      What if the company is nationalized?
    - lenerdenator 3y ago
      There is no such thing as a "company" in China as we understand it in the United States. There are CCP-controlled/tolerated commercial ventures that participate in the market economy. If you're investing in China, you can be sure there's a Party boss who's getting to wet his beak and dictate terms on which the deal will be accepted. Investments in China are not handled for the benefit of private interests; they are handled for the benefit of a strategic goal of the state.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    That's not what the Constitution says, it says treason is "adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort." So there are actually two separate conditions that both need to be satisfied, aiding the enemies of the United States and adhering to them. By saying you think aiding the enemies of the United States alone is sufficient you are disagreeing with the Supreme Court. If simply aiding the enemies of the United States is sufficient for a treason conviction then would everyone who goes on strike at a factory that makes something important to the US military (steel lets say) be committing treason? The Supreme Court and myself say its only treason if the strike was done out of adherence to a foreign power and not if done for other reasons (like better working conditions). I think the Supreme Court's interpretation is much more practical and less prone to abuse then yours. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
bilbo0s 3y ago
Treason is a Constitutional thing.
voxic11 3y ago
Its only treason if you undermine the US economic and industrial capacity with the intent of betraying the United States for the enemy. If you do it for other reasons such as profit then there is no treason. For example there are teachers striking in my town right now, they may be undermining a essential US government function and you could argue that this aids our enemies but because that isn't their intent it is not treason. > "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." > the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy “aid and comfort.” As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
- engineer_22 3y ago
  Well here we are... Arguing. Ergo it's arguable.

klipklop 3y ago

How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? Especially if a war does break out and those weapons are used against the US. Remember China is not the ally of the US. You don’t ship fentanyl and other synthetic drugs to a country you are friends with. China actively works to disrupt the US. They only go as far as they currently think they can get away with.

singleshot_ 3y ago
It’s not treason because words have meanings. It ain’t good, but it sure ain’t treason.
- staplers 3y ago
  Similarly, was it treason to supply Afghan militias with weapons during the 80s? They were used later against US forces but wasn't something the US necessarily expected.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > It’s not treason because words have meanings There's an argument for it, which is sufficient to leave alone unless you want to argue the merits (not quibble about a specific definition).
some_random 3y ago
I largely agree with you, but fwiw treason has a specific and pretty limited definition encoded in the Constitution. My understanding is that since the US and China aren't at war it can't be treason under that definition.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> Remember China is not the ally of the US. The raft of trade deals, tourism, cultural exchange, investment and massive trade relationship would say otherwise.
ramblenode 3y ago
> How is supporting the military of your adversary not treason? For one, because treason refers to an enemy, not an adversary, and China is not legally an enemy of the US (at war). You can't just assert that China is an enemy in court without some legal basis. Note that not even the Rosenbergs were charged with treason for sharing US nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union. That's how high the bar for treason is.

lenerdenator 3y ago

Tell that to the parts of the American populace who suffered most from the lack of lower-education jobs. Deaths of despair have risen in that population sector over the last four decades. Wages have become stagnant. The generation that was born after this shift to China will be the first American generation in centuries to have a lower standard of living than their parents. These companies tossed the heavy manufacturing capabilities of the United States to a geopolitical rival. To be clear: there is no China with superpower ambitions if the American shareholder class hadn't made it happen.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
beaeglebeached 3y ago
Jobs moving to where they can be performed cheapest is simple economic force. Through black market or white market, communism or capitalism, that populaces goose was cooked as soon as other parts of the world could perform and deliver their jobs cheaper. The strategy at that point is better comparative advantage. Education, capital improvements, infrastructure. Protectionism doesn't generate value .
- staplers 3y ago
  Another point to add, if there are less local manufacturing/physical labor jobs, market forces will incentivize innovation in other areas like infotech jobs, etc. Not saying it's overall beneficial but it likely pushes the working class towards other areas like infotech and more specialized trades which could lead to innovation in those spaces. Creates a trade dependency however.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    It does not likely do those things consistently on a national level. Information technology was great for a handful of states - well, cities, really; I can't help but notice the lack of a MacOS Bakersfield - but not across the geography of the United States. The capital concentrated in those areas to an absurd extent. During the low interest rate days, VCs in these areas were far more likely to invest in an absolutely terrible idea within a fifty-mile radius of their offices than they were to invest in a good idea 800 miles away. They also drastically overvalue businesses that can throw on a thin whitewash of "tech company" on an otherwise-conventional business model, even if the execution of that business model does poorly in actually producing value for the non-shareholder parts of the market economy.

NegativeLatency 3y ago

In our society money is power. With great power comes great responsibility. Put your own desires over those of the people in your own country to a large enough extent and it sure starts to feel like something treasonous.