3 ms·

I thought we don't want to be like China? You aren't going to spread your form of "democracy" across the world by doing what the "oppressive" regimes are doing

I thought we don't want to be like China? You aren't going to spread your form of "democracy" across the world by doing what the "oppressive" regimes are doing.

kortilla 2y ago
Tit for tat taxation or restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy.
- diggan 2y ago
  > restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy. I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Global Free Trade is based on the Stag Hunt Principle - all players need to be aligned to cooperate in order to "hunt the stag". If players decide they wish to undermine the principle of fair trade, then they should be isolated. For example, if China has banned FB or Google from operating without Chinese government oversight, then we should do the same with TikTok and WeChat.
  - typon 2y ago
    The rules are written by the powerful to advantage the powerful. Once those advantages disappear, the rules must be rewritten or disregarded.
  - dilyevsky 2y ago
    It has been successfully proven wrong so yes
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Sadly, yes. It took Russia invading Ukraine and threatening the E.U. for it to sink in. Now it's pretty much accepted that the experiment failed.
zulban 2y ago
Saying "we'll let your businesses in if you let ours in" isn't like China.
null_deref 2y ago
But you also don’t want to tolerant the intolerant, it’s thin line.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  Debatable. > whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Jesus) > I do not like the word tolerance, but could not think of a better one. Tolerance implies a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one (Gandhi)
  - legulere 2y ago
    I guess the author alludes to the paradox of tolerance first described by Karl Popper 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Sometimes deterring punishment is the only thing that keeps people from abusing tolerance or freedom to destroy that tolerance and freedom, but it needs to stay a measure of last resort.
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      Thanks for the reference, I’ll have a look. It’s interesting indeed how tolerance and freedom interact with each other’s. To put another perspective, here’s a quote from an unrelated text (0) > Middle Eastern Muslim culture expert Marvin Zonis notes that Arab societies value the honor and dignity of the individual more than personal liberty. I 100% about the benefits of (sometime) punishments, but also perhaps a bit less liberty to make space for other values might have benefits. I’m not sure where to place the slider on that scale, as too much honor and dignity can be quite restrictive. 0 https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR236Venhaus.pdf https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR236Venhaus.pdf
a12k 2y ago
We don’t. But if we keep throwing companies into the grinder like this where all their IP is stolen and they are just replicated in China on an unfair playing field, we end up losing anyways regardless of intent.
- j45 2y ago
  Another way to go is not to participate in the hype cycle of pitching investors instead of pitching customers (marketing and sales) and giving away ideas and opportunities that end up being made elsewhere and not supported where the founders currently are. Doing the market research and opportunity and presenting it on a stage can be very helpful sometimes, other times it can seem a little head scratching. It's fine to be open, start with the ICP.
Salgat 2y ago
This has nothing to do with democracy, it's about trying to keep a level playing field. The US has been trying to open trade with China since the 70s, and until China stops doing this the US has to adjust trade policy to keep things fair. Free and open trade is a two way street, otherwise it's just charity to the bad faith actor.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Basically: Wanting a level playing field does not mean allowing yourself to be exploited. If you’re in the Olympics and your competitor is doping, you shouldn’t practice doping yourself, but you can refuse to compete.
- bossyTeacher 2y ago
  The US has a long history of abusive trade relationships. China has seen what the US has done in Latam (and possibly in Africa) and said nope. US is used to have everyone play the US game when trading in Latam and other developing countries. China has been making the US play the China game when trading with China. And now that China is a serious world power, it is possibly a bit late to stop playing.
- jhp123 2y ago
  each side accuses the other of bad faith, but only one side is sabotaging the international body that is supposed to adjudicate trade disputes
  - Salgat 2y ago
    That's because China has strongly failed to follow trade agreements under WTO, including the TRIPS agreement (which is an international agreement protecting IP rights), SCM agreement (which prohibits state subsidies of certain trade goods), the National Treatment Principle (which mandates equal treatment of imported and locally produced goods), National Treatment and Market Access commitments (China strongly restricts foreign ownership in certain sectors of their local market, including the tech industry), etc. Mind you most of these agreements were made in the 90s, so China has had plenty of time to comply. It's a bit pointless to keep using the WTO when a country isn't going to comply anyways. I'm not saying the US is blameless either, but with China, it's nearly shameless. In the tech industry alone, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitch, Steam, LinkedIn, Dropbox, ChatGPT and Copilot, Github (partially), etc are all banned in China. Shoot, Google left a decade ago after they kept getting hacked by the Chinese government. When China was still quite poor and developing, this behavior was overlooked, but as they become a rich world power on the global stage, that's not the situation anymore.
j45 2y ago
One person's/entity's freedom and rights end where anothers start. :) Beginning with choice.
User23 2y ago
There are enough scare quotes here that I can’t actually tell what you’re getting at.
dclowd9901 2y ago
Let them be insular. I don't think it should be anyone's mission to "spread democracy". If people want it, they need to fight for it for themselves.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  I'd also argue that the US establishment's goal is to spread capitalism (that favors US capital), not democracy.
  - dclowd9901 2y ago
    Agreed, and I believe that's very unfortunate.
NerdSniper9001 2y ago
[dead]
transcriptase 2y ago
How’s that “if we make China rich they’ll naturally become a Western democracy” plan coming along?
brandonmenc 2y ago
> I thought we don't want to be like China? Tired: "spreading" democracy. Wired: battening down the hatches so you don't lose your democracy. It's a new world, you just haven't received the memo yet.

I thought we don't want to be like China? You aren't going to spread your form of "democracy" across the world by doing what the "oppressive" regimes are doing.

kortilla 2y ago

Tit for tat taxation or restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy.

diggan 2y ago
> restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy. I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular?
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Global Free Trade is based on the Stag Hunt Principle - all players need to be aligned to cooperate in order to "hunt the stag". If players decide they wish to undermine the principle of fair trade, then they should be isolated. For example, if China has banned FB or Google from operating without Chinese government oversight, then we should do the same with TikTok and WeChat.
- typon 2y ago
  The rules are written by the powerful to advantage the powerful. Once those advantages disappear, the rules must be rewritten or disregarded.
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  It has been successfully proven wrong so yes
- reaperducer 2y ago
  I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Sadly, yes. It took Russia invading Ukraine and threatening the E.U. for it to sink in. Now it's pretty much accepted that the experiment failed.

zulban 2y ago

Saying "we'll let your businesses in if you let ours in" isn't like China.

null_deref 2y ago

But you also don’t want to tolerant the intolerant, it’s thin line.

aziaziazi 2y ago
Debatable. > whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Jesus) > I do not like the word tolerance, but could not think of a better one. Tolerance implies a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one (Gandhi)
- legulere 2y ago
  I guess the author alludes to the paradox of tolerance first described by Karl Popper 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Sometimes deterring punishment is the only thing that keeps people from abusing tolerance or freedom to destroy that tolerance and freedom, but it needs to stay a measure of last resort.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    Thanks for the reference, I’ll have a look. It’s interesting indeed how tolerance and freedom interact with each other’s. To put another perspective, here’s a quote from an unrelated text (0) > Middle Eastern Muslim culture expert Marvin Zonis notes that Arab societies value the honor and dignity of the individual more than personal liberty. I 100% about the benefits of (sometime) punishments, but also perhaps a bit less liberty to make space for other values might have benefits. I’m not sure where to place the slider on that scale, as too much honor and dignity can be quite restrictive. 0 https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR236Venhaus.pdf https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR236Venhaus.pdf

a12k 2y ago

We don’t. But if we keep throwing companies into the grinder like this where all their IP is stolen and they are just replicated in China on an unfair playing field, we end up losing anyways regardless of intent.

j45 2y ago
Another way to go is not to participate in the hype cycle of pitching investors instead of pitching customers (marketing and sales) and giving away ideas and opportunities that end up being made elsewhere and not supported where the founders currently are. Doing the market research and opportunity and presenting it on a stage can be very helpful sometimes, other times it can seem a little head scratching. It's fine to be open, start with the ICP.

Salgat 2y ago

This has nothing to do with democracy, it's about trying to keep a level playing field. The US has been trying to open trade with China since the 70s, and until China stops doing this the US has to adjust trade policy to keep things fair. Free and open trade is a two way street, otherwise it's just charity to the bad faith actor.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Basically: Wanting a level playing field does not mean allowing yourself to be exploited. If you’re in the Olympics and your competitor is doping, you shouldn’t practice doping yourself, but you can refuse to compete.
bossyTeacher 2y ago
The US has a long history of abusive trade relationships. China has seen what the US has done in Latam (and possibly in Africa) and said nope. US is used to have everyone play the US game when trading in Latam and other developing countries. China has been making the US play the China game when trading with China. And now that China is a serious world power, it is possibly a bit late to stop playing.
jhp123 2y ago
each side accuses the other of bad faith, but only one side is sabotaging the international body that is supposed to adjudicate trade disputes
- Salgat 2y ago
  That's because China has strongly failed to follow trade agreements under WTO, including the TRIPS agreement (which is an international agreement protecting IP rights), SCM agreement (which prohibits state subsidies of certain trade goods), the National Treatment Principle (which mandates equal treatment of imported and locally produced goods), National Treatment and Market Access commitments (China strongly restricts foreign ownership in certain sectors of their local market, including the tech industry), etc. Mind you most of these agreements were made in the 90s, so China has had plenty of time to comply. It's a bit pointless to keep using the WTO when a country isn't going to comply anyways. I'm not saying the US is blameless either, but with China, it's nearly shameless. In the tech industry alone, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitch, Steam, LinkedIn, Dropbox, ChatGPT and Copilot, Github (partially), etc are all banned in China. Shoot, Google left a decade ago after they kept getting hacked by the Chinese government. When China was still quite poor and developing, this behavior was overlooked, but as they become a rich world power on the global stage, that's not the situation anymore.

j45 2y ago

One person's/entity's freedom and rights end where anothers start. :) Beginning with choice.

User23 2y ago

There are enough scare quotes here that I can’t actually tell what you’re getting at.

dclowd9901 2y ago

Let them be insular. I don't think it should be anyone's mission to "spread democracy". If people want it, they need to fight for it for themselves.

nielsbot 2y ago
I'd also argue that the US establishment's goal is to spread capitalism (that favors US capital), not democracy.
- dclowd9901 2y ago
  Agreed, and I believe that's very unfortunate.

NerdSniper9001 2y ago

[dead]

transcriptase 2y ago

How’s that “if we make China rich they’ll naturally become a Western democracy” plan coming along?

brandonmenc 2y ago

> I thought we don't want to be like China? Tired: "spreading" democracy. Wired: battening down the hatches so you don't lose your democracy. It's a new world, you just haven't received the memo yet.