25 ms·

Well, China got away with it. More than got away with it, actually... they prospered. There has to be an incentive to not do these things as a government. The

Well, China got away with it. More than got away with it, actually... they prospered. There has to be an incentive to not do these things as a government. There is none in the UK.

potato3732842 1y ago
>There has to be an incentive to not do these things as a government. There is none in the UK. The only incentive governments ever have to not do bad shit is that the people will hate it so much that the government will wind up with less power than they started with. But, decisions are ultimately made by individuals or small groups of them who have interest (profit, legacy, etc) in doing what the people wand and what is good for the people. If enough people in government's personal interest is aligned with that of the people you get more outcomes that are aligned with the people.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  > The only incentive governments ever have to not do bad shit is that the people will hate it so much that the government will wind up with less power than they started with. Well, that's the trick, isn't it? You have to give people a way to reduce government's power if the government does something the people don't like, but do it in a way that keeps society from flying apart.
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    Guns are an answer to the first problem but not the second, which is why the claim that guns protect the people from tyranny is so wrong. The best solution i can think of is constantly seeking to reduce the government and limit it's power, size and responsibilities, always trimming the hedge. I.E. conservatism. Any government fundementally should be trusted and relied upon as little as possible, if you want to prevent abuses.
    - spaceribs 1y ago
      You're not describing conservatism, you're describing anarchism.
varispeed 1y ago
This is what Western governments miss: China didn’t get rich from its surveillance state - it got rich from manufacturing, much of it handed to them by the West. If we were serious about prosperity, we’d be copying their industrial base, not their domestic spying. But rebuilding skills and factories is hard; building tools to monitor and manage a population in decline is easy - and far more entertaining for a state that seems to prefer watching the poor struggle to fixing the conditions that keep them there.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > If we were serious about prosperity, we’d be copying their industrial base, Why would we work down the prosperity chain? There's a pretty clear prosperity heirarchy in the world economy and the financing/services dominant economies are ahead of the manufacturing economies who are ahead of the ag/raw materials economies. Yeah, industrialization has been important for China’s recent development just as it was for the US in the late 19th to early 20th centuries or for Britain a bit earlier. But it was important because it happened at a time when China was at a lower tier in the heirarchy.
  - tharmas 1y ago
    >financing/services dominant economies But these said economies all seem to just focus on asset-buying. Hence the massive house inflation. They don't make anything. No production, only asset-accumulation. Building a Feudal Economy.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    That “hierarchy” only works if the foundations stay intact. A service/finance economy without domestic manufacturing is like a skyscraper with no lower floors - great view until the support gives way. Manufacturing isn’t just a rung you discard, it’s strategic infrastructure. Lose it and you become dependent on those “lower tier” nations for essentials - and your position in the hierarchy is theirs to decide. And participation in the service economy isn’t even open to everyone. In the UK, a working-class person can’t just start a small service business - IR35 and similar rules ensure they can’t make a profit. The rich have captured both the economy and policymaking, shifting into pure wealth extraction mode. Everything gets more expensive, ordinary people get poorer, and with no stake in production or ownership, there’s no one left to buy the services the “upper tier” depends on. Western capitalism is eating itself.

Well, China got away with it. More than got away with it, actually... they prospered. There has to be an incentive to not do these things as a government. There is none in the UK.

potato3732842 1y ago

>There has to be an incentive to not do these things as a government. There is none in the UK. The only incentive governments ever have to not do bad shit is that the people will hate it so much that the government will wind up with less power than they started with. But, decisions are ultimately made by individuals or small groups of them who have interest (profit, legacy, etc) in doing what the people wand and what is good for the people. If enough people in government's personal interest is aligned with that of the people you get more outcomes that are aligned with the people.

lenerdenator 1y ago
> The only incentive governments ever have to not do bad shit is that the people will hate it so much that the government will wind up with less power than they started with. Well, that's the trick, isn't it? You have to give people a way to reduce government's power if the government does something the people don't like, but do it in a way that keeps society from flying apart.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  Guns are an answer to the first problem but not the second, which is why the claim that guns protect the people from tyranny is so wrong. The best solution i can think of is constantly seeking to reduce the government and limit it's power, size and responsibilities, always trimming the hedge. I.E. conservatism. Any government fundementally should be trusted and relied upon as little as possible, if you want to prevent abuses.
  - spaceribs 1y ago
    You're not describing conservatism, you're describing anarchism.

varispeed 1y ago

This is what Western governments miss: China didn’t get rich from its surveillance state - it got rich from manufacturing, much of it handed to them by the West. If we were serious about prosperity, we’d be copying their industrial base, not their domestic spying. But rebuilding skills and factories is hard; building tools to monitor and manage a population in decline is easy - and far more entertaining for a state that seems to prefer watching the poor struggle to fixing the conditions that keep them there.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> If we were serious about prosperity, we’d be copying their industrial base, Why would we work down the prosperity chain? There's a pretty clear prosperity heirarchy in the world economy and the financing/services dominant economies are ahead of the manufacturing economies who are ahead of the ag/raw materials economies. Yeah, industrialization has been important for China’s recent development just as it was for the US in the late 19th to early 20th centuries or for Britain a bit earlier. But it was important because it happened at a time when China was at a lower tier in the heirarchy.
- tharmas 1y ago
  >financing/services dominant economies But these said economies all seem to just focus on asset-buying. Hence the massive house inflation. They don't make anything. No production, only asset-accumulation. Building a Feudal Economy.
- varispeed 1y ago
  That “hierarchy” only works if the foundations stay intact. A service/finance economy without domestic manufacturing is like a skyscraper with no lower floors - great view until the support gives way. Manufacturing isn’t just a rung you discard, it’s strategic infrastructure. Lose it and you become dependent on those “lower tier” nations for essentials - and your position in the hierarchy is theirs to decide. And participation in the service economy isn’t even open to everyone. In the UK, a working-class person can’t just start a small service business - IR35 and similar rules ensure they can’t make a profit. The rich have captured both the economy and policymaking, shifting into pure wealth extraction mode. Everything gets more expensive, ordinary people get poorer, and with no stake in production or ownership, there’s no one left to buy the services the “upper tier” depends on. Western capitalism is eating itself.