3 ms·

Just because the US also does this doesn’t make it right for China to do it and vice versa. Team coca-cola and team pepsi are both evil and illegitimate.

by glerk 6mo ago

skippyboxedhero 6mo ago
Every country does it. Doing it is a central function of having a government. The number of, presumably, left-wing people who advocate for the most extreme forms of libertarianism is truly incredible.
- defrost 6mo ago
  Would that be lower or higher than the number of people who endlessly bang on about "lefties" and or "fascists", "nazis" et al. I myself find the numbers that engage in political reductionism and sophism to be truly incredible .. easily a double digit percentage of any population, actual billions in total globally. Wait, is that actually "incredible" though, or just merely "expected"?
- glerk 6mo ago
  > Every country does it. Doing it is a central function of having a government. You are falling back on whataboutism. This is irrelevant. If we were having a similar debate in the middle ages, you would probably say something like: > Every church is burning witches and heretics at the stake. Doing it is a central function of having a church. The CCP has abducted these individuals and is preventing them from leaving the country. This is not ok. You can't justify this by saying "yeah, but they're the government, so it's their right to abduct whoever they want". A government is just a corporation with a bit more power than the others, not some sacred entity that sits above us.
  - Fricken 6mo ago
    >A government is just a corporation with a bit more power than the others, not some sacred entity that sits above us. Well yes, a government doesn't need to be sacred to sit above you, it need only have more power. It's legitimacy is conditional on maintaining a monopoly on violence.
    - glerk 6mo ago
      If we’re going to descend into pedantry, my statement was normative, not descriptive, as in “I agree this is what a government does, I disagree this is what it _should_ do”. “Beneath me” is _my_ value judgement that I pass on this government and its appendages as in “it has been weighed in the balance and has been found unworthy”. That this government has more power than me doesn’t make it sit above me as a moral absolute, and it doesn’t magically give it legitimacy.
      - Fricken 6mo ago
        The government sits above you because it makes you do things under the threat of violence. Why do you stop at the stop sign? because the government reserves the right to hurt you if you don't. The government's legitimacy comes from it's stick being bigger than yours. It's not sacred, it's not magic. It's a bigger stick. Your value judgement would have weight if your stick was bigger. The guy with the bigger stick decides what you (or Jack Ma) is worthy of.
        glerk 6mo ago
        > The government's legitimacy comes from it's stick being bigger than yours By the same argument, are Somalian warlords and Mexican drug cartel also legitimate in the territories they control? I don't think "legitimate" is the word you are looking for to describe pure power dynamics, since "legitimate" is imbued with a moralistic judgement (look up is vs ought etc.). But yes, in practice, if I have a gun pointed at my head, I could be forced to do things that go against my judgement (within limits!).
        Fricken 6mo ago
        The history of civilization is warlords showing up and saying "Give me 2 bags of wheat from each crop and I won't kill you. Not only that, once I own you, I will fight to make sure the other ensure the other guy can't steal you from me, and that you remain productive." So long as the warlord can make good on that agreement, you have political order. Over time many abstractions emerge, but backing it all up is the big stick. Now, I'm with you, from a moral standpoint it's all abhorrent. As an anarchist I view civilization to be a hack on the human condition, and I see all states as fundamentally authoritarian. So it's all just game theory to me. China blocked the Manus acquisition as a matter of national interest. The US also ignores international law on matters on national interest at its own convenience. If a law is unenforceable is it really a law? Anybody can declare a law. It is only meaningful if it can be enforced. There are regions of Mexico where cartels hold the monopoly on violence, and the longer they maintain that control the more legitimate they become.
- guywithahat 6mo ago
  The horseshoe theory of politics continues to be true, just in new and exciting ways

Just because the US also does this doesn’t make it right for China to do it and vice versa. Team coca-cola and team pepsi are both evil and illegitimate.

by glerk 6mo ago

Just because the US also does this doesn’t make it right for China to do it and vice versa. Team coca-cola and team pepsi are both evil and illegitimate.

skippyboxedhero 6mo ago

Every country does it. Doing it is a central function of having a government. The number of, presumably, left-wing people who advocate for the most extreme forms of libertarianism is truly incredible.

defrost 6mo ago
Would that be lower or higher than the number of people who endlessly bang on about "lefties" and or "fascists", "nazis" et al. I myself find the numbers that engage in political reductionism and sophism to be truly incredible .. easily a double digit percentage of any population, actual billions in total globally. Wait, is that actually "incredible" though, or just merely "expected"?
glerk 6mo ago
> Every country does it. Doing it is a central function of having a government. You are falling back on whataboutism. This is irrelevant. If we were having a similar debate in the middle ages, you would probably say something like: > Every church is burning witches and heretics at the stake. Doing it is a central function of having a church. The CCP has abducted these individuals and is preventing them from leaving the country. This is not ok. You can't justify this by saying "yeah, but they're the government, so it's their right to abduct whoever they want". A government is just a corporation with a bit more power than the others, not some sacred entity that sits above us.
- Fricken 6mo ago
  >A government is just a corporation with a bit more power than the others, not some sacred entity that sits above us. Well yes, a government doesn't need to be sacred to sit above you, it need only have more power. It's legitimacy is conditional on maintaining a monopoly on violence.
  - glerk 6mo ago
    If we’re going to descend into pedantry, my statement was normative, not descriptive, as in “I agree this is what a government does, I disagree this is what it _should_ do”. “Beneath me” is _my_ value judgement that I pass on this government and its appendages as in “it has been weighed in the balance and has been found unworthy”. That this government has more power than me doesn’t make it sit above me as a moral absolute, and it doesn’t magically give it legitimacy.
    - Fricken 6mo ago
      The government sits above you because it makes you do things under the threat of violence. Why do you stop at the stop sign? because the government reserves the right to hurt you if you don't. The government's legitimacy comes from it's stick being bigger than yours. It's not sacred, it's not magic. It's a bigger stick. Your value judgement would have weight if your stick was bigger. The guy with the bigger stick decides what you (or Jack Ma) is worthy of.
      - glerk 6mo ago
        > The government's legitimacy comes from it's stick being bigger than yours By the same argument, are Somalian warlords and Mexican drug cartel also legitimate in the territories they control? I don't think "legitimate" is the word you are looking for to describe pure power dynamics, since "legitimate" is imbued with a moralistic judgement (look up is vs ought etc.). But yes, in practice, if I have a gun pointed at my head, I could be forced to do things that go against my judgement (within limits!).
        Fricken 6mo ago
        The history of civilization is warlords showing up and saying "Give me 2 bags of wheat from each crop and I won't kill you. Not only that, once I own you, I will fight to make sure the other ensure the other guy can't steal you from me, and that you remain productive." So long as the warlord can make good on that agreement, you have political order. Over time many abstractions emerge, but backing it all up is the big stick. Now, I'm with you, from a moral standpoint it's all abhorrent. As an anarchist I view civilization to be a hack on the human condition, and I see all states as fundamentally authoritarian. So it's all just game theory to me. China blocked the Manus acquisition as a matter of national interest. The US also ignores international law on matters on national interest at its own convenience. If a law is unenforceable is it really a law? Anybody can declare a law. It is only meaningful if it can be enforced. There are regions of Mexico where cartels hold the monopoly on violence, and the longer they maintain that control the more legitimate they become.
guywithahat 6mo ago
The horseshoe theory of politics continues to be true, just in new and exciting ways