9 ms·

> protesting something I call "Singaporification." I love how people always cast Singapore as some kind of horror story cautionary tale. No-one seems to have

by venus 13y ago

> protesting something I call "Singaporification." I love how people always cast Singapore as some kind of horror story cautionary tale. No-one seems to have told the actual people of Singapore, who are perfectly free to leave their nightmarish dystopia at any time, and yet seem perversely inclined to stay. Somehow this obvious, central, crucial fact gets left out of the "we don't want to turn out like Singapore!" narrative. I think the real reason people demonise Singapore isn't because it's a bad place to live; it's because it is actually a really good place to live, and this fact causes a certain conflict in the libertarian mind, a fundamental undermining of the whole axiomic structure of their beliefs and no-one wants to face that. So, instead, they try to villify it in vague terms of being some kind of anti-freedom devil state - a North Korea that, by Satan's blessing, works. I'll tell you the really scary thing about Singapore. It's a better place to live than 99.9% of these so-called "freedom" countries. I'd live there over any city in America bar maybe NYC, and certainly over Istanbul. The scary thing is that, when you consider the outcome, maybe the Singapore formula is a better form of government, and a lot of people don't even want to contemplate that.

JDShu 13y ago
I honestly don't understand your criticism here. The entire point of the post was that Singapore is a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom. Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success, but it doesn't take an especially libertarian mindset to decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth.
- venus 13y ago
  > a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means. > decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? "Well, the company didn't make any profits, can't pay its bills and the building is falling down around it, but at least the workers all had a say!"
  - jackowayed 13y ago
    > Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guarantee is a means where the end is wealth? You don't think that equality, freedom to criticize questionable government practices (even those that improve GDP), or anything else should be a goal in itself?
    - chrischen 13y ago
      I think you probably went through the US education system? US schools brainwash kids into thinking that democracy and freedom to criticize the government are inherently good concepts, but in reality they are only desirable because of the practical effects it may or may not produce. There are no universal morals, and because of that you can't say democracy is inherently "right." So I have to side with your parent and say that democracy is only "right" if you believe that its effects in improving society objectively are "right." Schools just simplify it as "democracy is inherently right" because its easier to indoctrinate that principle.
      - jackowayed 13y ago
        But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point. An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad. On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness). There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
- jasonlingx 13y ago
  > The entire point of the post was that Singapore is a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom. This is not true. His exact words were "I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today". > Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success This is bullshit. What a sweeping generalisation to make of all the citizens of a country. > willing to accept less freedoms What are these "less freedoms" exactly? > in exchange for economic success At least the original comment also conceded "low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy"
  - damoncali 13y ago
    What are these "less freedoms" exactly? You know, free elections, the right to arm yourself, the right to buy chewing gum. Singapore is pretty creepy under the surface and reeks of covert oppression, at least to my American eye. It seems to work for them, but I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      Don't forget the right to kill people and the right to pollute the environment. Singapore doesn't allow those either.
      - scribu 13y ago
        So, are you suggesting a) that in the USA you are _legally_ allowed to kill others and to pollute? or b) that no, the USA doesn't legally allow that, but in practice it does (any stats on how many guilty people got off the hook?) or what?
        jckt 13y ago
        There is a difference between laws based on principle, and laws based on observation. I think Singapore has been a model based on empirical observation -- tightly controlled, but prosperous and happy (vague terms, admittedly), despite what most people think (I think most of the people on HN hating on Singapore have actually never been there, let alone know anyone from there). Contrast this with the USA, whose laws are (supposedly -- it has been much more complex since the Great Depression) based on principle, on a Western logic that, I believe, still holds strong. It is beautiful, as many writers have shown. In past years I have been a great appreciator of this, having held strong libertarian and even anarcho-capitalist values (not a part of the Ayn Rand hype train, I assure you). But politico-economic systems are much more complex, human nature so rich, that logic and rhetoric cannot fully capture, perhaps ever. As of late I've read a bit more into histories of Communism in the last 100 years, looked at alternative systems of government. And I just don't think the victory and purity of Western idealism -- that it is the One Way, the Only Way -- is as valid as most of us think. There is that banal idea that "Communism works on paper, but not in reality", but I am gradually leaning towards replacing "Communism" with Capitalism. I know we cannot really compare the Nordic models of governance with Singapore, but I think they, like Singapore, also incorporate many political ideas based on empirical observation, rather than stubborn insistence of value systems. Unfortunately even the USA isn't so pure. There are so many systems of principles now, that clash all the time -- and they themselves have changed drastically from the USA of 100 years ago. Thus the Libertarian argument still stands. I think the question is, does that Argument even matter?
aswanson 13y ago
Seriously, though. I mean, a ban on chewing gum, though? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore Right, I dont want to contemplate that.
- jasonlingx 13y ago
  In Minnesota, it is against the law to hang male and female underwear together on the same washing line. So what?
  - yen223 13y ago
    So both are ridiculous laws that have no place in modern society. That said, I thought Singapore has repealed the chewing-gum ban already.
    - jasonlingx 13y ago
      My point was more that you cannot judge a country based on 1 law. And also, what's the big deal of banning chewing gum? :)
      - aswanson 13y ago
        Of course you can judge a country based on one law. Would you enter a country that had a law stating that if your first name was jason that they had the right to execute you? Singapore has shown it has been willing to enforce caning people over graffiti, so obviously laws have consequences. If some customs official doesnt like the way I look, he can throw a dime bag of weed in my suitcase on entrance to the country and have my life ended. So yeah, laws have life and death consequences.
      - aswanson 13y ago
        Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore
      - 13y ago
Ihmahr 13y ago
"No-one seems to have told the actual people of Singapore, who are perfectly free to leave their nightmarish dystopia at any time, and yet seem perversely inclined to stay." Many (native) singaporean are too poor to leave the country.
deadairspace 13y ago
> It's a better place to live than 99.9% of these so-called "freedom" countries. For migrant workers? For gay people? Then there's the caning, censorship, draconian drug laws etc. - doesn't seem like that nice a place to live if I'm honest.
Spooky23 13y ago
The problem with using Singapore as an example of anything is that it's a sovereign city-state, as opposed to a more geographically and demographically dispersed nation. Absolute power can scale up to a certain point. At the end of the day, the dictator-for-life can drive around and see things in his city that need fixing. He can also limit rivals to the throne by centralizing authority. In a larger country, you can't scale up the dictatorial machine as effectively... you're dependent on the bureaucracy or governors/viceroys to run things in the provinces, which creates a raft of other problems.

by venus 13y ago

JDShu 13y ago

I honestly don't understand your criticism here. The entire point of the post was that Singapore is a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom. Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success, but it doesn't take an especially libertarian mindset to decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth.

venus 13y ago
> a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means. > decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? "Well, the company didn't make any profits, can't pay its bills and the building is falling down around it, but at least the workers all had a say!"
- jackowayed 13y ago
  > Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guarantee is a means where the end is wealth? You don't think that equality, freedom to criticize questionable government practices (even those that improve GDP), or anything else should be a goal in itself?
  - chrischen 13y ago
    I think you probably went through the US education system? US schools brainwash kids into thinking that democracy and freedom to criticize the government are inherently good concepts, but in reality they are only desirable because of the practical effects it may or may not produce. There are no universal morals, and because of that you can't say democracy is inherently "right." So I have to side with your parent and say that democracy is only "right" if you believe that its effects in improving society objectively are "right." Schools just simplify it as "democracy is inherently right" because its easier to indoctrinate that principle.
    - jackowayed 13y ago
      But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point. An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad. On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness). There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
jasonlingx 13y ago
> The entire point of the post was that Singapore is a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom. This is not true. His exact words were "I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today". > Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success This is bullshit. What a sweeping generalisation to make of all the citizens of a country. > willing to accept less freedoms What are these "less freedoms" exactly? > in exchange for economic success At least the original comment also conceded "low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy"
- damoncali 13y ago
  What are these "less freedoms" exactly? You know, free elections, the right to arm yourself, the right to buy chewing gum. Singapore is pretty creepy under the surface and reeks of covert oppression, at least to my American eye. It seems to work for them, but I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Don't forget the right to kill people and the right to pollute the environment. Singapore doesn't allow those either.
    - scribu 13y ago
      So, are you suggesting a) that in the USA you are _legally_ allowed to kill others and to pollute? or b) that no, the USA doesn't legally allow that, but in practice it does (any stats on how many guilty people got off the hook?) or what?
      - jckt 13y ago
        There is a difference between laws based on principle, and laws based on observation. I think Singapore has been a model based on empirical observation -- tightly controlled, but prosperous and happy (vague terms, admittedly), despite what most people think (I think most of the people on HN hating on Singapore have actually never been there, let alone know anyone from there). Contrast this with the USA, whose laws are (supposedly -- it has been much more complex since the Great Depression) based on principle, on a Western logic that, I believe, still holds strong. It is beautiful, as many writers have shown. In past years I have been a great appreciator of this, having held strong libertarian and even anarcho-capitalist values (not a part of the Ayn Rand hype train, I assure you). But politico-economic systems are much more complex, human nature so rich, that logic and rhetoric cannot fully capture, perhaps ever. As of late I've read a bit more into histories of Communism in the last 100 years, looked at alternative systems of government. And I just don't think the victory and purity of Western idealism -- that it is the One Way, the Only Way -- is as valid as most of us think. There is that banal idea that "Communism works on paper, but not in reality", but I am gradually leaning towards replacing "Communism" with Capitalism. I know we cannot really compare the Nordic models of governance with Singapore, but I think they, like Singapore, also incorporate many political ideas based on empirical observation, rather than stubborn insistence of value systems. Unfortunately even the USA isn't so pure. There are so many systems of principles now, that clash all the time -- and they themselves have changed drastically from the USA of 100 years ago. Thus the Libertarian argument still stands. I think the question is, does that Argument even matter?

aswanson 13y ago

Seriously, though. I mean, a ban on chewing gum, though? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore Right, I dont want to contemplate that.

jasonlingx 13y ago
In Minnesota, it is against the law to hang male and female underwear together on the same washing line. So what?
- yen223 13y ago
  So both are ridiculous laws that have no place in modern society. That said, I thought Singapore has repealed the chewing-gum ban already.
  - jasonlingx 13y ago
    My point was more that you cannot judge a country based on 1 law. And also, what's the big deal of banning chewing gum? :)
    - aswanson 13y ago
      Of course you can judge a country based on one law. Would you enter a country that had a law stating that if your first name was jason that they had the right to execute you? Singapore has shown it has been willing to enforce caning people over graffiti, so obviously laws have consequences. If some customs official doesnt like the way I look, he can throw a dime bag of weed in my suitcase on entrance to the country and have my life ended. So yeah, laws have life and death consequences.
    - aswanson 13y ago
      Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore
    - 13y ago

Ihmahr 13y ago

"No-one seems to have told the actual people of Singapore, who are perfectly free to leave their nightmarish dystopia at any time, and yet seem perversely inclined to stay." Many (native) singaporean are too poor to leave the country.

deadairspace 13y ago

> It's a better place to live than 99.9% of these so-called "freedom" countries. For migrant workers? For gay people? Then there's the caning, censorship, draconian drug laws etc. - doesn't seem like that nice a place to live if I'm honest.

Spooky23 13y ago

The problem with using Singapore as an example of anything is that it's a sovereign city-state, as opposed to a more geographically and demographically dispersed nation. Absolute power can scale up to a certain point. At the end of the day, the dictator-for-life can drive around and see things in his city that need fixing. He can also limit rivals to the throne by centralizing authority. In a larger country, you can't scale up the dictatorial machine as effectively... you're dependent on the bureaucracy or governors/viceroys to run things in the provinces, which creates a raft of other problems.