3 ms·
Majority of what I said is opinion and prefaced as such, other than fairly true bits about Singapore's communitarian culture (true) and tax rates (true). Other
by strlen 13y ago
Majority of what I said is opinion and prefaced as such, other than fairly true bits about Singapore's communitarian culture (true) and tax rates (true).
Otherwise, very little is normative and instructive (telling someone that this what they should do instead of what I'd do in the same circumstances). So I am not sure how I am patronizing someone as opposed to stating deeply opinion.
I mentioned this in another comment, but John Rawls had the concept of a "decent state" -- which may have a radically different tradition than, e.g., US or UK, but one where basic civil rights are still honored and respected. Singapore fits this bill, so I don't think its system should be condemned in the same vein as many states (perhaps majority of the world today) where, e.g., civil wars flare and religious and ethnic persecution is a day-to-day reality.
> 2: People move to Singapore because they're narrowly selfish
Sivers did surrender his US citizenship, so I can assume taxation did have some reason that choice (although it could be simply to avoid double taxation -- .sg taxes plus US taxes on top -- rather only choosing lower taxes).
However, I never stated that all -- or even most -- immigrants to Singapore do this. I can only state this about Westerners moving there permanently (it's another matter about living there temporarily as part of a job, etc..), for most of whom taxation plays a determining role.
I am actually aware personally of many people who moved to Singapore for far different reasons (fleeing civil wars, seeking basic economic opportunity) -- but none of them were Westerners. For example, I attended high school and university with people who grew up in Singapore having fled grinding poverty in Burma or reeducation camps in Vietnam. In what I think is a huge criticism of US, their families were not initially allowed to enter the US: they were only able to move to the US once their parents established themselves in Singapore, obtained the right employment and education, and move to US on H1B visas.
- visakanv 13y agoThanks for getting back to me. EDIT: I realize I conflated "people moving to Singapore" with "majority of US expats moving to Singapore." Thanks for catching that, my bad. -- I guess I'm curious about your use of the term "narrowly selfish". What do you really mean by that? You also say that it would be more "principled and selfless" to refuse to compromise one's ideals, but... I can't help but feel that's a really context-dependent thing. For instance, can you think of examples where a person's refusal to compromise leads to the suffering of others. You said you wouldn't endorse it in Derek's case, because he'd be forgoing love (and encountering misery). There are many worse cases- think about gay kids growing up in a homophobic family, for example. And worse. So I feel like there's some unnecessary complexity in what you've expressed- I think what you describe as "principled and selfless" behaviour is a luxury that some people (if not most people, especially those who are poor, handicapped, oppressed, etc) can't afford. You said that you can't imagine that you'd physically survive in a situation wherein you'd have to compromise your values. Yet you also acknowledge that there are people who live in such situations. So are these people "narrowly selfish?" Is Derek being narrowly selfish? What's the utility in calling a person narrowly selfish? Thanks for engaging me, visa
- strlen 13y agoWell, you're implying that I think selfishness is purely negative. I don't: I'm selfish in many other ways; pure selflessness can be just as bad (as you've very well described -- parents snubbing children because of a different sexual orientation!). To put in other terms, selflessness and adherence to principle are virtues in the same that bravery is a virtue; yet we don't aplaud the bravery (or selfless, or adherence to principle, etc...) of a suicide bomber much for the same reason -- the immense suffering the rest of their action caused to others. We would, however, aplaud this in (to use a hypothetical example) a fighter pilot defending his country from a nuclear strike by ramming the incoming bomber with his aircraft after they've ran out of missiles or cannon shells. I'll also point out that my native language is Russian, where there isn't a word like selfishness: there's egoism and egotism, but not really a world like "selfish". If you lookup "selfish" in the dictionary, you'll find a more value-free translation of the word. My poor chances of physical survival would also not be due to compromising my values: it would be due to inability to adopt to surrounding society's values. Military service in former USSR, for example, is very different from Singapore -- bullying of nerdy/weaker/etc... enlisted men by officers is an endemic problem and has driven many recruits to suicide (lookup "Dedovschina"). The smart way some people took is by committing themselves to officer corps (for a much longer term) and (to fit in) becoming bullies themselves -- something I'd never be able to do.
- visakanv 13y agoAh! I think we are much in angreement then; I misinterpreted what you meant by selfishness. ThanK you for taking the time to clarify, I appreciate it. It's so interesting to see how different people interpret these terms so differently, indeed it's amazing that we manage to understand each other at all. Cheers and love.