3 ms·

>However, the Chinese don't have the amount of freedom we are enjoying. But how do you compare non-freedom versus material suffering? I think this is a false d

>However, the Chinese don't have the amount of freedom we are enjoying. But how do you compare non-freedom versus material suffering? I think this is a false dilemma. Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong all managed to develop into wealthy nations (PPP GDPs per capita of around 35k, 60k and 40k respectively compared to 12k in the mainland), in spite of having far greater degrees of freedom than Mainland China. >most Chinese were suffering a lot more from poverty than from individual rights The poverty was to a degree due to the lack of individual rights. In Maoist China, you literally didn't even have the right to the grain you farmed in your field; you had to give it to the Party and then wait in line for whatever they decided you deserved. There was no opportunity to save up and improve your lot; starting a business, privately buying and selling things, was literally grounds for execution.

vidarh 12y ago
Taiwan was a one-party dictatorship until the mid 90's. Singapore is generally not considered a functioning democracy, given that the country's politics is totally controlled by the People's Action Party and there are severe restrictions on things like rights of assembly. Hong Kong also had very limited democratic control until the 80's (being a British Crown Dependency until then) and was in an extremely special situation by acting as a place that received a massive inflow of people and capital fleeing from the PRC when CPC took control, and that was able to capitalise massively on trade with the rapidly growing Shenzhen. It is in any case moot, as the point is not that it isn't possible, but that if faced with the choice - whether or not the choice is a false dilemma or a total fabrication - it is not at all clear, nor even likely, that people will pick freedom over material wealth. It is not an excuse for dictatorship, but an explanation for peoples willingness to put up for them in certain situations. > The poverty was to a degree due to the lack of individual rights. In Maoist China, you literally didn't even have the right to the grain you farmed in your field; you had to give it to the Party and then wait in line for whatever they decided you deserved. There was no opportunity to save up and improve your lot; starting a business, privately buying and selling things, was literally grounds for execution. The poverty didn't start when Mao gained control. This was a response to widespread poverty previously. One can certainly make the argument that they could have developed faster with a different system. But that is not the point that was being made. The point being made was that when your population is poor - to the point of starvation - their priority is material improvements, not freedom of speech - and this largely explains why a dictatorial government that manages to feed their population and produce growth gets so little opposition. It's not that there might not be better alternatives, but that if most people feel they're doing better than last year, they will not rebel. It's worth noting that the effect of steady improvement on people's overall happiness is quantifiable, and there are theories that claim that major societal upheaval in general can be tied back not to high degrees of poverty or oppression, but to "backsliding". That is, people will for the most part put up with bad situations, but not put up with things getting steadily worse for long periods. Conversely, societies are at their most stable not when they are wealthiest, but when they see slow, steady growth. (Jonathan Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" covers this in more detail and with some references to related research)
- logicchains 12y ago
  I was speaking of individual rights, not necessarily democracy. One can have a non-democratic political system where individual rights are respected, for instance a republic ("government by laws, not by men"). Citizens in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore in general had far more individual rights, especially economic rights, than those in China.
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Neither Taiwan, Singapore, nor Hong Kong were democracies until quite recently, and in the latter two cases there are strong arguments that they still aren't and won't be so in the future. They did get lucky with a lot of benevolent dictators though (CKS's son, the Lees, and the British).
- logicchains 12y ago
  I didn't mention democracy. It's quite possible to have individual rights without a democracy, for instance if one has a benevolent dictator who respects them.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
I'm not saying there must be a compromise between lack of freedom and material suffering. I'm just saying you can't easily and objectively compare these two problems.
ww520 12y ago
Hong Kong had no democracy until the 90's before it was handed over back to China. Hong Kong was a colony with its Governors appointed by the British Crown until 1997. The Legislative Council had half its members from the current government officials including the governor and half its members appointed by the governor. How democratic that was.
- logicchains 12y ago
  Hong Kong may not have had democracy, but its citizens had strong protection of their social and property rights compared to Mainland China. Individual rights is not synonymous with democracy; the whole point of a republic is "Government by law, not by man" - pure democracy can potentially even by detrimental to individual rights, if the majority of the population don't respect certain rights (for instance, the Germans who elected Hitler).

vidarh 12y ago

Taiwan was a one-party dictatorship until the mid 90's. Singapore is generally not considered a functioning democracy, given that the country's politics is totally controlled by the People's Action Party and there are severe restrictions on things like rights of assembly. Hong Kong also had very limited democratic control until the 80's (being a British Crown Dependency until then) and was in an extremely special situation by acting as a place that received a massive inflow of people and capital fleeing from the PRC when CPC took control, and that was able to capitalise massively on trade with the rapidly growing Shenzhen. It is in any case moot, as the point is not that it isn't possible, but that if faced with the choice - whether or not the choice is a false dilemma or a total fabrication - it is not at all clear, nor even likely, that people will pick freedom over material wealth. It is not an excuse for dictatorship, but an explanation for peoples willingness to put up for them in certain situations. > The poverty was to a degree due to the lack of individual rights. In Maoist China, you literally didn't even have the right to the grain you farmed in your field; you had to give it to the Party and then wait in line for whatever they decided you deserved. There was no opportunity to save up and improve your lot; starting a business, privately buying and selling things, was literally grounds for execution. The poverty didn't start when Mao gained control. This was a response to widespread poverty previously. One can certainly make the argument that they could have developed faster with a different system. But that is not the point that was being made. The point being made was that when your population is poor - to the point of starvation - their priority is material improvements, not freedom of speech - and this largely explains why a dictatorial government that manages to feed their population and produce growth gets so little opposition. It's not that there might not be better alternatives, but that if most people feel they're doing better than last year, they will not rebel. It's worth noting that the effect of steady improvement on people's overall happiness is quantifiable, and there are theories that claim that major societal upheaval in general can be tied back not to high degrees of poverty or oppression, but to "backsliding". That is, people will for the most part put up with bad situations, but not put up with things getting steadily worse for long periods. Conversely, societies are at their most stable not when they are wealthiest, but when they see slow, steady growth. (Jonathan Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" covers this in more detail and with some references to related research)

logicchains 12y ago
I was speaking of individual rights, not necessarily democracy. One can have a non-democratic political system where individual rights are respected, for instance a republic ("government by laws, not by men"). Citizens in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore in general had far more individual rights, especially economic rights, than those in China.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

Neither Taiwan, Singapore, nor Hong Kong were democracies until quite recently, and in the latter two cases there are strong arguments that they still aren't and won't be so in the future. They did get lucky with a lot of benevolent dictators though (CKS's son, the Lees, and the British).

logicchains 12y ago
I didn't mention democracy. It's quite possible to have individual rights without a democracy, for instance if one has a benevolent dictator who respects them.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

I'm not saying there must be a compromise between lack of freedom and material suffering. I'm just saying you can't easily and objectively compare these two problems.

ww520 12y ago

Hong Kong had no democracy until the 90's before it was handed over back to China. Hong Kong was a colony with its Governors appointed by the British Crown until 1997. The Legislative Council had half its members from the current government officials including the governor and half its members appointed by the governor. How democratic that was.

logicchains 12y ago
Hong Kong may not have had democracy, but its citizens had strong protection of their social and property rights compared to Mainland China. Individual rights is not synonymous with democracy; the whole point of a republic is "Government by law, not by man" - pure democracy can potentially even by detrimental to individual rights, if the majority of the population don't respect certain rights (for instance, the Germans who elected Hitler).