Hacker News Reader

Comment by misrab | Hacker News Reader

"When I brought up the mass internment of Muslim Uighurs—around a million are now in reëducation camps in the northwestern province of Xinjiang—he trotted out the familiar arguments of government-controlled media: “Would you rather that they be hacking away at bodies at train stations and schools in terrorist attacks? If anything, the government is helping their economy and trying to lift them out of poverty.” The answer duplicated government propaganda so exactly that I couldn’t help asking Liu if he ever thought he might have been brainwashed. “I know what you are thinking,” he told me with weary clarity. “What about individual liberty and freedom of governance?” He sighed, as if exhausted by a debate going on in his head. “But that’s not what Chinese people care about. For ordinary folks, it’s the cost of health care, real-estate prices, their children’s education. Not democracy.”"

View on HN

Devil's advocate here, but to be fair, there's a pretty decent likelihood that we in the west have indeed been "brainwashed" into believing that freedom is actually more important than these other things he's listing (health care, housing, education, etc...).

If you set aside freedom as a goal in itself for a second, then it's actually worth asking: is freedom actually the most important factor leading to those other creature comforts everyone wants?

I traveled once to Singapore, where a number of people I met made the exact same argument Liu makes. They phrased it this way: sure, we don't have a free press, and we have a benevolent tyrant running the place, but:

   - I drive a nice car

   - I can travel anywhere in the world

   - I live in a spacious appartment

   - My kids go to great schools

   - My country is a very safe place

   - Healthcare in S'pore is great

   - I have a million bucks in the bank

I know how repulsive such a line of reasoning might sound to a western-educated mind, but try to step out of the cocoon of your culture for a second (the actual "brainwashing" that every culture basically make us undergo) and see if you can actually counter the argument with logical arguments.

> try to step out of the cocoon of your culture for a second

I like to think that the cocoon of my culture values all human lives equally.

Obviously it doesn't really (I'm Australian), but it feels nice to pretend anyway.

What does living equally even mean? People having the same life standard? Or all people can live a life how they want it?

Does anyone have the right to remain poor? I think propably he does. Does anyone have the right to think that he has no chance but to stay poor and thus do nothing and stay poor? Well, is there even such a right?

Now, social benefit is a good thing, but it's also a very un-capitalistic thing. Do people have to work to earn their food and clothes and residence,etc, or can people wait for the government to give them food, or money to buy food? Or, if the government is not rich enought to provide said food or money, what should the poor people do?

If a person, for any random reason, say, without the resources or willpower to work, should he/she be given a chance, or should he be left alone? If the chance requires education and training, or some other involuntary effort, is it right to demand such effort from the person?

Now, some specific group of people in some certain country on this Earth, didn't know how they could get out of the poverty they're born to. They may feel insecure around other people that look different or even speak different languages. And there are other people who may look less different and want to exploit those poor people, to turn them into terrorists. You may even have evidence. Is waiting for them to get turned and then punish them really the right thing to do?

Mind you that country may not be China.

Exactly. Honestly, having lived for a while in Singapore myself, I don't think there is much logical argument to be made against that.

Another thing to be considered is that freedom in the West gets more and more relative latterly. Say the wrong thing in public (or even in private, if it is made public), and you can easily be fired, even denied future jobs. Is the overall degree of freedom in most Western countries that different to that in, e.g., Singapore? I'm not sure it is (it's clearly better than China's, though... at the moment).

Freedom of speech refers to the government not being able to infringe those rights. It says nothing about freedom of consequences for one’s shitty beliefs from prospective employers.

I have never seen a definition of freedom of speech that is restricted specifically to government action. Certainly, internationally recognized definitions like that in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights don't make that distinction.

If saying something can essentially wreck your life and turn you into a pariah because you can't even get a job, what does it matter if it's a government or not doing it? When the church punished heretics, did it also not count as a violation of freedom of expression because it was not the government doing it?

>If saying something can essentially wreck your life and turn you into a pariah because you can't even get a job, what does it matter if it's a government or not doing it?

Conversely, it's impossible to have a "marketplace of ideas" if all forms of criticism, regardless of their source or intent, are considered a violation of someone's freedom of speech, and this presents the paradox of only considering active speech to be defensible, but not reactive.

A marketplace of ideas implies that some ideas will be considered not worth buying.

"all forms of criticism"

Criticism is fine, trying to shut opponent's mouth is not, punishment is not.

Ok.

Now define "criticism" in a way that can't be arbitrarily equated to "punishment" or "trying to shut your opponent's mouth."

Attacking the merits of the idea, not the person.

Demanding the person to be fired is not fine, ad hominem attacks are not fine, sharing private information about the person is not fine. You get the idea.

I agree with opposition to ad hominem attacks and doxxing, but the first is just a manifestation of public protest, which is well established as a valid expression of free speech. If (to use a straw example) someone is free to vote to deny rights to a group of people I consider fundamental (or, conversely, to give them rights I don't consider valid) I should be free to vote (through collective action) to deny them employment.

To claim otherwise would seem to place business and company culture beyond the reach of the public interest and the scope of society, which is a position not even free governments enjoy.

I don't see how denying employment to a law-abiding citizen is connected to the public interest.

Perhaps, you are confusing your own interest with the public's one?

I see. So the government should ensure that everybody has the right to say whatever vile things they want by mandating that employers must hire you even if you happen to be outspoken about your awful beliefs?

I'm not claiming I have a perfect solution or saying it's specifically the government's responsibility. But maybe yes, why not? Governments in many countries already have rules so employers cannot discriminate by gender, race, religion... not discriminating by speech made outside the job either wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

The "right to be forgotten" that is being recognized in some countries is also an example of a government measure that can help.

By the way, you seem very confident that nothing should be done because these things only affect people with "awful" or "shitty" beliefs. But what is socially considered awful can vary a lot. There are societies that would place being gay, abortion or being an atheist under that umbrella; conversely, other societies in the past placed being religious under that umbrella. Even if you don't like the people being affected by this now, allowing freedom of speech to be eroded in this way can backfire in a big way in the long term.

One can see your point, and indeed one may choose to sacrifice one's own freedom for material prosperity. But it is not analogous.

The question is whether one thinks it's fine to forcefully lock up a certain group of society for one's own, arguably, material benefit. It is easy to preach material security when the cost is born by another group.

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it relies on the benevolence of a dictatorship (and I don't use the term dictatorship pejoratively). It's all fine and good to have a system where people's needs are provided for and in general the populace is taken care of (for example, the housing situation in Singapore is very good and much better than places where people have to pay through the nose for shacks, like for example Hong Kong and SF).

But the real problem is that this system is by its nature fragile. On the one hand, this means that you never know when leadership will no longer be so enlightened and shit will hit the fan with nothing you can do about it.

From another perspective, because of this fragility, it's not capable letting its crazy people reach their potential. Can you imagine what the system would have done to creative hippies or even Steve Jobs if he didn't toe the line? If you don't give free enough reign to these people, your society will hit a ceiling where you don't produce the most innovative culture or people.

I disagree with your last point, just because some topics are forbidden to talk about, does not mean that creativity in general is suppressed in anyway.

An important factor that often gets left out when discussing different types of government is the level of development of a country. A centrally powerful government has some perks that makes rapid industrialization possible. Where as a democracy might be good if a country is wealthy and its citizens educated. South Korea and Singapore are the only countries that went from impoverished to developed, and both were under authoritarian government when the rapid industrialization happened. You can also look at China and India, both started at comparable levels of development in the 70s but now one economy is 5 times the other

Germany? Japan? Taiwan?

Germany was already developed. And Japan and Taiwan also fit my example

> South Korea and Singapore are the only countries that went from impoverished to developed

The entire West went through this process at one time or another, along with some of the post-Communist countries.

Not very peacefully to say the least

I don't think Isaac Newton lived in a free society, and so did many truly ground breaking folks. I'd argue the odd of producing these figuers is more to do with the population. I'm a fan of Steve Jobs but he is not in that league.

> They phrased it this way: sure, we don't have a free press, and we have a benevolent tyrant running the place, but:

I think the bigger problem is people completely mischaracterizing what Singapore is.

Modern Singapore is nothing like a "benevolent tyranny". The best way to characterize it is probably to imagine a large, well-run city with strict laws, heavy bureaucracy, expansive regulation and government involvement in business, and whose politics are dominated by one political party. None of these are extremely rare traits for a city.

Yes, Singapore does have black spots in its record with respect to human rights. Most of this is in the past (primarily during the post-war period, where many other countries have similar black spots with regards to the treatment of communists), but I argue that this aspect has been incredibly exaggerated in the foreign perception of Singapore.

The reason why I raise this is that your comparison to Singapore is invalid: Singapore is already very much similar to a "Western democracy". It holds free and transparent elections (the fact that policies favor the incumbent party does not detract from the fact that the elections are fairly run, and next to no one questions this.) No one holds back criticism of the government in private or in public - they do hesitate for more official mediums (e.g. newspapers, television) because of legal repurcussions e.g. libel. I have never once encountered any instance of censorship with teeth (there have been instances where the government suspended the distribution license of a print magazine... in the age of the Internet).

Please stop using modern Singapore as an example of "benevolent tyranny".

Not trying to be annoying but your comment is more convincing of the opposite of what you're saying than of what you're saying.

Yes, I got that feeling as I was writing it. For example, take the list I mentioned:

- strict laws - heavy bureaucracy - expansive regulation - government involvement in business - politics are dominated by one political party

All of these give off a terrible impression. But I urge the reader to consider that none of these are unique to Singapore, and are in fact not uncommon among cities/town. Like it is not uncommon for city/state-level governments to be dominant by one party or another for generations. Nor is it uncommon for cities to have annoyingly or weirdly archaic and strict laws. (Singapore bans chewing gum? The US still bans the import of "Kinder Surprise").

I'm not the best writer for this sort of thing, but I just want to dispel this notion that Singapore is this magical, esoteric fascist paradise. It's just a city-state which leans more toward government regulation. Only once we stop treating it as exceptionally special can we actually discuss which policies and aspects of government work and don't work well.

I don't think it's all in the past: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/15/outcry...

(although it's a valid point that this was a colonial introduction)

The problem is that he's not wrong, and I really do see this as a massive problem, he wouldn't even be wrong if the word "Chinese" would be replaced by most Western demonyms. It's a straight-forward, honest, and well-reasoned position. It's also despotic and dystopian.

The issue I see for the future of the entire industrialized world is that this particular brand of consumerized dictatorship is based on the lessons of hundreds of years of failed regimes, and in an evolutionary effect it seems "we" have now come up with a system that is both stable and totalitarian. It's an emerging system for the whole world, and the fact that no human on the entire planet can escape it without losing access to everything they care about, only enhances its stability.

This system is precisely tuned to offer us just enough so we do not mind what's being taken away. I'm personally no exception to this: I want a high standard of life and security as well. I want the luxuries afforded by consumer electronics and high technology. Through technology and international connectivity, I have more options for meaningful social interactions than ever before. The prospect of losing access to any of that if I ever act up against the system is a powerful mechanism that keeps me in line. Not that I ever brush up against the boundaries, mind you, because the system is well designed to appeal to my need for perceived autonomy: as long as I keep my head down, I'll be left alone.

Right now, in the West, the price of reasonable dissent is not very high. Yet. But you can already feel the thousands of little mechanisms working to discourage it. When I became active in protesting against the EU copyright reform, my first attempt at being political in decades, the game was so thoroughly rigged that I'll probably refrain from attempting to change the official narrative in the foreseeable future. Had protesting been actively discouraged by the government, I'm a bit ashamed to admit, I would probably not have shown up at all.

I'm struck by our collective inability to come up with a good alternative to this system. It seems to me this system is evolving on its own, and that development is synchronous world-wide. Sure, it's appealing to the powerful, who actively push it. But that's not what's driving it. I suspect it's the collective human spirit.

There is another option here. The fact that it is pitch perfect to the official line is probably the message. There are two main reasons for someone parroting an official line. Either they are dumb and obedient, or they are being very sarcastic and indicating the opposite. Three Body Problem goes over the problems for Chinese citizens in trying to second guess the current official line when the state is looking and features a protagonist whose main skill is his ability to not give away what he is thinking. I would not be so quick to take his statements at face value for things he can get into serious trouble over.

Why are Westeners always criticizing other cou tries? I think its great that there are different competing systems. The best ones evolve. It's not a good idea to have all eggs in one basket. It would be sad if all countries were like USA.

I think the core problem is this:

The people who run China believe in "freedom" for themselves. They think of ideas and implement things, they have a great degree of freedom and set up the systems to watch everyone, but they themselves have ways around it, connections, access to information about what's going on in the world, etc.

They fundamentally believe they are better than the other Chinese they make decisions on (bureaucrats have a tendency to arrogance and belief in their own "best ideas"). Maybe they have some good ideas, maybe they don't. But the fact that _they_ view themselves and treat themselves differently is the point. In such a system, the violent and ruthless usually rise to the top, which eventually shows in society. Humanity has tried that lots of times, it doesn't work out.

In a truly free society, you are free to _truly_ start a competing system or a different system. You can take your strange ideas and start up a commune if you want. You can start an authoritarian commune (as long as people choose to let you and can leave), or an artistic commune, or a free-love commune. That is where you get different systems, and everyone can make a different system. Yeah, it's great to have that, but that gets us back to square one: people being treated like they individually can go do something important of their own choice and different than those around them. Instead of one bureaucrat thinking their ideas are the best ones and then imposing it violently on everyone else. That's not different competing systems, that's hell.

It's all great for the homogeneous, apathetic majority, but where are the schools, education, healthcare, spacious apartment, etc. for the Uighur?

The core problem is that you could put any country in there. USA think they have freedom to do what they please because of their economic and military power. Britain thinks they can leave and have a better time out of the EU etc. All countries are ruthless. Some do it a pleasant but deceiving way the others do it out in the open. At least with China you get to see what and how they are implementing it. US you don't. Who's more secretive?

I'm not holding any country up as a shining light. I don't think there is any country that even comes close to what I'm describing as an ideal. I wish there was. Some are more some are less, in different ways.

If Britain were putting their dissidents and muslims in concentration camps I would be very vocally criticising my own country - which I suppose means I'd be a dissident earmarked for a concentration camp. I already do criticise on lots of other topics, and some of our worse moments of empire in history, or the lives ruined by UK's austerity dogma. I criticise the US too, and don't want to be just like them either.

Why should I not do the same for China when they are destroying lives of people whose only crime is being an ethnic minority, or trying to bring repressive laws to Hong Kong?

It's good to have different systems when the basics of humanity are remembered.

"I'd be a dissident earmarked for a concentration camp"

From what I remember of Duncan Campbell's Secret Society I believe the legislation for just emergency measures as interment of 'subversives' and other emergency measures was drafted during the Cold War - this would be expected to be passed by parliament in the event of a suitable emergency. I would suspect these things have never been thrown out but will still be there in a filing cabinet somewhere in Whitehall.

Let's hope we don't meet in a camp one day and laugh about the naivety of our postings on HN....

I laughed, but you're right, I'm sure the state of emergency measures are still there in some form, since you never know when they might be needed. I always thought such a thing would be fairly clear cut, but possibly state of emergency is the only way Brexit is going through...

Still that veneer of civility and rule of law is important, however artificial it sometimes seems. Democracy is all too fragile. I remember the nuclear war programme Threads, and the documentary at the same time - possibly Panorama - where some petty bureaucrat or councillor was positively itching for Armageddon to happen just so he could start shooting people. I think he only had a very minor place in the emergency hierarchy. It was his answer for every disagreement - shoot them - he must have mentioned it a dozen times!

See you in camp... :)

Internment was used in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and the last prosecution for "sedition" in the UK was 1972 before it was reformed in 1975. http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/1977/c72.pdf

> If Britain were putting their dissidents and muslims in concentration camps I would be very vocally criticising my own country

The UK did lock up dissidents in a mass internment during the 1970s - in the six counties of north Ireland. The Irish marched through the streets of Derry to protest and 14 (unarmed) men were shot. The queen then proceeded to pin medals on the parachute regiment who fired on the crowd.

Chinese needs no help from the Britains who launched a war to keep selling their opium and heroin to Chinese drug addicts - drug pushers using violence to keep addicts addicted, to "remember their humanity".

After intense fighting between the catholics and loyalists in the 1969 riots, and the IRA petrol bombing and shooting at police - unprovoked. Nearly 2,000 casualties of the IRA campaign - nearly all unarmed.

Yet I don't condone the use of internment - even if I do understand how and why it happened. All it did was intensify the already high tensions.

The best do not evolve. The strongest and most adaptable survive. That doesn't necessarily mean the people in those societies have quality lives.

The problem is that the PRC is going for an authoritarian ethnostate, and I think this a reasonable system to have in the global "marketplace of ideas", but at the same time they refuse to give up non-Han territories like Xinjiang that don't fit into this equation at all.

Also, the CCP won't leave people alone who leave China for more attractive systems. They're hardly interested in a competition of systems.

> authoritarian ethnostate, and I think this a reasonable system to have in the global "marketplace of ideas"

It really isn't, as it's not achievable without mass murder or at the very least "ethnic cleansing".

That's kind of my point. They wouldn't need to cleanse the Muslim regions (or Tibet for that matter) if they weren't part of the PRC to begin with. But of course China will never give up these territories -- in fact they're busy trying to annex other places where the CCP system is not welcome.

(Not trying to imply that everything that happens within the "core" of China is awesome.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com