Response from the student: https://old.reddit.com/r/Purdue/comments/ri95tp/in_response_...
"In my world there's always a place for you; you can disagree with me; you can even insult me; I will not fire back because that is your freedom of expression, however
In your world there's no place for me; you want to eliminate me and even my family from the world just because I disagree with your government or your ideology; this is puzzling isn't it?"
It comes down to a simple formula: are people learning and appreciating freedom faster than it's being diluted by people who are ignorant or disdainful of freedom?
There's no fundamental reason one rate must remain above the other. Education, immigration trends, business, and culture all play a part.
But once the anti-freedom are greater in number than the pro-freedom, then freedom democratically self-destructs.
Non-free governments don't have this problem, because they aren't democracies.
In other words, losing freedom can be peaceful and even consistent with the principles of freedom (you're free to give up your freedom). But getting freedom requires some non-free (or at least non-democratic) things to happen.
Analogous to this quote from George Bernard Shaw:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man ."
Democracies can suicide. The Weimar Republic did (though notice that Hitler never actually won a popular majority vote).
This problem was exactly what the American Founders had in mind as they shaped their Constitution. They wanted to identify the ways a government could be turned against its own people, and create barriers against those attacks. The US doesn't trust majoritarian government, which is why it isn't exactly a democracy. Items like the Bill of Rights, and features like the separation of powers, are intended both to secure liberties and hamstring oppression.
(The Federalist Papers are a fascinating discussion of all this.)
But at the end of the day, constitutional features can only slow down an oppressive majority. If a majority wants to dominate a minority, eventually they are going to find a way. The only real security for freedom, over long term, is to raise up a people that think and feel and act in those ways that are consistent with freedom.
Basically absolute freedom means less freedom overall because the strongest take over. Limiting freedom (eg you can't kill others) can mean more freedom overall as more of the population are able to exercise their (limited) freedoms.
Am I the only one to see an interesting parallel to "copyleft" (e.g, [L]GPL) licenses (and a refutation of the "It's evil, viral, anti-free!" objections to them) here?
The drive to power and control seems to be part of human nature, and it is always finding new ways to organize and express itself. And because freedom is a matter of human choices, yeah, there is always the danger that people will choose to become unfree.
I think freedom has the enormous advantages of being more effective and more motivating. The free are better able to innovate, and to correct their mistakes. They have a better moral basis, which motivates stronger action over longer periods of time. The free can rely on the power of the individual, which mounts en masse to an enormous force, while the unfree are ultimately always awaiting direction.
The greatest risks to a free society are internal, the forces which erode freedom of speech and thought. Liberal democracies have a very strong track record against totalitarian societies. For the US, I think the decline in free speech and the growth of ideological thinking is a serious problem, and we may hit a point of lock-in where people cannot criticize the regime. Many corners of the country are already at this point, and have been for a while, and those zones are spreading. It doesn't help that resistance to this has coalesced under a cult of a crazed personality.
I think freedom will win out, but it won't be easy, and we'll have to work at it. Probably always.
I suppose it's not surprising when someone's when someone adopts their parents' culture etc. despite being born abroad (e.g. self-describing as Indian without being a citizen/born there) - so makes sense, I just hadn't realised.
- a state (the PRC) - an ethnic group (Han) - a culture
The government of the PRC will gladly conflate those things serves their interests.
Most people in Hongkong would definitely identify as culturally and ethnically Chinese. That third item is ... a point of contention. I expect the situation in Taiwan is similar.
On the other side, it is possible to be nationally Chinese but neither culturally nor ethnically so -- see the Tibetans or Uighur for examples.
If they were born in HK and raised there, they would call themselves a HKer (香港人) from Hong Kong. It's highly unlikely they would say they are from 'China' because in their eyes China is Mainland China (大陆/中国) and there is negativity associated with it.
Confusingly, my friends whose parents are from Hong Kong and were born in the UK identify themselves as 'British Born Chinese' rather than 'British Born HKer'.
I use Cantonese or English when in Hong Kong. Speaking Mandarin there, when you look East Asian, is just asking for trouble if you are in wrong part of town.