China expanding surveillance state is a dream come true for true power and utopia

[Rod1]

And Mao went full tyranny and disarmed the population.

Thats the point, there is no guarantee that the people who raises will restore constitutional rule, instead they tend to rule as tyrants themselves.

 

[waiguoren]

You kinda sidestepped my point. I wasn't talking about wealth inequality. The average person in Foshan is neither impoverished nor wealthy. That's what I'm saying. Lots of Chinese people are in the middle.

The suppression of human rights is a related, but separate issue in the context of my positions in this thread. With regard to the same middle class that I'm talking about, they have a great amount of freedom on a daily basis that doesn't really involve government oversight. The average person doesn't have run ins with the police or government officials over social media postings.

By western standards, the average person in Foshan is impoverished. In general, the PRC lags far behind the West in almost every measure of quality of life.

Of course the average person doesn't have run-ins with the police over their social media postings. Who claimed otherwise?

When westerners refer to "freedom", they are usually referring (roughly) to 1st Amendment rights plus the freedom to control one's person and property.

Chinese people don't have the freedom to assemble peacefully in opposition to the government's positions, to publish materials at odds with the government's positions, or to practice multiple popular religions. Thus, they do not possess our 1st Amendment freedoms. It's true that most Chinese people don't care about these freedoms very much.

But Chinese people also are not free to transfer their wealth overseas (currency controls and cryptocurrency crackdown), or to own their land (they are only given a "usage right" by their government). These are freedoms that most Chinese people actually do care about in large numbers. I believe the latter freedom will cause tensions down the road.

So when you write that the average person has a "great amount of freedom", what exactly are you referring to? The freedom to quit a job and look for a new one? The freedom to see who you want, eat what you want, and live where you want? Does anyone doubt that Chinese people have those freedoms?

My point is: the fact that Chinese people don't seem to care about western rights/liberties now is largely a function of China's low standard of living and sustained economic growth, which gives people hope for a better life. Once China reaches western levels of wealth and income and the slower growth that goes along with it, people will start to demand more rights.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Thats the point, there is no guarantee that the people who raises will restore constitutional rule, instead they tend to rule as tyrants themselves.

Better to have that chance than to not have it.

 

[Leagon]

By western standards, the average person in Foshan is impoverished. In general, the PRC lags far behind the West in almost every measure of quality of life.

Of course the average person doesn't have run-ins with the police over their social media postings. Who claimed otherwise?

Several people in this thread implied it. I said many of the "totalitarian" policies that people deride China for don't actually affect the average person in their daily life. People disagreed.

When westerners refer to "freedom", they are usually referring (roughly) to 1st Amendment rights plus the freedom to control one's person and property.

Chinese people don't have the freedom to assemble peacefully in opposition to the government's positions, to publish materials at odds with the government's positions, or to practice multiple popular religions. Thus, they do not possess our 1st Amendment freedoms. It's true that most Chinese people don't care about these freedoms very much.

So then what's the problem? Women in America don't have the freedom to walk around topless. If the women don't care, then who is being oppressed?

But Chinese people also are not free to transfer their wealth overseas (currency controls and cryptocurrency crackdown), or to own their land (they are only given a "usage right" by their government). These are freedoms that most Chinese people actually do care about in large numbers. I believe the latter freedom will cause tensions down the road.

So when you write that the average person has a "great amount of freedom", what exactly are you referring to? The freedom to quit a job and look for a new one? The freedom to see who you want, eat what you want, and live where you want? Does anyone doubt that Chinese people have those freedoms?

This is what I'm saying. Most of the "freedoms" that people talk about aren't exercised by the average person. People try to act like China is some tyrannical hellscape because they don't have the freedom to talk shit about the president on the internet. As if that's some gamechanging freedom.

When people say Chinese people aren't "free," they are often speaking theoretically or impractically. I mentioned to another poster that I have friends in Saudi Arabia who think Americans aren't free because our government doesn't give us money. We don't have financial freedom. The Australian government sponsors the international travel of its citizens. Does that mean that Americans aren't free because we don't have the same freedom of international travel?

Most of the people in this thread have never lived in China and they never will. I was simply providing testimony to dislodge their notions that every day is some schlep against tyranny. It's not.

My point is: the fact that Chinese people don't seem to care about western rights/liberties now is largely a function of China's low standard of living and sustained economic growth, which gives people hope for a better life. Once China reaches western levels of wealth and income and the slower growth that goes along with it, people will start to demand more rights.

We have the same point, then. I never said that China is a bastion of civil rights. I said they've developed a system that strikes a clever balance. They restrict rights that allow them to control their people. They use some of that control, at least, to help their people prosper, therefore the people aren't as offended by the control.

There is no government that allows its people to be fully free. People must be governed. But as long as people feel like they are trading their freedoms for fair compensation (security, education, stable family life, job opportunities, upward mobility), then it is a good system. I'd argue (and the stats would back me up) that a larger percentage of Chinese people feel like they are getting a fair trade for their freedoms than Americans. Hence, the Chinese system offers solutions that we will soon be looking to.

 

[waiguoren]

Hence, the Chinese system offers solutions that we will soon be looking to.

I pretty much agreed with everything you wrote until this final sentence. Which solutions are we going to look to emulate?

 

[Leagon]

I pretty much agreed with everything you wrote until this final sentence. Which solutions are we going to look to emulate?

The balance of restrictions vs opportunities. Young, progressive Americans have pretty much rejected free speech at this point. The 2nd amendment is under attack. People are literally trying to give away some of their freedoms. I don't think it is because these people are dumb or misguided, I think it just exposes how governance on a massive scale, in a world in which the Internet puts information beyond control in unprecedented ways, requires a different set of values than the ones America was founded upon.

The biggest potential change could be to our political structure. I think we're seeing part of why George Washington was against political parties. I think we would be smart to look at China's system. Not to emulate it completely, but to see how we can create a less easily divided union.

 

[ShinkanPo]

That expanding state better prevent the stabbings.

 

[Zazen]

It is sad how brainwashed Americans are. China is not perfect but these news outlets love to make shit up

 

[waiguoren]

I think it just exposes how governance on a massive scale, in a world in which the Internet puts information beyond control in unprecedented ways, requires a different set of values than the ones America was founded upon.

Which values do we need to lose, and which do we need to gain?

The biggest potential change could be to our political structure. I think we're seeing part of why George Washington was against political parties. I think we would be smart to look at China's system. Not to emulate it completely, but to see how we can create a less easily divided union.

What aspects of the PRC's system should we emulate? I see few, if any.

In the US, battles between the governed and the governing were going on as early as 1792, when Jefferson emerged as the leader of the opposition. Further, the rancor we see now in US politics is far from unprecedented. As a tiny sample: the sitting Vice President shot the sitting Secretary of Treasury and mortally wounded him, and we had a civil war in which about 600,000 people died.

I believe the recent uptick in political dissension is a normal and healthy aspect of US politics.

 

[Leagon]

Which values do we need to lose, and which do we need to gain?



What aspects of the PRC's system should we emulate? I see few, if any.

In the US, battles between the governed and the governing were going on as early as 1792, when Jefferson emerged as the leader of the opposition. Further, the rancor we see now in US politics is far from unprecedented. As a tiny sample: the sitting Vice President shot the sitting Secretary of Treasury and mortally wounded him, and we had a civil war in which about 600,000 people died.

I believe the recent uptick in political dissension is a normal and healthy aspect of US politics.

I feel like I've kind of already answered this.

I think the Internet is the game changer. Or, rather, the speed and slipperiness of information is the game changer. In 1776, there was no easy way for the British to manipulate the perceptions of the colonists on a massive scale. Details of Burr's slaying of Hamilton were controlled by the politicos who witnessed it. The average person didn't have access to as many resources. No teenager was taking a musket into a tailor's shop and killing five people in a few munutes. No terrorists from an ocean away were firing cannons into public squares.

As a result, I think the value we place in freedom will have to change. At the end of the day, no one wants to be free in a country that is unstable and crime ridden. Freedom is only valuable when survival and safety are secured. With global terrorism, political polarization, and, most importantly, the capability of media to inform people about every bad thing that happens all the time, everywhere, people are feeling less safe (even if the world is a safer place).

An increase in security (via, for example, internet censorship, immigration restrictions, loss of gun rights, imposition on public speech, etc) will become an increasingly attractive option, despite the loss of freedoms it would entail. I think these are the sorts of things we'll look to China for.

This, of course, has trickle down to education, business regulation, family life, etc. A change in values has systemic consequences.