Author Topic: I have the feeling that the whole trade war starts from a pile of nonsense.  (Read 89734 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7043
  • Country: nl
Taiwan is to China what China is to the US, refuses to budge diplomatically, a bit too well defended militarily and painfull to hurt economically. Though hardly impossible to hurt economically in both cases.

Economics being the route of choice for the country which wants to be global hegemon and the one who just wants to be it locally for now.

PS. Taiwan militarily controls its land and pays no one for its use, that is independent in my book.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 01:45:19 pm by Marco »
 

Offline technixTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3508
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
Taiwan is to China what China is to the US, refuses to budge diplomatically, a bit too well defended militarily and painfull to hurt economically. Though hardly impossible to hurt economically in both cases.

Economics being the route of choice for the country which wants to be global hegemon and the one who just wants to be it locally for now.

PS. Taiwan militarily controls its land and pays no one for its use, that is independent in my book.
Under the original Taiwan-specific one-country two-systems scheme it is still up to Taiwan to defend themselves using their own military, and mainland has no right to tax it. (OTOH Taiwan can ask mainland for financial support, and within a reasonable amount Beijing is obliged to provide it as transfer payment.)

HK and Macau never had their own armed forces beyond a police force while UK/Portugal had a garrison there, so the rule has to be modified to allow a PLA garrison taking over the European one. Otherwise the same rule applies - Beijing collect no tax from HK/Macau but those two cities can ask Beijing for money.

It's not just the US; nationalism is growing in Europe, Russia and China as well. The notion that we are fundamentally different peoples is a silly nationalistic idea that will only lead to trouble for example.
Why is the memories of WWII fading fast from people's memories?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 02:18:27 pm by technix »
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Country: es
It is not just a nice declaration. The power is derived from the people because the people elect representatives who make up the government.

It is just a nice declaration with no legal consequence whatsoever. In the UK it is the Parliament who is sovereign, not the people. In Spain the constitution says the sovereignty resides in "the people" but it has no legal effect whatsoever. That and 3.50 euros will get you a cup of coffee.

This is an empty discussion like whether human rights are granted by the state or they are integral to the person and the state only recognizes them. It is totally academic. Many constitutions do not say the people are sovereign. Of those who do say it we would have to see to what extent it is true because I would not be surprised to see something like that in North Korea. And even in nominally "democratic" states the individual has the rights the state grants him.  You can say the people have the right to vote. Well, yes, they have the right to vote in the form and manner prescribed by the state. And if after voting it turns out the majority of people voted for H but the rules of the state say T will prevail, then the people can go sovereignty themselves all they want. If we the people want universal healthcare and powerful lobbies don't then who wins? Where can the people go to claim their sovereignty and get what they want? Starbucks? 
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline OwO

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1250
  • Country: cn
  • RF Engineer.
🍿 :popcorn:🍿
Email: OwOwOwOwO123@outlook.com
 

Offline technixTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3508
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
It is just a nice declaration with no legal consequence whatsoever. In the UK it is the Parliament who is sovereign, not the people. In Spain the constitution says the sovereignty resides in "the people" but it has no legal effect whatsoever. That and 3.50 euros will get you a cup of coffee.
I would say that should there be no lobbying or other backdoor process going on, and should the general populace be well informed, the concept of using a democratic process to implement people's sovereignty is a sound idea, but IRL we have lobbyists, backdoor transactions, and forces intentionally misinforming people. Now people think they have a choice and a voice, but more often than not the choice is made for them by some forces with their ulterior agenda, and the people is just following the script.

🍿 :popcorn:🍿
Good attitude, if it does not affect you.
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Country: es
Taiwan militarily controls its land and pays no one for its use, that is independent in my book.


One of the prime conditions to being considered a sovereign, independent country is recognition by the international community and Taiwan does not have this. The UN and pretty much all countries in the world of any significance go with the "one China policy".

Taiwan has a certain level of independence but it depends on China and America for it. Taiwan knows full well they cannot declare formal independence without repercussions.

Taiwan does a lot of business with China and it is in no one's interest to upset the situation. I think China and Taiwan are on paths that converge and it is just a matter of time. I think keeping the status quo is a wise policy on both sides. America's influence there is waning and China's is growing. If things continue in this direction it will be in the interest of Taiwan to join China. 
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
I would say that should there be no lobbying or other backdoor process going on, and should the general populace be well informed, the concept of using a democratic process to implement people's sovereignty is a sound idea, but IRL we have lobbyists, backdoor transactions, and forces intentionally misinforming people. Now people think they have a choice and a voice, but more often than not the choice is made for them by some forces with their ulterior agenda, and the people is just following the script.
Democracy is not easy to implement, and there are still lots of problems in the places that do it best. But compared to the old system where the powerful lobbyists were the ones directly in power (the king and his family) supported by the aristocracy. Now at least the people have a little bit of control, even if it is skewed by lobbying and unequal wealth distribution, etc.
In the old days, the King wasn't as independent as they liked to pretend either. If the King started doing things the aristocracy didn't like they would depose him, and other states and special interests schemed and bribed as much as they do now.



Of those who do say it we would have to see to what extent it is true because I would not be surprised to see something like that in North Korea.
North Korea? maybe you are thinking of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?  :-DD
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7043
  • Country: nl
One of the prime conditions to being considered a sovereign

Nah, international law is a joke where weaklings pretend to be able to lay claim to the owners of power based on arbitrary rules which are only ever as relevant as those with power choose to make them. True sovereignty is about having the power to control your land, literally. Homegrown power and the power of allies. Taiwan's own power and alliances grant it sovereignty for now, while China is granted symbolic claim because it's the road of least resistance ... as long as it doesn't overplay it's hand.

The independence is 100% defacto, China's control 100% symbolic.

Quote
Taiwan has a certain level of independence but it depends on China and America for it.

They have a defence project for hypersonic cruise missiles specifically designed to be able to reach any where in China ... China's level of control stops exactly where the status quo says it stops, the status quo being none except pretending to have it.
 

Offline technixTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3508
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
The independence is 100% defacto, China's control 100% symbolic.
Taipei knows very well that mainland has nukes, and since the no first use doctrine is rescinded they understand that should they misbehave they will be nuked. Also the distance from mainland China is much shorter than that from Japan they know even better that should China want to nuke them there is little time for US to react. To them they would prefer anything over scorched nuclear wasteland.

Economically, mainland is the largest trade partner of Taiwan and HK the the second largest, totaling 40%. Angering mainland China is also financially the last thing they want to do.

Also if words from citizens is to be trusted, a good portion of Taiwan citizens claims that 1) they do enjoy this relative independence balancing between China and US, allowing them access to both Chinese and US resources, 2) they will not fight back as soon as mainland PLA takes shore since whatever military forces Taiwan have is no match for mainland forces, and 3) they don't actually expect US to react, at least react in time, should mainland initiate military action; and by the time US ships arrive the island would be long taken, making the whole US military reaction moot. And for US I believe no general or admiral want to risk losing an aircraft carrier to a Chinese DF21D missile, a weapon designed specifically to strike the aircraft carriers bypassing all possible anti-missile defense.

They have a defence project for hypersonic cruise missiles specifically designed to be able to reach any where in China ... China's level of control stops exactly where the status quo says it stops, the status quo being none except pretending to have it.
China has as much control on the Earth as EU or Russia has, since those countries, along with US, build their control on top of nukes, not just cruise missiles. You don't even have a level playing field to begin with.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 05:29:17 pm by technix »
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Country: es
Democracy is not easy to implement, and there are still lots of problems in the places that do it best.


Democracy is not even easy to define, never mind implement. Most people, in their simplistic and ignorant minds, believe there is some ideal "democracy" which perfectly represents the will of the people. This is simply not so and in reality everybody believes true democracy is the system that gives the result they want. It is futile to want to reduce good government to a mathematical process. It is impossible and you immediately run into contradictions.

You tell me what result you want and I will give you a system that will yield that result.

Voting systems are full of contradictions. Voters preferences are not transitive. They may prefer A to B and B to C but that does not mean they prefer A to C and they may prefer C to A. Now what do you do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox

Depending on how you organize the voting and the districts you can radically affect the outcome of the election. The UK system of first past the post is completely different and yields different results than a system like in Spain where each province elects several representatives.

You can have the paradox where if you do smaller districts one party wins and if you have larger districts the other party wins.

Then you have different systems on how to allocate representation and usually they are not proportional to the number of votes.

Pretending that "democracy" is the answer to good government is foolish. A culture of respect, cooperation, morality will work well with any bad system while a culture of greed stealing and abuse of minorities will not work well no matter how democratic.

The notion that we elect politicians to do what we want is totally false even though they sell us that falsehood. The politicians elected know they owe their livelihood and loyalty to the party, not to the voter. Poor schmucks in Europe or America might like to think their vote has some influence in world affairs but in truth a butterfly flying in Africa can have the same effect.

There are so many levels of power between the voter and the government that all possible influence is lost along the way.

Other countries have different systems. In Afghanistan if you have a problem or concern you talk to your family's elder who will talk to the local leader and may be, if the issue deserves it, the matter will go further up. No voting needed. Each one trusts his family, his clan, his tribe and things get worked out that way. For them voting in western-style elections is meaningless.

Kind of like in the 1950s in New York if you had a store and you had a problem with criminals you did not go to the police because you knew it was a waste of time. No, you went to your local Cosa Nostra boss and told him about the problem you were having and he would take care of it.

Our governments like to sell us the notion that we elect them and they serve us but the reality is that we have close to no influence on what they do and, no matter whether they win or lose elections, they always win big in that they are always sucking at the teat of the state while we the people pay pay to keep them in good standard of living.

Finally, an anecdote which I always liked was the formula used in the middle ages in Aragon to swear fealty to the new king. The king at that time was "primus inter pares", first among equals, sometimes elected, sometimes hereditary. The nobles would say to the new king something like
Quote

We, who are worth as much as you,
and joined together more than you,
swear fealty to you as our king
as long as you respect our freedoms, privileges, laws and customs.
And if not not.
The formula is totally conditional on the king respecting the laws of the land and if not, then he is no longer accepted as king.

Today we can think that was a bad system but each noble lord was governing in his territory and his people looked to him for protection, not to the king.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 06:14:46 pm by soldar »
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Nah, international law is a joke where weaklings pretend to be able to lay claim to the owners of power based on arbitrary rules which are only ever as relevant as those with power choose to make them.
Just like any law.
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Country: es
The independence is 100% defacto, China's control 100% symbolic.
Taipei knows very well that mainland has nukes, and since the no first use doctrine is rescinded they understand that should they misbehave they will be nuked.
That is not going to happen unless things go very wrong.

However much freedom, control and sovereignty Taiwan has is not decided by Taiwan in the least, it is decided by America and China. If tomorrow China and America agreed that America will pull out of the region then Taiwan's position changes dramatically and there is nothing Taiwan can do. Taiwan is as free as China and America will allow. Sort of like I can do whatever I want... because my wife lets me.
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Country: es
Nah, international law is a joke where weaklings pretend to be able to lay claim to the owners of power based on arbitrary rules which are only ever as relevant as those with power choose to make them.

Weaklings like Taiwan lay claim to arbitrary rules which are only ever as relevant as those with power, in this case China and America, choose to make them.

You got the idea exactly.
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline technixTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3508
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
That is not going to happen unless things go very wrong.
That is what nuclear threat means - you fear nukes coming your way, although unless you behave badly it won't come, yet again you are not sure what does "very badly" mean. China can interpret whatever it feels like as "things went very wrong" and given the TBH fairly vague bottom lines laid out in the Anti-Secession Law that is also a pre-authorization of war the intention of a nuclear threat is pretty clear.

Just like any law.
Law is as teethed as whoever enforcing it. Hence it is a power balance here between China and US, with Taiwan being nothing more than a pawn really. Once again this is a conflict at potential superpower/UNSC permanent members level, few other entities outside US, China, Russia and EU have a meaningful voice in this.

Back to trade war. NYT published an article br Kevin Rudd on this. (also attached is a PDF, for ones that is hit with the paywall.) Kevin Rudd was PM of Australia, who also speaks fluent Chinese.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
This is simply not so and in reality everybody believes true democracy is the system that gives the result they want. It is futile to want to reduce good government to a mathematical process.
Everyone who knows anything agrees that democracy isn't a silver bullet. Churchill said the following in the House of Com­mons, 11 Novem­ber 1947:
"Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­ra­cy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­ra­cy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those oth­er forms that have been tried from time to time..."

The UK system of first past the post is completely different and yields different results than a system like in Spain where each province elects several representatives.
The UK voting system is among the worst that exist and it gives results that very poorly reflects the popular vote. The US have inherited bad aspects of that system unfortunately, but it's difficult to change since it doesn't benefit the existing dominating parties.

The notion that we elect politicians to do what we want is totally false even though they sell us that falsehood.
That's not how it works, there are different candidates (parties) that say what they want to do, like build a wall or provide free healthcare, and then people vote for the one they like, if they don't deliver people might try something else next election. Of course, it requires the people to be not complete nitwits and have a clue about what is going on, which is why most countries also have free independent press and public service.

Other countries have different systems. In Afghanistan if you have a problem or concern you talk to your family's elder who will talk to the local leader and may be, if the issue deserves it, the matter will go further up. No voting needed. Each one trusts his family, his clan, his tribe and things get worked out that way. For them voting in western-style elections is meaningless.
Maybe you should look a bit closer into the history of Afghanistan, it's a tragedy. Their attempt at democracy was crushed by Soviet and US interference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan#Contemporary_era_(1973%E2%80%93present)

Today we can think that was a bad system but each noble lord was governing in his territory and his people looked to him for protection, not to the king.
It's called Feudalism.

The Vikings are believed to have had large gatherings every eight year, if there were repeated years of famine they would sacrifice the old king to the gods and pick a new one. It's probably mostly a fable like much national history writing. Truth is usually less important than giving people a sense of national identity for political propaganda reasons.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 06:43:55 pm by apis »
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7043
  • Country: nl
However much freedom, control and sovereignty Taiwan has is not decided by Taiwan in the least, it is decided by America and China. If tomorrow China and America agreed that America will pull out of the region then Taiwan's position changes dramatically and there is nothing Taiwan can do. Taiwan is as free as China and America will allow. Sort of like I can do whatever I want... because my wife lets me.

Likewise, if the US formally allied with Taiwan the only option for China to stop it is global nuclear war. The US and its allies need China less than vice versa and China doesn't stand a chance taking the island in a conventional war without crippling themselves.

PS. the only reason Hong Kong&co are left relatively free is for propaganda reasons, when Taiwan falls the special allowances will disappear.
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7043
  • Country: nl
Back to trade war. NYT published an article br Kevin Rudd on this. (also attached is a PDF, for ones that is hit with the paywall.) Kevin Rudd was PM of Australia, who also speaks fluent Chinese.

Quote
the possibility of negotiating a revised agreement that is more accommodating to American interests is now very slim.

Because China now has less room to compromise they must win ... silly argument. There is an alternative to an agreement, the US can do anything unilaterally it damn well pleases.
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Country: es
technix, I agree with the opinions expressed in that article.

The UK voting system is among the worst that exist and it gives results that very poorly reflects the popular vote. The US have inherited bad aspects of that system unfortunately, but it's difficult to change since it doesn't benefit the existing dominating parties.
And yet, the UK has done very well historically with great political stability. Spain OTOH changes ("improves") their system continually to make it "better" and the country has not had political stability in 200 years. Everyone wants to change the system to suit their agenda.  It is easy to blame the system but Spain just does not have a culture of compromise and respect. We have a culture of graft and corruption. The political system is just a tool. It does nothing by itself. In the right hands it can do well and in hands who do not know how to use it it can be a disaster.

All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
The UK voting system is among the worst that exist and it gives results that very poorly reflects the popular vote. The US have inherited bad aspects of that system unfortunately, but it's difficult to change since it doesn't benefit the existing dominating parties.
And yet, the UK has done very well historically with great political stability. Spain OTOH changes ("improves") their system continually to make it "better" and the country has not had political stability in 200 years. Everyone wants to change the system to suit their agenda.  It is easy to blame the system but Spain just does not have a culture of compromise and respect. We have a culture of graft and corruption. The political system is just a tool. It does nothing by itself. In the right hands it can do well and in hands who do not know how to use it it can be a disaster.
Maybe it has something to do with the right-wing nationalists winning the civil war and Spain had to suffer under dictatorship up until 1975. Spain didn't get a democracy until 1977, it's not so long ago (same year as Afghanistan btw.) Many countries began to transition gradually after the enlightenment. First the nobility and rich were allowed to vote, then voting rights were gradually extended to all men and finally also women. The UK allowed all men to vote in 1918 and women in 1923. In Sweden 1909 and women after the war in 1945. New Zeeland seems to hold the record with 1893 (in modern times). So, it's not so strange if the UK and Swedish democracy appear more stable (although from what I can tell Spain is doing fine).

If the West never tried to spread Western freedom to the Greater China, we could have coexisted very well and none of the political BS would emerge from the beginning.
It's not "the west" trying to spread "freedom", it's the US that's been fighting communism all around the globe (there are countless examples). They tried to support the Kuomintang so that the Chinese Communist Party didn't get power over China, they failed to grab power on the mainland but managed to flee to Taiwan.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Well, being lap dogs is a problem for all small countries. :-[
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Country: es
Maybe it has something to do with the right-wing nationalists winning the civil war and Spain had to suffer under dictatorship up until 1975. Spain didn't get a democracy until 1977, it's not so long ago (same year as Afghanistan btw.)

I don't want to digress too much but it has nothing to do with Spain having to "suffer" under anything. Spain has had little stability in the last 200 years and the most stability and progress was during those years during Franco. Just like China today.

Younger generations in Spain are completely brainwashed about the Franco years and repeat the mantra of how bad things were. Spain in those years was a miracle of development, stability, public order, low crime, etc. Now we can vote but everything is going to shit because politicians have been lining their pockets while everything was going to shit. Now all we get is political ideology while unemployment is rampant, crime is out of hand, the judiciary is useless, bureaucracy drowns us, but, hey, we can vote.

I lived those years and statistics are out there for everyone to see but I get young people trying to explain to me how bad the Franco years were.  After Franco's death Spain has never again had the GDP growth or the low unemployment of those years. Not even close.

I am amazed how propaganda can cover the truth so easily.  How easy it is to make up a new version of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle

In the last 15 - 20 years things here are going to shit and there is no prospect of things getting better. People are fed up and five years ago a new communist - anti-system group appeared and got much support. Five years later they have been as incompetent and corrupt as the rest. So now we have a new extreme right party which, given a few years will be just as bad. 

Things are not looking good. This is a mess and getting worse and it makes me mad that politicians treat democracy as an end in itself while the steal us blind and insecurity is rampant. It is no wonder that people are getting tired of this BS.

Spanish people have no notion of what it is to respect other ideas. Here the idea of being in government is to steal all you can, put your friends and family into bullshit government jobs and silence the speech of anything you don't like. We have no concept of rule of law, that a town mayor has no authority to restrict speech and yet they do it. The judiciary is worthless and offers no protection.  It is a disfunctional country where most people cheat what they can on their taxes because it is the only way to survive.  The state is a worthless bureaucracy, a cancer. Small town mayors are small time dictators who favor friends and family while giving a hard time to their enemies. Corruption is rampant. This first ones not abiding by the laws are the politicians in charge.

Democracy is all well and good but after I have personal safety, low crime, stability, jobs. To me these things come before voting. And if in Spain democracy means unemployment, corruption, insecurity, crime and stagnation then I will gladly give up democracy. 

Don't get me started because I could go on for hours.
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja, kakabouras

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: 00
It is not whether the west that can make long term plans, it is whether the west can stick to a plan after it is made across political shifts. Take Obamacare for an example, the second Republicans took power they start to dismantle it. With this kind of political aggression in place, why bother with long term plans when they ain't gonna stick after an election?
This is democracy in action.
As is well known, democracy is a system where two men and one woman strangled on a desert island can hold a legally binding vote over legalization of rape.
Or a system where whoever gets 60% seats in the parliament enjoys total power for four years and pushes reforms rejected by 40% of society not expecting the balance to flip later.

Democracy is not about the power to vote. It's about distrusting the rulers.

In a democracy the political power is pulverized among several institutions and not concentrated in the hands of an autocrat, to avoid privileges. Incumbents have a limited term, after which they will be private citizens and won't be able to use their position anymore to protect themselves against their misdeeds. You also have civilized ways to oust someone from office, should they abuse their position.

The Obamacare was cancelled because those who voted for Trump didn't trust the other party.

And that's the beauty of democracy. The leaders are always in check.

Democracy is a political system with a feedback loop.

Democratic countries, however, do have long term plans and they carry them out independently of the administration for years and decades. In this case an administration is evaluated by how well they lead the plan.

Now take North Korea. They have elections. But you can only vote for that chubby guy with that funny haircut whose name I forgot. And once he does something that is not exactly in the interest of the people (which happens to be the whole time), they cannot get him out of his position without a coup, followed by purges and killings, as we have seen recently.

That's clearly not a democracy, even though they jokingly name themselves a democratic people's republic.

We appreciate the peace brought by US. We are just mad about its political and military expansion after WWII.

"Hell is other people" (Sartre). When the US interfered radically, for the benefit of China, in the "internal process" of Japan, by throwing a bomb in their heads, yay! Now that you invited this monster to your turf, dang!

History is full of episodes like that.

From what I can see, the document US handed to China as the draft trade deal includes terms like:
* termination of Made in China 2025
* termination of Belt and Road Initiative
* termination of small enterprise stimulation package

Those are internal process of China.

Nope. What the US is doing is exercising their bargaining power. China is free to comply or not. If China decides not to comply, that's OK. The US will discriminate Chinese products and this is something that any country can do, and in fact they do.

In a state all power and authority derives from the state and no town, city, county, group or individual has any legal authority except as delegated by the state.

Just for the record: State = Government + People.
 

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
the dictator only cares about making himself and his family rich.
I'm not sure if I could name one dictator who did it for the money.
Certainly not the European classics like megalomaniac Hitler or SJW Stalin.
Supposedly Putin has some shady businesses on the side, but he could be making even more money if he didn't go "fuck America" so I think he too is a nationalist and imperialist at heart.
Angela Merkel does it for boomer pensions and ending racism forever :P
I have no idea about Mao and Franco, but I would be surprised.
Maybe in some minor 3rd world countries? :-//

It's even worse:  Newer generations are starting to forget the lessons of WWII and are beginning to make many of the same dumb mistakes that led up to it.  -  I'm thinking of the rampant nationalism that has spread like a cancer in some countries.
Nationalism is cancer and has only led to bad things but it is so easy to show a lure, a flag, and have people follow.
Are you talking about pointing finger at nationalism and saying it's the source of all evil? ;D

It seems to me like few people make effort to understand where Hitler came from, what his ideology was, why he believed what he did, why anyone voted for him, why France refused to raid Germany with us and knock him down, how anyone could possibly still consider him attractive today.
The only answer they have is "nationalism fell from the sky and a war broke out".

Quote from: Hitler
What was impossible to understand was the boundless hatred they expressed against their own fellow-citizens, how they disparaged their own nation, mocked at its greatness, reviled its history and dragged the names of its most illustrious men in the gutter.
That rings quite true, particularly when I look at Westerners. Go figure.

Nah, international law is a joke where weaklings pretend to be able to lay claim to the owners of power based on arbitrary rules which are only ever as relevant as those with power choose to make them. True sovereignty is about having the power to control your land, literally. Homegrown power and the power of allies.
I approve. I will add that as long as Americans have more guns than citizens and some balls to use or threaten to use them when appropriate, they are sovereign people. And the US does seem to be more stable than any country in Europe, even despite being somewhat democratic.

Even if the CCP completely gains Taiwan, it wants nothing to do with it. 24 million of Western freedom brainwashed people can tear the CCP inside out if force relocated. It will be allowed to keep everything it has for now, and the CCP will infiltrate through education and culture, just like how the CCP infiltrated young HK people from tapping into their textbooks and building museums.
:-DD
At the same time, it will be interesting to watch because if China reduces censorship on the Internet, there will surely be people trying to spread Westernism inside.
I'm speaking from experience, lots of idiotic ideas from the West are finding their way into Poland, from assorted SJWism to holocaust denial. I wasn't used to seeing it before 2010.
My main hope these days is that Westerners will finally hit the wall and find it impossible to pretend they really believe what they preach, at least some of them.
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4108
  • Country: us
Quote
Maybe in some minor 3rd world countries? :-//
Esp where a foreign government has incited a revolution and installed their own dictator?

Quote
Democracy is not about the power to vote. It's about distrusting the rulers.
The problem with democracy is illustrated by history. True democracies do not last very long. Everyone voting their own self-interest is like having the worker's union run the company.
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: 00
The problem with democracy is illustrated by history. True democracies do not last very long. Everyone voting their own self-interest is like having the worker's union run the company.

That's not how democracies fail. Countries are not factories. Democracies fail because, in the name of some emergency, rulers claim some exceptional power that aims at getting rid of the controls to which they are subject.

The true enemies of democracy are the politicians. They hate it. The only part of it that they like is the election. And that's why they like to emphasize that, because you have the freedom to vote for them, you are living in a democracy. But they never tell you that, after elected, you have the power to check them.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf