Attitudes toward China

[putofftoolong]

I remember in the past and the present positions being taken by objectivists criticle of China, of which I agree, so I am not debating its flaws or necessarily defending them. I am curious in a way I can't quite put my finger on about SOME criticism that China gets which seems to not be genuine. I think, I could be wrong, that Soviet Russia was vastly more of a dictatorial society than China is, at least at present, and I was wondering if any of the anti-China sentiment is in a way, in some peoples' minds simply an attack on capitalism. I have this idea that their exists the attitude "Its OK to kill millions as long as its for socialism but if you lower taxes and deregulate, even a bit, then suddenly its wrong". I almost feel that if china adopted more controls some people would then stop protesting, because the ends would again more justify the means. Does anyone else get this idea?

[KendallJ]

My thoughts are here:

http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2007...s-on-china.html

[DarkWaters]

I have been pretty upset with China lately. I saw footage of their military (?) violently cracking down on a peaceful demonstration from a pro-Tibet crowd*. Yes, I am aware of the savage riots that occurred over the last month where Tibetian villagers inexplicably were destroying their neighborhood and attacking tourists. However, this should not give the Chinese military/police a blank check to meet any vocal opposition to their Tibet policy with brutal violence.

*I might need more information here. I have no idea if these protestors were occupying property that they had no right to be on. However, the situation at the very least demands an explanation. Maybe someone on this forum who looked into this can elaborate.

[Zip]

Does the freedom to make money forgive the lack of

Freedom of the Press,

Freedom of Expression,

Freedom of Religion,

Freedom of Speech,

Freedom of Communication,

Freedom of Assembly,

Freedom of Association?

[EC]

While I don't much like China, I think this Tibeten crack-down thing is being way over-blown. Governments should have the right to stop cult's from interferring in other's business actions, such as Olympic sporting events.

[DarkWaters]

While I don't much like China, I think this Tibeten crack-down thing is being way over-blown. Governments should have the right to stop cult's from interferring in other's business actions, such as Olympic sporting events.

I definitely agree with your last point. However, I saw some footage on one of the CNN morning shows a week ago where it looks as if a Chinese paramilitary group aggressively beat a large crowd of protesters nearly half to death with truncheons. From what I could tell from the footage, the protesters were doing nothing more than holding signs and chanting.

Now the news did not really provide the context for this situation. I have no idea if these protesters were standing idly by while a mob of other Tibetian protesters were setting a village ablaze. I have no idea if these protesters were blocking a major causeway, preventing other Chinese citizens from getting to work or if they were blocking access to a major government building. I also have no idea how many warnings these protesters received. However, the scene I saw was horrific and demands an explanation.

I am trying to find video footage of this on the internet, but I am currently unable to do so.

[Inspector]

My thoughts are here:

http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2007...s-on-china.html

I've heard from other people who have visited China, and I think you're being way too generous and optimistic about the situation. For starters, I think you're underestimating the fact that you mostly saw what they let you see.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Inspector

[putofftoolong]

Does the freedom to make money forgive the lack of

Freedom of the Press,

Freedom of Expression,

Freedom of Religion,

Freedom of Speech,

Freedom of Communication,

Freedom of Assembly,

Freedom of Association?

No! Absolutely not!

My question was not really about China but specifically certain attitudes about China that seems to imply some kind of silent agreement, which goes like this "I will tolerate the lack of all the freedoms you listed, as long as their is no freedom to make money" In other words, some people equate a lack of economic freedom with the idea that, since the money is all going to the govt, this represents, in these peoples minds, a benefit(which it isn't but that's another matter)and therefore will tolerate murder as long as this alleged benefit continues. As soon as the benefit is gone, people become protesters, but really are only protesting the loss of there percieved benefit. I was trying, perhaps not very well to put into words, this concept. Kind of like me saying "Yes you can go ahead and kill those jews over there, just make sure you extent my unemployment benefits first. If you don't I'll call you a murderer." Its that attitude I was trying to express and was curious as to whether it applied in this case. The reason I bring it up is that I expressed this to my girlfriend, and she responded as if I was accusing someone about the above, and wanted proof that specific people said statements like the quotes above, when in fact nobody obviously says these things. Which is a problem I seem to be having. I can't point to a person who may have an attitude in his head, which I can't possible know, but what I do know is that leftists tend to turn a blind eye to atrocities in countries that they have idealogical sympathies with. I guess I was more concerned with expressing an idea(itself), because it sounds morally outrageous(the attitude), but I get bogged down in the example (china) which was secondary, in the sense that I am no expert on China, and I could be wrong, but since the idea seems to apply to other examples in the past it just seemed important to me to ask.

[Inspector]

...I am not debating [China's] flaws or necessarily defending them.

Er, oops. Looks like your thread is going in that direction.

I almost feel that if china adopted more controls some people would then stop protesting, because the ends would again more justify the means. Does anyone else get this idea?

To answer your question, no, I hadn't noticed anything like that.

For the most part, mainstream attitudes on international politics are dictated by the Left, especially since Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left, it seems. I'd say at first glance that the key to finding out why China gets a pass on some things they do but not others would be to get inside the head of a lefty. Which is the path you're basically on here.

Kill millions of people? Sure. Brutally snuff out anything approaching individualism? Go right ahead! Send soldiers to make war on Americans in Korea? Nothing could be grander!

Mess with some vaguely hippie sounding idiot in a colorful toga? No, apparently that is going too far.

Actually, I might be on to something there. It's because the Dalai Lama is so much like a hippie, isn't it?

[putofftoolong]

Er, oops. Looks like your thread is going in that direction.

To answer your question, no, I hadn't noticed anything like that.

For the most part, mainstream attitudes on international politics are dictated by the Left, especially since Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left, it seems. I'd say at first glance that the key to finding out why China gets a pass on some things they do but not others would be to get inside the head of a lefty. Which is the path you're basically on here.

Kill millions of people? Sure. Brutally snuff out anything approaching individualism? Go right ahead! Send soldiers to make war on Americans in Korea? Nothing could be grander!

Mess with some vaguely hippie sounding idiot in a colorful toga? No, apparently that is going too far.

Actually, I might be on to something there. It's because the Dalai Lama is so much like a hippie, isn't it?

-I wasn't trying to go in that direction, the getting in the head of a lefty was pretty much correct.

-I guess what I was getting at was, from the standpoint of a lefty, socialism is a benefit, so as long as the killing is done by a socialist country, the leftist would ignore it because it would be the best way to maintain the percieved benefit.

-I actually wasn't thinking about the nature of the people China wrongs(although now that you mention it, I think you are on to something)I was just curious about whether it is amplified because of China's perhaps changing nature. For instance, America's nature as a percieved capitalistic state puts it under criticism for everything. However, even in America, putting a lefty in the white house is the easiest way to make wars acceptible. I have a feeling once Obama lets say becomes presedent, the war in Iraq will become more acceptable as well as more pointless, with the exception of the extreme left protestors who will become more violent due to the "why don't you practice what you preach" attitude they could put toward a democrat president (I don't recall people blaming Kennedy for Vietnam).I remember Rand asking how the war started by the liberals became the conservatives war and why Kennedy was regarded as a idol of the anti-war protesters when he was the one who started the war.

Edited April 7, 2008 by jay

[Inspector]

For instance, America's nature as a percieved capitalistic state puts it under criticism for everything. However, even in America, putting a lefty in the white house is the easiest way to make wars acceptible.

That's certainly true, and while as I said I haven't observed any specific examples of what you're surmising, I suppose I wouldn't put it past the lefties to think that way.

[KendallJ]

I've heard from other people who have visited China, and I think you're being way too generous and optimistic about the situation. For starters, I think you're underestimating the fact that you mostly saw what they let you see.

Too optimistic about what aspect exactly?

[Inspector]

Too optimistic about what aspect exactly?

Hmm, I will comment on your blog since our thread starter doesn't want that kind of discussion here.