Cuz they are too busy making money off China. Especially with Dubai/Abu Dhabi being super slow, the only country building a lot right now is China. $$$$ over Morals

He wishes he had the power of those dictators...fortunately our constitution limits would be dictators

..barely.

But you want to expand that power no? The socialist programs that you seem to support require an expanded centralized power over the economy. The problem you people don’t get is that at its core, socialism requires force and suppression. as corrupt people get into power, as they always will, they abuse the power. This has played out over and over, but the millennials don’t get it.

No I don't.

I believe in a weak executive and a strong legislature. We currently have an overpowered executive and an apathetic, ineffective legislature.

I think they all have too much power.

Yeah it's complicated.

Anyone can write a bill...there is no way that would ever become law. It’s obviously unconstitutional. Are you attempting to equate liberty in China with liberty in the US?

Free speech, especially political speech is strongly protected in the US. Any attempt to squash that would be quickly shut down by the courts. However, I’m deeply concerned about the militarization of the police in the US, and their attempts to stop protests like the BLM protests a few years back. When it comes to law however, the courts have done a good job of protecting free speech mostly.

Police are necessary, but I think they need to be more accountable to local communities, and less to the state and federal govt.

Can you expand on how welfare programs could tread on economic liberties? Do you take the view that taxes are the infringement or is it something else? You could say that welfare programs increase the economic liberty of certain populations...

Taxes being proposed by sanders and others are essentially seizure of private property for the public good...backed by force. No different really than eminent domain.

For the purposes of clarity, what taxes are not essentially seizure of private property for the public good?

Transaction taxes are different because they are voluntary. If we cut bloat like military spending we could likely fund a decent safety net or UBI with a national sales tax or small flat tax on everything but food and basic essentials.

Property is control.

Oh jesus christ. All taxes are by definition the "seizure of private property for the public good", although I wouldn't necessarily use that terminology. Do you approve of any sort of taxation? What do you own in its entirety? Are you absolutely sure that what you own is 100% of your provenance? If you're going to make statements like the one above, you've got to walk the walk...

Ah I see your angle here. Thanks for clarifying.

When Ai wei wei spoke against govt they seized his property to silence him. Leveraging property also enables a freedom of art and expression. Would a film like JFK ever happen in a state like China? Property rights are the basis of freedom.

​Transaction taxes are not at all voluntary in the modern world. And even so, is money not "private property" per your original statement? Taxing a financial transaction would still transfer wealth, which is property.

Are you suggesting property tax is at odds with the 4th amendment? 

I can follow a consistent through-line with the sales tax opinion (though I disagree) but *come the hell on* with comparing property taxes (applied equally across population by statue) with unlawful seizure (applied individually as retribution).

I favor property & income taxes over transaction taxes because I believe taxation should be progressive / redistributive, and sales tax disproportionately impacts the poorest.

None of this has much to do with Hong Kong anymore...

Transactions are voluntary, and it is progressive in effect because those who have more will likely consume more.

The buyer pays the tax to gain a good...it’s not property yet until transfer is complete...same as state sales tax...and the police won’t lock you in a cell if you don’t engage. If you want to be a billionaire and pay zero you can live in a hut and never buy anything.

Problem with income tax is that it’s backed by force.

It absolutely is not progressive. People with more purchase more to a point, then they hoard. Someone making 1,000x more money than the average American is not buying 1,000 more cars or 500 more houses than the average American. A lack of redistributive taxation, in effect, removes money from the economy and accelerates stagnation. But again, this has nothing to do with Hong Kong.

Civilization is backed by force, not just income tax. The debate is not about force vs. no force, since no force is not an option if you want a stable society. The debate is about amounts. Here we're approaching something that might be relevant to Hong Kong.

This has a lot to do with Hong Kong. We don’t want the US looking like this in 2100...Powerful states always want more control and always attract power hungry players. Hong Kong’s social freedoms are connected to their economic ones...and they want to maintain both.

Even the most democratic society requires a certain amount of involuntary participation (a.k.a. "Force") because there will always be outliers. Whether the outliers are offenders against humanity (killers, sexual abusers, what have you) or just contrarians (theft, fraud, corruption) you're going to need a force to keep the public order. The ideal way this occurs is when the force is backed my a democratic mandate. 

I'd argue we are losing that in the US, and it never really existed in China (although it's getting worse under Xi). What's happening in Hong Kong is what inevitably happens when the application of force diverges too far from the popular opinion, with no popular recourse to right the path. 

I think it was JFK who famously said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Hong Kong's desire for social freedom is directly driven by it's economic success (not freedom, success). This is a path nearly every developing society has walked. It has little to do with progressive taxation.

I'd highly recommend everyone read "A History of Future Cities" by Daniel Brook for an illuminating look at this kind of scenario.

ALSO, I'd argue, to the contrary, that progressive taxation often comes via democratic mandate and rarely via authoritarian dictate. Economic redistribution is, by definition, at the expense of the ruling class, and will occur only if the non-aristocratic masses have a significant enough voice to overpower the aristocrats.

(edit: Apologies for the multiple posts. I'm writing off the cuff here)

You can’t have freedom, especially creative freedom, without being able to leverage property/resources. If govt controls enough resources, they control the dial of culture art and technology. That’s China.

That's a very facile understanding of China.

For a less facile understanding of China, I highly recommend - as a primer - "Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China" by Evan Osnos. It's a couple of years outdated (China moves fast) but an excellent starting point for the complexity of the post-Deng Chinese world

jla - we both love to spar about politics as relative amateurs, but I've traveled in China. I've lived in China. I've worked in China. I did my thesis about China. Don't get me started here...

& for the record I'm not saying China is a healthy nation or a model we (or anyone) should be following. Just that the reasons it is like it is are unimaginably complex and convoluted, and to reduce it's cultural status to a single Libertarian v. Authoritarian axis is plainly absurd.

& more related to progressive taxation, I haven't read these yet but the books cited in this article are now on my list for the fall. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/the-rich-cant-get-richer-forever-can-they

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.". And cultural revolution is enabled by leveraging resources. From the Harlem Renaissance to the music of the late 60’s....free expression is empowered by free markets, and free expression moves culture. Planned economies like China make cultural, artistic, and technological revolution very difficult. Do you really not see the connection between free markets and civil liberties?

I just watched the Woodstock doc on Netflix last night...more about how it was organized than the old doc...it was made possible by leveraging resources. The government would have never allowed that to happen. China has been cracking down on capitalism...they gave a little, but still operate philosophically like a Marxist/communist
country.

Mainland China is not NK, but it’s on a slippery slope towards that extreme. So yes, authoritarianism vs libertarianism is the real debate here.

You should read the books I suggested.

You keep saying "leveraging resources" and I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Can you elaborate? You're also dropping in arguments related to taxation but then only elaborating on issues of civil liberty and asset forfeiture. I'm having a hard time following your line of thought, if it is in fact one line.

“Leveraging resources” is what Hollywood does when making a movie, or what a record producer does when making an album, or a an artist when buying a canvas, or a gallery when displaying the canvas, or an entrepreneur who invests in researching and developing new technologies. The tighter grip on the money the state has, the less likely that all of the above will be able to engage in free expression. Again, could a film like JFK, or Platoon be made in China?

Sales taxes to pay for everything would be fine... it just would inevitably not be flat. Buying a speed boat? 100% tax, buying bread? 0% tax.

Well, it’s consumtion that puts strain on the planets resources, not wealth. I’m ok with a varied sales tax so long as it’s based on a concrete measure, not a subjective one. The goal with taxes shouldn’t be to punish success. It should be to offset the downstream costs/consequences of goods.

So yeah, a speed boat would be taxed at a higher rate than a loaf of bread. But, a loaf of bread from an organic farm that uses flour from sustainable sources could be taxed lower than bread that uses flour from unsustainable pesticide ridden crops. This would incentivize sustainable practices, because products with lower sales tax would be more competitive.

One way or another, downstream the costs of those pesticides will be absorbed by society in their effect on human health, insect populations, long distance shipping from centralized farms rather than local farms...etc

I'm actually alright with that last part. But we still aren't talking about Hong Kong. Also you didn't explain what "leveraging resources" means you just listed a bunch of different people who do it.

I sure did. It’s using money to do stuff that requires money. Leveraging capital. That simple. If private citizens can’t build wealth they can’t create decentralized platforms for speech.

Or should say, platforms free from govt

The Chinese government controls speech. They are incredibly repressive. Hong Kong enjoys economic liberty. The govt isn’t threatened by some rich guy buying a boat, they are threatened by some rich guy creating a platform of speech that they cannot control.

Platforms....I get to laugh my ass off watching new Chapelle special...wokies get to bitch on Twitter that is

Platforms....I get to laugh my ass off watching new Chapelle special...wokies get to bitch on Twitter that is

Offensive. Govt not involved.

Been following from the sidelines but I have to say jla-x, your argument makes no sense. In this thread alone you've gone from the Chinese government controls resources (capital) and is cracking down on capitalism, to the Chinese government doesn't feel threatened by some rich guy's economic liberty. Which is it? Or is there some nuance I'm missing that you can explain?

The latter

"The latter" in response to what? The latter to the question of "which is it," ... meaning that the Chinese government doesn't feel threatened by some rich guy's economic liberty? Or the latter of my questions meaning that there is some nuance that you can explain? Because you really haven't addressed either with your two-word response.

you're missing the nuance. You have to understand the relationship between capital and civil liberties like free speech and free expression. Capitalism is often seen as little more than a way to accumulate lots of shit. That's not why capitalism is important to maintain civil liberties. That's a shallow understanding of the necessity of free markets. Free markets allow for creative platforms to grow without state permission. The Chinese govt is not threatened by the rich dude with the boat.  They may use the trickery of Marxisms call for equality as a philosophical crutch, but that's not the threat to them.   They are threatened by the rich dude with the megaphone.  The independence of expression from state control. That platform of expression, be it film, music, comedy, art, media technology, or even wealthy influencers who support certain causes takes control away from the state. Its really simple. Cultural revolutions are empowered by leveraging capital and resources. My Woodstock example was a good one. An anti war subculture could have never organized and hosted such an event without access to private resources and capital. Hong Kong has high economic liberty because of its unique history. I was simply pointing out that its impossible to maintain civil liberties without economic liberties. The two are intrinsically connected.

The extradition law is a flashpoint, not the totality of why the people are protesting. They want freedom.

if you look at my initial statement, and the one that follows, you will see where the side debate about taxes came in. It got a little off the point as I was responding to multiple people.

lol @ the irony of using "Cultural Revolution" in this discussion.

Yes it is ironic. The one that came from capitalism led to sex drugs and rock n roll. The one that came out of communism led to death and misery.

Lets not also forget cultural revolutions like the Harlem Renaissance, Jazz, Hip-Hop, Spike Lee films, etc. Blacks would never have been able to affect culture the way that they did without private resources. We cant ignore the reality that while capital is sometimes used to suppress, it can also be used to empower. That art and music and film wasn't created on the Govts dime.

And there we have it. Thread closed. I'm out.

Yeah we're way off topic here.

thanks for playing

tduds, no we are not off topic.

The topic is very simple...Hong Kong has more economic and civil liberties than the mainland because of its unique history. The state is reigning in on that. Power always wants more power. At its core this is a battle between a communist state, and a desire to maintain liberty. The American flags are a symbol of that for the people there. That's why they are waving them.

The state is trying to reign in civil liberties. You're using economic and civil interchangeably but also randomly individually when it suits your pre-concluded worldview. For example, in response to the post directly below this that shows economic "libertarian" poster boys directly enabling authoritarian overreach on civil liberties, that's just "the messiness of capitalism", but in the case of similarly-authoritarian oppression in Hong Kong, it's the inherent evil of Marxism (which, if you care about historical lineage, it's "Xi-ism", derived from Deng-ism, which was a capitalistic departure from Maoism, derived from Stalinism - which itself is distinct from Marxism. And none of these are socialism). You're really cherry picking here and also showing your unfamiliarity with Chinese history & society.

You failed to address the many points I made showing how social and economic liberty are connected.

Then tried to derail the argument by being up the Koch bros...the lefts favorite boogie man...come on man. That’s a shallow shallow argument. I’m talking about the underlying philosophical battle, your countering those points with cherry picked individuals who engaged in some shady business. Why not just throw John gotti in there too to show why capitalism is evil. Lol. You know this China thing looks bad for the Bernie bros

"Why not just throw John gotti in there too to show why capitalism is evil. You know this China thing looks bad for the Bernie bros" 

I'm assuming you know these are the same statement.

For real though...Bernie was applauding the Chinese state the other day. Look it up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-china-has-done-a-lot-of-things-for-their-people/amp/

Just like you can make a list of most authoritarian countries, you can make a list of most libertarian countries. Guess which ones suck more.

Would you rather live in Luxembourg or North Korea? Hong Kong happens to have higher degree of liberty than mainland. They want to preserve that. I can’t imagine any human would choose to live in a high authoritarian state over a high libertarian state. People want freedom.

There's no such thing as a high libertarian state in the real world, so comparing North Korea to Luxembourg is inane. Libertarianism depends on the willful suspension of disbelief that people are not at all affected by histories. The theory assumes that individuals are blank slates and as such, are playing the same game of life. This is patently untrue.

Also, "people want freedom" - freedom from what? From each other? From the government? From the intense anxiety of for-profit healthcare industry? Throughout this thread, you drop terms. Lesson one of any communication course is to define your terms (usually to enhance your argument) - there's none of that here, just platitudes and cliches and obvious strawmen.

Freedom from authoritarians. This is self evident.

Lol. You don’t understand basic political science, so you’re not worth arguing with. Look at a god damn political matrix before you make foolish statements like “there is no such thing as high libertarian...”.

“Libertarianism depends on the willful suspension of disbelief that people are not at all affected by histories. The theory assumes that individuals are blank slates and as such, are playing the same game of life. This is patently untrue.”. It’s patently untrue what you wrote. No one assumes that people are blank slates. We assume that authoritarianism is oppressive...because it is.

personal vs economic freedom, nolan charts, yadda yadda. You haven't defined 'high libertarian' and certainly haven't given any real world examples. The central tenet of libertarianism is to maximize personal and economic freedom. My point is that this tenet is in perpetual conflict with reality in that freedoms are defined on a local level, not on wikipedia page. To assume your concept of freedom is paramount indicates a lack of empathy and understanding of the vast multitude of peoples and cultures in this world. To bring it back to Hong Kong, do you think the concept of freedom is just in regards to the mainland? What about the millions of individuals who, as a byproduct of the perverse sort of capitalism that has run rampant through the islands, live in boxes smaller than a jail cell. Would those people like freedom from that life? Would another form of government or society provide an opportunity for them to be 'free'?

LOL. so you have a communist state that killed millions and millions. The state introduces enough capitalism to avoid the fate of other failed communist states, but still mostly maitainfs a planned economy. The state then engages in all sorts of human rights abuses while selling cheap products to the world to gain power. AND you blame liberty? What a fucking joke.

Im also not obsolving US companies who take advantage of this shit...but the Chinese govt is in control over there...

People want freedom from authoritarians. That's why religion never really took off.

People are full of contradictions, and self-described Libertarian Utopians are no exception. The Kochs, to use the example in this post, almost universally reduced civil liberties in favor of economic deregulation. They explicitly sought to deny the rights of others in order to maintain their personal fortune. They're a shining example of why societal oversight, democratically mandated, is not a bad thing.

I think the Koch's actually do believe in the libertarian ideal and actually did want to work for what they thought was best in the world. However, in doing so they leaned real hard on a bunch of dog whistles, built a passionate base of mostly racists pretending to care about 'fiscal responsibility' so they could have an excuse to protest a black guy, and ultimately set the stage for a Trump ascendancy.

Either they really had no idea this was happening (which I doubt. They're not dumb), or they did and didn't care because it brought their economic philosophy slightly closer to the foreground, at the great expense of decimating their alleged social philosophy. 

Koch ran for VP on the 1980 libertarian ticket, at the time the Libertarian Party platform included "then-radical notions of legalizing drugs, ending penalties for victimless crimes, and full acceptance of gays and lesbians."

By 2008, these social ideals were within reach, but likely at the expense of their fortune. They made a conscious choice to screw others over in order to keep the fortune.

In short, fuck em.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Yeah, but that's the messiness of capitalism. We accept that imperfection and understand the dangers of the alternative. We don't seek utopia

No one flees the Koch bros...they do flee the Dear Leader...

The Koch brothers are largely responsible for the authoritarian-right in the US.

What authoritarian right? What rights and liberties were taken from you or others?

Why are we talking about them anyway?

"What rights and liberties were taken from you or others?" 

Right, the link at the beginning of this that midlander posted wasn't about criminalizing the right to assemble, or stifling free speech, or anything like that [wink, wink]. If only those protesters had access to the capital of the Koch network, they could have simply "leveraged resources" to "create platforms for speech" in order to keep those freedoms. 

Maybe capitalism's relationship to civil liberties and free expression are too nuanced for the rest of us to understand. 

What a joke.

 What rights and liberties were taken from you or others?

We have babies in cages. As government policy. I could go on.

 Why must you drag this bullshit into every thread? We're still not talking about Hong Kong. You're just trying to use Hong Kong as an example of something it isn't, muddying both the realities of Hong Kong and the lines of political philosophy in the process.

Have you even been to Hong Kong?

I’m not defending Koch bros.

Are you defending the Chinese state?

Because a self proclaimed libertarian helps make a protest a crime means nothing at all except that he’s a hypocrite. Back to the topic, do you think the protestors in Hong Kong want more or less liberty?

I don’t understand why you seemingly defend authoritarianism?

“You're just trying to use Hong Kong as an example of something it isn't”. No I’m using it as an example of something it is. A zone of relative liberty being annexed by a commie regime. It’s another example that Marxism is an evil ideology that always leads to authoritarianism.

Do you believe that individuals have more rights in the US or China?

China is not a Marxist state. Anyone who thinks it is knows nothing about China.

“The opposite of authoritarianism is democracy, the opposite of libertarianism is communism. “. Incorrect the opposite of authoritarianism is libertarianism actually.

There are left libertarians like Noam Chomsky.

The opposite of communism is capitalism.

My point is that civil and economic liberties are connected. That was my point from the start. You don’t believe so? Yes, they are at the moment reigning on in civil liberties, but my point is that it’s economic liberty that will be next. It’s hard to gain the control they have over the mainland without getting control of the economy. Can you name an authoritarian state that has free markets alongside?

The US.

Seriously though, Singapore. A large portion of Southeast Asia, in fact. The Philipines for sure. Brazil is trending in that direction. I'll spare the absolute shitstorm of replies it'll inevitably cause but one could (and many academics in fact do) argue that China is an authoritarian capitalist nation.

Singapore is probably the only actual example.

They have a strange system.

US is not authoritarian.

You guys completely misunderstand what libertarianism is, and how this all relates to Hong Kong and urbanism in general. Here is the most basic way to put it....Conservatives and Socialists both believe that social order needs to be guided from the top down. From a place of centralized authority. Libertarians believe in “spontaneous order” or self organization. This order is derived from individuals engaged in self organization. The states function is to protect natural rights so that individuals cannot tread upon the individuals liberty of others. That’s all.

The degree oftop down order vs a spontaneous order IS the root story of urbanism. Hong Kong is a prime example.

US is in 17th place lol.

In terms of economic freedom only, Hong Kong is number 1. They also have one of the lowest tax rates. Hong Kong is a resilient and dynamic economy with a vibrant urbanism.

It would be easier if you would simply cite your sources. I'm assuming this is what you're referencing: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/human-freedom-index-2018.pdf