‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by Milo » Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:30 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:38 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:49 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:59 am
Cassowary: will you kindly pull your head out of your real anal passage and face up to which side of politics in the US is the real threat to civil rights and liberties.
Both are.
Please explain!
You know how Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but then when they're in power they spend money like drunken sailors just like the Democrats do?

Well, Democrats talk about civil rights, ending police brutality and militarisation, freedom of expression, and all that, but then when they're in power they just never seem to get around to doing anything about it. Marriage equality only came about because of a Supreme Court decision. Backing off from the drug was has only come about because of ballot initiatives.

(I'll concede that LBJ did some good here, but that was nearly seventy years ago. The only significant civil rights legislation since then was the ADA and that was signed by a Republican.)
But what about the ACA?

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:59 pm

Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:30 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:38 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:49 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:59 am
Cassowary: will you kindly pull your head out of your real anal passage and face up to which side of politics in the US is the real threat to civil rights and liberties.
Both are.
Please explain!
You know how Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but then when they're in power they spend money like drunken sailors just like the Democrats do?

Well, Democrats talk about civil rights, ending police brutality and militarisation, freedom of expression, and all that, but then when they're in power they just never seem to get around to doing anything about it. Marriage equality only came about because of a Supreme Court decision. Backing off from the drug was has only come about because of ballot initiatives.

(I'll concede that LBJ did some good here, but that was nearly seventy years ago. The only significant civil rights legislation since then was the ADA and that was signed by a Republican.)
But what about the ACA?
What about it? That was a giant subsidy to health insurance corporations. It certainly had nothing to do either with civil rights or civil liberties.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 5360
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by cassowary » Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:22 am

Excerpt from original article:
“The relevant question is *not* whether giving up democracy was somehow necessary for addressing the emergency (in this case, COVID-19).
I am familiar with this given my country's history. During the Malayan Emergency, democratic rights were curtailed to stsop the dastardly Socialists/Communists from taking over and creating another "killing field" like in Cambodia. The Internal Security Act was enacted by the then British colonial government and retained after Independence.

As the article said, once a law is enacted, politicians are loath to remove their accumulated power. It remains in force to this day. Our government, can in its sole descretion jail someone it considers a securty threat. Today, the law is used to jail suspected Islamic terrorists. To its credit, our government no longer uses this law to jail politicians. The last time it was used against a politician was decades ago by Singapore's founder LKY.

But the point is that there are advantages of using such undemocratic, authoritarian methods during emergencies. For us, it was the Malayan Emergency. In the current covid situation, there were cutbacks of speech, personal freedoms and so forth to combat the virus.

For us, we saw what happened in China during Mao's time when millions starved. Then there were the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Also there was the Vietnamese boat people who fled Vietnam. So to us, suspending democratic rights was justified to prevent a Communist takeover which pleases nobody here except Sertorio. It was the lesser of two evils.

But such laws such as our Internal Security Act are also risky. At the hands of a ruthless government, they can be abused and democracy dies.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 6198
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by Sertorio » Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:02 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:22 am
So to us, suspending democratic rights was justified to prevent a Communist takeover...
Suspending democracy to prevent an undemocratic regime...Funny... :cry:

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:24 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:02 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:22 am
So to us, suspending democratic rights was justified to prevent a Communist takeover...
Suspending democracy to prevent an undemocratic regime...Funny... :cry:
Hey, you're the one who said that a people who won't do what it takes to defeat invaders deserve their subjugation.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by Milo » Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:18 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:59 pm
Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:30 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:38 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:49 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:59 am
Cassowary: will you kindly pull your head out of your real anal passage and face up to which side of politics in the US is the real threat to civil rights and liberties.
Both are.
Please explain!
You know how Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but then when they're in power they spend money like drunken sailors just like the Democrats do?

Well, Democrats talk about civil rights, ending police brutality and militarisation, freedom of expression, and all that, but then when they're in power they just never seem to get around to doing anything about it. Marriage equality only came about because of a Supreme Court decision. Backing off from the drug was has only come about because of ballot initiatives.

(I'll concede that LBJ did some good here, but that was nearly seventy years ago. The only significant civil rights legislation since then was the ADA and that was signed by a Republican.)
But what about the ACA?
What about it? That was a giant subsidy to health insurance corporations. It certainly had nothing to do either with civil rights or civil liberties.
That’s a matter of interpretation.

It’s an example of a long and extremely hard fought battle by Democrats to pass sweeping reforms and keep them passed.

neverfail
Posts: 7789
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by neverfail » Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:17 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:02 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:22 am
So to us, suspending democratic rights was justified to prevent a Communist takeover...
Suspending democracy to prevent an undemocratic regime...Funny... :cry:
Yes! In principle it has the look of an oxymoron about it.

neverfail
Posts: 7789
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by neverfail » Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:23 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:22 am

I am familiar with this given my country's history. During the Malayan Emergency, democratic rights were curtailed to stsop the dastardly Socialists/Communists from taking over and creating another "killing field" like in Cambodia. The Internal Security Act was enacted by the then British colonial government and retained after Independence.
Casso, could you please explain something that puzzles me?

How did the Communists ever gain enough popular support among your own crowd to wage an insurgency war anyhow? I used to think that you Straits Chinese types were all oh so entrprenueral.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:16 pm

Milo wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:18 am
That’s a matter of interpretation.
Image

Huge amounts of taxpayer money now go to health insurance corporations that didn't go to them before. There's good reason that their stock prices went up the day it passed. Now, one might argue that this is a good thing on balance, but not that it's not what happened.
Milo wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:18 am
It’s an example of a long and extremely hard fought battle by Democrats to pass sweeping reforms and keep them passed.
Even if one lets that charitable description pass unchallenged, that still doesn't make the ACA a civil rights bill.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 5360
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: ‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

Post by cassowary » Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:58 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:23 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:22 am

I am familiar with this given my country's history. During the Malayan Emergency, democratic rights were curtailed to stsop the dastardly Socialists/Communists from taking over and creating another "killing field" like in Cambodia. The Internal Security Act was enacted by the then British colonial government and retained after Independence.
Casso, could you please explain something that puzzles me?

How did the Communists ever gain enough popular support among your own crowd to wage an insurgency war anyhow? I used to think that you Straits Chinese types were all oh so entrprenueral.
That's a good question. I can think of two reasons. First, in a capitalist system, there is bound to be inequality. Some will do well and prosper while others do not. It is those discontented who are susceptible to the blandishments of Socialism/Communism promising equality of wealth. Making things worse were bad employers who ill treated their employees. So the idea of their richer, abusive employers getting their comeuppance appeal to some. Yet this was not the whole story.

The second reason was that China was taken over by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). As in China, the overseas Chinese were then divided between anti-Coimmunists and the pro-Communists. CCP propaganda used and still use Chinese nationalism to win support. I know an old lady, now 88, who comes from a pro-Communist family. Her uncle was arrested by the LKY government for pro-Communist activities.

She remains pro-CCP even today. What does the phrase Chinese Communist Party mean to you? For me, the word Communist raises a red flag. It reminds me of the totalitarian regimes, the mass starvation under Mao, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and Stalin's Gulags. The word "Chinese" is an irrelavance to me. It does not matter if its the American Communist Party or the Malayan Communist Party or whatever. The word Communist conjures up bad images.

For her, the word, "Communist" is an irrelavance. She shows total ignorance of what Communism means or what it did in the past. Telling her that Mao caused the deaths of millions of Chinese as a result of trying to implement Socialism is totally unimportant to her. What matters to her is the word, "Chinese". She is passionately Chinese. She practices Qigong, takes Traditional Chinese Medicine and steeped in Confuscianism. To her, the CCP made China "stood up". In her mind, the humiliations of the Opium War at the hands of the British are still fresh in her mind. CCP propganada makes sure that people don't forget. The CCP is sending out its propaganda to people like her that the western powers still want to subjugate the Chinese people.

I once asked her if she considers herself a Singaporean Chinese or a Chinese Singaporean. She replied that she is a Singapore Chinese. I explained to her the difference between the two and she understood. For me, I am a Chinese Singaporean. This means that I am a Singaporean who happens to be of Chinese extraction. But she is a Chinese who happens to reside in Singapore.

Neverfail, I suppose I can ask you Australians the same. Are you British Australians or Australian British? In other words, are you Australians who happen to be of British descent or British who happens to reside in Australia?
The Imp :D

Post Reply