Hong Kong

[Purgatio]

When an airport is forcibly shut down with violence, I'm pretty sure innocent bystanders are injured and inconvenienced by that action. Unless you are suggesting people who book flights in and out of one of Asia's busiest financial hubs are "virtually non-existent", "phantom bystanders". Get real, man.

I'm going to get real by telling you that just because some protesters are assholes does not mean tanks should be sent in. A small group of inconvenienced travelers do not have a higher value than the HK people. Hell, pro-democracy protesters get roughed up even more by CCP thugs.

Also, there's more to liberty than how intact a piece of property is.

Liberty includes self-determination and the ability to be an owner of property, to acquire and purchase and buy things for your own benefit and enjoy the peaceful possession of that property, without having to worry about the State or other private person coercively dispossessing you of something you've earned and bought. Vandalism threatens that stability and security of property ownership, on which liberty itself depends.

So when you say "there's more to liberty than how intact a piece of property is", I say, "that's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms".

[Purgatio]

Because individual rights matter too, not just whatever the majority one. Btw I've never been one of those who suggested the Hong Kong rioters are some tiny minority that the silent majority despises, my position has always been the majority of Hong Kongers support the mass mob violence taking place and that's what disturbs me so much about the situation in HK, that so many of its people have no respect for Law and Order they are willing to tolerate the untrammeled infliction of violence in a state of anarchy and lawlessness, is extremely troubling and a huge cause for concern.

Have you brought up how you think the PLA should enter Hong Kong so your family's bank account will make you richer yet?

When is this ridiculous talking point gonna die, I wonder?

[Pasong Tirad]

Have you brought up how you think the PLA should enter Hong Kong so your family's bank account will make you richer yet?

When is this ridiculous talking point gonna die, I wonder?

When you stop shilling for it, probably.

[Purgatio]

Because individual rights matter too, not just whatever the majority one. Btw I've never been one of those who suggested the Hong Kong rioters are some tiny minority that the silent majority despises, my position has always been the majority of Hong Kongers support the mass mob violence taking place and that's what disturbs me so much about the situation in HK, that so many of its people have no respect for Law and Order they are willing to tolerate the untrammeled infliction of violence in a state of anarchy and lawlessness, is extremely troubling and a huge cause for concern.

Yet HK is generally peaceful with among the lowest crime rates in the world. The relationship with police was high. So you have to question what it takes for a majority of people to accept a degree of violence, because it's clearly something very real and very valuable that's being lost, HK is home like no other and I don't think people who don't live here factor that in.

If your home was repossessed by an outside bully who started to change the way you live, your home.. your family.. I suspect you'd get very angry as well, especially given no other channel to vent your displeasure.

Oh I factor that in, I feel badly for the minority of Hong Kongers who don't support the rioters (and yes, I admit its a minority, no 'silent majority' nonsense from me) and have to put up with the property damage and having to fear for their safety on public streets, having to put up with protestors blocking their way from entering trains or barricading public roads which should be open to all. They should not have to put up with these indignities because so many people in Hong Kong have no problem trashing their own city and making life a living hell for everyone else who just wants to get to work and school and do whats right for themselves and their family.

The only "outside bully" I see are the ones making public spaces an unsafe nightmare by thinking they have the right to barricade roads, shut down airports, smash windows, and throw glass bottles, rocks, and Molotov cocktails into the open air, endangering everyone. That is how a bully behaves, Bombadil. A selfish person with no regard to the safety and welfare of anyone but himself. And I imagine the minority (again, minority) of Hong Kongers who have to put up with these bullies making public spaces inaccessible to all are getting angry about it too, unfortunately they can't do anything about it, not without endangering themselves. Thats the real tragedy of the rioters and their actions.

[Purgatio]

When is this ridiculous talking point gonna die, I wonder?

When you stop shilling for it, probably.

You know "shilling" by definition means I'm getting paid by a third party, right? If the argument is I'm arguing out of financial self-interest because of family wealth at stake, then by definition I can't be "shilling" because I'm not being paid by any third party.

[Genivaria]

Have you brought up how you think the PLA should enter Hong Kong so your family's bank account will make you richer yet?

When is this ridiculous talking point gonna die, I wonder?

When you stop shilling for corporate oligarchy probably.

[Genivaria]

When you stop shilling for it, probably.

You know "shilling" by definition means I'm getting paid by a third party, right? If the argument is I'm arguing out of financial self-interest because of family wealth at stake, then by definition I can't be "shilling" because I'm not being paid by any third party.

It's hilarious that the point you try to refute is to split hairs over 'shill'. lol

[Purgatio]

When is this ridiculous talking point gonna die, I wonder?

When you stop shilling for corporate oligarchy probably.

Again, not sure you quite understand the definition of the word "shilling". Might wanna check a dictionary quickly, perhaps?

[Purgatio]

You know "shilling" by definition means I'm getting paid by a third party, right? If the argument is I'm arguing out of financial self-interest because of family wealth at stake, then by definition I can't be "shilling" because I'm not being paid by any third party.

It's hilarious that the point you try to refute is to split hairs over 'shill'. lol

If you're wrong, you're wrong.

[Plzen]

Thankfully, there is a way to keep the hooligans of the world who have no respect for morality or reciprocity, in check - law enforcement. The police exist to lay down the law by force, to give everyone assurance that their property rights will be respected. If our society rested on voluntary respect for the law, we would be doomed because people with your selfish morality would be ruling the streets by violence and mob rule. Thankfully, we don't live in that society. We live in a society where you can be a good person voluntarily and obey the rules and not hurt people - or, you can be an asshole and hurt people and try and steal their stuff, and go to jail.

And that, essentially, is the foundation of authoritarianism. Governance not by the reform of society into something that most people can tolerate, but the enforcement of the current model of society, regardless of how distasteful it is nor how many people find it objectionable, by the force of violence.

There's nothing materially real about "principles." Principles cannot be discovered in an objective, scientific manner. Principles, rather, are applied by human minds on human minds for the benefit of human minds. When, therefore, millions of human beings collectively decide that the principles of their society is not to their benefit, then that's a pretty clear sign to me that something is fundamentally wrong with the principles on which that society is run.

[Samadhi]

The state is a corporation.

A non stock non profit corporation though.
So it works quite differently than a for profit stock based one.

Yes it's inefficient, innefective and litteraly kills people.

[Purgatio]

Thankfully, there is a way to keep the hooligans of the world who have no respect for morality or reciprocity, in check - law enforcement. The police exist to lay down the law by force, to give everyone assurance that their property rights will be respected. If our society rested on voluntary respect for the law, we would be doomed because people with your selfish morality would be ruling the streets by violence and mob rule. Thankfully, we don't live in that society. We live in a society where you can be a good person voluntarily and obey the rules and not hurt people - or, you can be an asshole and hurt people and try and steal their stuff, and go to jail.

And that, essentially, is the foundation of authoritarianism. Governance not by the reform of society into something that most people can tolerate, but the enforcement of the current model of society, regardless of how distasteful it is nor how many people find it objectionable, by the force of violence.

There's nothing materially real about "principles." Principles cannot be discovered in an objective, scientific manner. Principles, rather, are applied by human minds on human minds for the benefit of human minds. When, therefore, millions of human minds collectively decide that the principles of their society is not to their benefit, then that's a pretty clear sign to me that something is fundamentally wrong with the principles on which that society is run.

You basically threatened to hurt and injure people with pitchforks and steal their shit, you can hardly complain about 'authoritarianism' when a police officer tries to prevent you from doing that. Unless you have such a bizarre and twisted moral worldview you are convinced killing people or stabbing them with a pitchfork for fun is no longer a bad thing. But yes, I suppose our 'anti-assault' laws and 'anti-theft' laws are "authoritarian".

[Genivaria]

It's hilarious that the point you try to refute is to split hairs over 'shill'. lol

If you're wrong, you're wrong.

Would you prefer...lapdog? Stooge? Lackey? Minion?

[Genivaria]

A non stock non profit corporation though.
So it works quite differently than a for profit stock based one.

Yes it's inefficient, innefective and litteraly kills people.

What simplistic nonsense.

[Purgatio]

If you're wrong, you're wrong.

Would you prefer...lapdog? Stooge? Lackey? Minion?

I prefer advocate, champion, exponent, everyone deserves an advocate and there are very few people on NSG willing to orally advocate for the interests of the wealthy and their children, so someone has to step in and be that voice

[Plzen]

You basically threatened to hurt and injure people with pitchforks and steal their shit, you can hardly complain about 'authoritarianism' when a police officer tries to prevent you from doing that. Unless you have such a bizarre and twisted moral worldview you are convinced killing people or stabbing them with a pitchfork for fun is no longer a bad thing. But yes, I suppose our 'anti-assault' laws and 'anti-theft' laws are "authoritarian".

Here's the thing, though. A majority of people in Hong Kong feel that what the protesters are doing is right, or at least less wrong than what the police are doing. You are asserting that these people must be wrong, because your principles are more valid than theirs, because of... what, exactly?

I hold a slightly different stance. Because moral principles cannot be objectively and scientifically investigated, the only evidence for the validity of principles is the agreement of the people who create and enforce them. If people don't agree with a principle, the principle is wrong, end of story. "Property rights," or any other right, exists only to the extent that people enforce them, and are valid only to the extent that people agree on them.

[Purgatio]

You basically threatened to hurt and injure people with pitchforks and steal their shit, you can hardly complain about 'authoritarianism' when a police officer tries to prevent you from doing that. Unless you have such a bizarre and twisted moral worldview you are convinced killing people or stabbing them with a pitchfork for fun is no longer a bad thing. But yes, I suppose our 'anti-assault' laws and 'anti-theft' laws are "authoritarian".

Here's the thing, though. A majority of people in Hong Kong feel that what the protesters are doing is right, or at least less wrong than what the police are doing. You are asserting that these people must be wrong, because your principles are more valid than theirs, because reasons.

I hold a slightly different stance. Because moral principles cannot be objectively and scientifically investigated, the only evidence for the validity of principles is the agreement of the people who create and enforce them. If people don't agree with a principle, the principle is wrong, end of story.

Thats a very, very, very dangerous attitude to have. People in America were perfectly fine with FDR interning thousands of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps based on their race, he remained one of the most popular American Presidents after such actions - by your logic, that means the internment was fine because people didn't object. Your point of view is far more dangerous than mine because it is open-ended populism, if people generally support X then X must be right by definition, no objectively moral right or wrong involved. If the Hutus in Rwanda participate in mass genocide of the Tutsis together, then the genocide is okay. It's actually scary if not deeply repugnant and reprehensible how you see the world.

[Plzen]

Thats a very, very, very dangerous attitude to have. People in America were perfectly fine with FDR interning thousands of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps based on their race, he remained one of the most popular American Presidents after such actions - by your logic, that means the internment was fine because people didn't object. Your point of view is far more dangerous than mine because it is open-ended populism, if people generally support X then X must be right by definition, no objectively moral right or wrong involved. If the Hutus in Rwanda participate in mass genocide of the Tutsis together, then the genocide is okay. It's actually scary if not deeply repugnant and reprehensible how you see the world.

If you can provide an objective demonstration for the validity of your principles, you are welcome to do so.

[Genivaria]

Would you prefer...lapdog? Stooge? Lackey? Minion?

I prefer advocate, champion, exponent, everyone deserves an advocate and there are very few people on NSG willing to orally advocate for the interests of the wealthy and their children, so someone has to step in and be that voice

Very well, you are an 'advocate' of stripping the non-rich of their rights while the rich have over overwhelming representation.
Much better.

[Purgatio]

Thats a very, very, very dangerous attitude to have. People in America were perfectly fine with FDR interning thousands of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps based on their race, he remained one of the most popular American Presidents after such actions - by your logic, that means the internment was fine because people didn't object. Your point of view is far more dangerous than mine because it is open-ended populism, if people generally support X then X must be right by definition, no objectively moral right or wrong involved. If the Hutus in Rwanda participate in mass genocide of the Tutsis together, then the genocide is okay. It's actually scary if not deeply repugnant and reprehensible how you see the world.

If you can provide an objective demonstration for the validity of your principles, you are welcome to do so.

I really don't need to, you've just admitted you think the Rwandan Genocide was fine because the majority of Hutus participated. If you can't even accept or agree genocide is objectively morally-wrong, there's really no need for us to debate.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm going to get real by telling you that just because some protesters are assholes does not mean tanks should be sent in. A small group of inconvenienced travelers do not have a higher value than the HK people. Hell, pro-democracy protesters get roughed up even more by CCP thugs.

Also, there's more to liberty than how intact a piece of property is.

Liberty includes self-determination and the ability to be an owner of property, to acquire and purchase and buy things for your own benefit and enjoy the peaceful possession of that property, without having to worry about the State or other private person coercively dispossessing you of something you've earned and bought. Vandalism threatens that stability and security of property ownership, on which liberty itself depends.

So when you say "there's more to liberty than how intact a piece of property is", I say, "that's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms".

Yea, only when that is the only type of liberty you care about. I don't even think you really are that bothered by the damage, you are just a totalitarian who wants to shill for dictatorships, and vandalism is just the excuse you think you'll need to use deadly force. Your totalitarianism was made clear by your support for the terrible bill that caused this in the first place.

[Heloin]

Have you brought up how you think the PLA should enter Hong Kong so your family's bank account will make you richer yet?

When is this ridiculous talking point gonna die, I wonder?

No reason to argue against most of the points you bring up since they're often just false, so better to bring up the sole reason you want the people of Hong Kong crushed under the boot of Beijing.

[Propheticum]

Here's the thing, though. A majority of people in Hong Kong feel that what the protesters are doing is right, or at least less wrong than what the police are doing. You are asserting that these people must be wrong, because your principles are more valid than theirs, because reasons.

I hold a slightly different stance. Because moral principles cannot be objectively and scientifically investigated, the only evidence for the validity of principles is the agreement of the people who create and enforce them. If people don't agree with a principle, the principle is wrong, end of story.

Thats a very, very, very dangerous attitude to have. People in America were perfectly fine with FDR interning thousands of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps based on their race, he remained one of the most popular American Presidents after such actions - by your logic, that means the internment was fine because people didn't object. Your point of view is far more dangerous than mine because it is open-ended populism, if people generally support X then X must be right by definition, no objectively moral right or wrong involved. If the Hutus in Rwanda participate in mass genocide of the Tutsis together, then the genocide is okay. It's actually scary if not deeply repugnant and reprehensible how you see the world.

Man, you have perfectly reasonable concerns, but to suggest that people *must* allow the law to be enforced no matter how batshit insane or self-serving that law is, is simply a gateway to the death of liberty.

[Purgatio]

Liberty includes self-determination and the ability to be an owner of property, to acquire and purchase and buy things for your own benefit and enjoy the peaceful possession of that property, without having to worry about the State or other private person coercively dispossessing you of something you've earned and bought. Vandalism threatens that stability and security of property ownership, on which liberty itself depends.

So when you say "there's more to liberty than how intact a piece of property is", I say, "that's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms".

Yea, only when that is the only type of liberty you care about. I don't even think you really are that bothered by the damage, you are just a totalitarian who wants to shill for dictatorships, and vandalism is just the excuse you think you'll need to use deadly force. Your totalitarianism was made clear by your support for the terrible bill that caused this in the first place.

You're putting words in my mouth, I don't support anything a State does and totalitarianism by definition means supporting absolute power in the State. I disagree with that proposition. I wouldn't support high taxes, especially wealth taxes. I also don't support nationalisation or taking property without compensation. I also don't support weak property rights laws - for example, China has famously weak intellectual property protections. I disagree with that, I think China needs to bolster its IP protections. If I really am a 'totalitarian', I wouldn't hold these positions, I would say whatever the State does must be correct.

[Purgatio]

Thats a very, very, very dangerous attitude to have. People in America were perfectly fine with FDR interning thousands of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps based on their race, he remained one of the most popular American Presidents after such actions - by your logic, that means the internment was fine because people didn't object. Your point of view is far more dangerous than mine because it is open-ended populism, if people generally support X then X must be right by definition, no objectively moral right or wrong involved. If the Hutus in Rwanda participate in mass genocide of the Tutsis together, then the genocide is okay. It's actually scary if not deeply repugnant and reprehensible how you see the world.

Man, you have perfectly reasonable concerns, but to suggest that people *must* allow the law to be enforced no matter how batshit insane or self-serving that law is, is simply a gateway to the death of liberty.

But I don't take that position. I don't think the law must always be enforced regardless of whether the law is morally right or not. But "don't assault people with rocks, glass bottles and Molotov cocktails" is a morally-justifiable law. "Don't harass commuters on MTR stations" is a good law. "Don't barricade public roads and obstruct normal people from using them because you feel like it" is a good law. "Don't steal and vandalise" is a good law. Now, if we were talking about immoral laws that the people of Hong Kong were breaking, I'd feel differently. For example, many countries have sodomy laws - I think that's stupid. If someone breaks sodomy laws, I have no problem with that because I think such a law is morally unjustifiable. But the HK rioters break morally-defensible laws - don't vandalise and don't break windows are very much justifiable laws.