I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship and you're free to counteract with other arguments, leading us to dialog, on a public forum.
And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.
Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? That's the problem with using something as vague and over-encompassing as "freedom", it's only a step removed from "evil" in how vague it can be. Additionally, all freedoms are not created equal. Is my right to due process as important as my right to bear arms? Are some of my views on my rights colored by the culture I live in, or are they all universal?
I think China is lacking in some important rights, but I think being vague about them to the degree that we say they have "less freedom" only muddies the problem, and allows people to use the rights they do have as a counter-argument. Being clear that China's suppression of free speech allows them to shape discourse, suppress ideas they don't like, and propagandize their citizens easily makes the dangers clear. It does also open up the discussion for how the west attempts to accomplish the same things through the media, but that's not necessarily a bad thing have have brought up.
> Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China?
No, there's a fundamental difference between living in a country where you have recourse against the government and living in one where you don't.
In the US, I am not allowed to say things that are considered slanderous, but I am allowed to say that I should be allowed to say things that are slanderous. This makes it at least possible to change the status quo.
The same is not true in countries without free speech protections.
Considering the second part of my comment, I'm not sure how this is anything but a non sequitur. You start with "No", and then do exactly what I say you should, which is to explain in detail what the problem is, and not just resort to "not free" as your evidence.
My bad. It took me several re-reads of your comment to figure out that you were attacking the usage of the word "freedom" and not comparisons between freedoms in China and other countries.
Fair enough. If it took you several readings, then I probably wasn't very clear. At a minimum, our exchange might have clarified my intent for others who were unclear on my point, so I thank you for that.
The same is not true in countries without free speech protections.
I'm not convinced. I've seen plenty of (presumably) US citizens complain here that Europe doesn't have free speech, because we have laws to curb hate speech.
Still, we are very much free to discuss and organize against our government.
If you are allowed to criticize policy, you have a discrete and specific right that people in other parts of the world do not. My point was that saying "it's all relative" doesn't tell the whole story, though I'm beginning to see that that was probably kbenson's point as well.
> I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship
Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.
They (Chinese people) don't have the freedom to denounce US imperialism though, because that implies a choice - if they were equally able to rejoice and accept western values as they were to reject them (like you can in the USA incidentally), then your statement would be right.
I don't know that Snowden is a good example: he had to flee his country in a hurry. There is a great deal of uncertainty about whether he would have a fair trial in the US, a country where many are calling him a traitor.
It's easy for people to embrace the rhetoric that China is a bound society and the West is made of free societies. In reality, the shape of the bindings is different. A free society wouldn't have forced a man to flee because he knew he wouldn't find justice after revealing an uncomfortable political truth to the public that is oppressed by it. America's methods are different, but being a superpower and an empire demands supreme authority in key areas.
Well -- I think it's a bit more subtle than that. And maybe a bit more scary. While one would believe that there can be "dissidents" in the US w/o repression based on what one reads on the net -- e.g. the the "US" representing the "free world" yadda yadda ... -- the repressions and censorships are more subtle in general.
Also, one must not confuse the US with "the western world". I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. I also believe this is true for most other European countries.
My original point was that the statement:
> And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.
Is simply not true. Mentioned Mr. Snowden as an example -- but there are more, like the huge leak of the panama papers.
Well, it's true that somebody has done it. Those who've done it are either exiled, behind bars, facing suspiciously timed "unrelated" charges that could result in extradition, or anonymous. Not sure that invalidates the point the person you're quoting was making: that there is repression of dangerous ideas in the US.
I'm less familiar with Germany, but I'm willing to bet that while people in principle can say whatever they want (with some exceptions), there are other, less visible forms of repression and/or means of neutralizing those opinions. That they are less overt than in China doesn't mean they are not there.
> I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship.
Just don't say "The Nazis are great and I really wish they were back in power." That'll get you straight-up jailed under section 86a of Strafgesetzbuch, if I understand correctly. Everything else is on the table. ;)
Well -- apart from the fact that you probably wouldn't () -- one can always come up with something which is against "rules". Be it social rules, rules you made up in your head, law and so on. Rules are what it takes apparently to uphold a coherent society.
The question is what happens if you break the rules. Are there rules on how to handle individuals who break rules? Do the ones who have the power also have to follow the same rules? What about those wo make the rules? Do they have to follow the rules? How is the process of rule-making, rule-checking and punishing separated?
I'm pretty sure that in most european countries this is pretty OK -- yes there are gaps, holes, and sometimes just plain unjust or unfair processes.
I'm also pretty damn sure that for some countries this is way off. China is IMNSHO one of them.
() There are still people wandering about who say this and similar things who are not in jail. You much more likely would get in trouble if you call someone a "goat-fucker" (google erdogan and jan böhmermann).
no matter how i admire mr snowden, I didn't catch any news mentioning someone from US agencies/government being bought before judge because of his revelations. Did I miss something?
Are you suggesting that there is some sort of equivalence between people refusing to listen to your stuff, and getting sent to jail for your words/beliefs?
Just because people died, doesn't mean we have to honor them and keep hold of what they caused. That's the logic of Christianity. Most soldiers don't really die for any noble purpose, they just fight other soldiers and eventually somebody wins. Nobody knows if the winner will end up good or bad, free or oppressive. It doesn't matter if people got themselves killed because they happened to choose the winning side in a historic war. Those soldiers certainly didn't know what the consequences were going to be. They just followed their naive emotions and/or threats of violence from their governments.
Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam).
My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome.
As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership.
As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it.
More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die.
Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.
And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.