Whieduk Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Currently, there is a lot of action going on in Hong Kong. People are protesting because they say they want to be able to vote for who they want. Currently, Beijing says they will allow Hong Kong to vote between 3 different directly appointed possibilities and this has riled the people of Hong Kong. Since the 28th of September of 2014, there has been around 80 000 people camping out in the Admiralty government district and it has also spread to Mong Kok, which could be called the downtown area of Hong Kong. Now, I really appreciate the passion and the idealism of the protestors. What I want to know is, is it better to win this small battle, even though Government is immoral, or is it better to hold out for the main contest. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Choosing which hood ornament is on the car that runs you over isn't the same as choosing to not be run over. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NameName Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Admire the passion in these young guys, wish they had better direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerou Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 One step at a time. They've seen what communism has done to their parents and their kids will see what democrasy has done to their future I admire their fervor and think of it as a good retelling of tank man's story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Hong Kong has done as well as it has precisely because democratic elements are more limited there than in other countries around the world. The protestors are zombies begging to be enslaved more than they already are. Voting does not make one free. Democracy and freedom do not enhance each other, they are in fact strict opposites. If anything, many of these protestors want not freedom, but free stuff. In a free country, nobody should have the right to vote on what crimes can be committed in their name and against who. These protestors are not people you want to admire or emulate, to any degree. You should despise them instead, for they are devoting their time and energy to the purpose of further enslaving everybody in their country, and by ideology, also the rest of the world. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 One step at a time. They've seen what communism has done to their parents and their kids will see what democrasy has done to their future I admire their fervor and think of it as a good retelling of tank man's story. Except this isn't a step at all. Guessing the right answer has no long term benefits. You cannot get from where they are to what they claim to want and ALSO think that the ability to vote is righteous or justified. Meaning they're just trying SOMETHING instead of trying to understand the problem so they can actually address it instead of pretending to address the symptom. That's partially our fault. Most everybody has been indoctrinated to succumb to "authority" for the convenience of those who came before us. However, as philosophers, we understand that voting is the initiation of the use of force, that governments are predicated on immoral behaviors, that nations do not exist, etc. Their lack of understanding and precision is due in part because we haven't done enough to help those still trapped in these mental cages to understand and escape. Not trying to pick on you specifically. Their dedication is impressive and that's a common takeaway for sure. But saying, "good for them," helps us to sit on our laurels as if we've done enough. Much better for them, ourselves, our children, and indeed mankind in general is to focus on whether or not people have the right to rule over others (a logically inconsistent position) and if we need violence to solve ANY problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerou Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Except this isn't a step at all. Guessing the right answer has no long term benefits. You cannot get from where they are to what they claim to want and ALSO think that the ability to vote is righteous or justified. Meaning they're just trying SOMETHING instead of trying to understand the problem so they can actually address it instead of pretending to address the symptom. That's partially our fault. Most everybody has been indoctrinated to succumb to "authority" for the convenience of those who came before us. However, as philosophers, we understand that voting is the initiation of the use of force, that governments are predicated on immoral behaviors, that nations do not exist, etc. Their lack of understanding and precision is due in part because we haven't done enough to help those still trapped in these mental cages to understand and escape. Not trying to pick on you specifically. Their dedication is impressive and that's a common takeaway for sure. But saying, "good for them," helps us to sit on our laurels as if we've done enough. Much better for them, ourselves, our children, and indeed mankind in general is to focus on whether or not people have the right to rule over others (a logically inconsistent position) and if we need violence to solve ANY problem. Of course, total dissolvement would be idea, but I wouldn't expect them to have that sort of knowledge of philosophical mind as of now. Like you said, they (and everyone in the west) have been indoctrnated from a very early age to obey the benevolent hand of the government. What I meant by my comment was that, a step forward is better than a step back. At least with partial democracy they have a fighting chance as opposed to their current government 'head ornament', as someone had put it. Historically, the Chinese people have had a strong streak of anti-governance and individualism. The most prevelent philosophy of the east before Confucionism was that of Laozi who mostly advocated for no government, individualism and strong anti-war sentiments. We here on FDR can look at this, scoff and say that they're just exchanging shackles. Which to an extent they are, but realistically you can't expect them to even understand that they have shackles given how they have been raised. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What I meant by my comment was that, a step forward is better than a step back. At least with partial democracy they have a fighting chance as opposed to their current government 'head ornament', as someone had put it. A fighting chance? A fighting chance for slavery and statism. Democracy is the worst possible system of government, and increasing it will only bring further pain, suffering and chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Democracy is the worst possible system of government, and increasing it will only bring further pain, suffering and chaos. Any empirical evidence for that? In a prioristic theory monarchy works fine. In reality, you have crazy degenerated kings coming from generations of incest, leading 'their' country into despair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bipedal Primate Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I currently live in Beijing and we can longer view anything on TV covering the Hong Kong protests. Every time CNN starts a Hong Kong update the channel goes black. The internet is super slow right now too. ugh. If these protests result with more freedom of press/speech then I will be pleased because censorship sucks. a bit off topic: [ I lived in Hong Kong for 7 years, and thought it was strange when a poster above described Mong Kok as a downtown area of Hong Kong. I've always thought of Central and/or TST as the "downtown" of Hong Kong. But to each his own :-) ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Any empirical evidence for that? Yes, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Democracy--The-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765808684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412247673&sr=8-1&keywords=democracy%2C+the+god+that+failed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Any empirical evidence for that? In order to determine better/worse, you'd have to define criteria/ideal. I'd argue democracy is worst for 2 reasons: Ignoring scale, why is taxation worse than theft? Because it is perceived to be legitimate. You can never be healthy if you view a cancerous growth as a provider of happiness. Democracy is the only system of ruling that I know of that is co-operative. I don't mean in a rational choice way as choice is not possible where coercion is present. However, the perceived legitimacy masks the coercion in the perceptions of most of its victims and indeed the world's population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I read Hoppe (all his books in fact). It is telling that he does not provide historical examples for his thesis. Instead, he constructs an alternate history a priori. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amaranth Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 A fighting chance? A fighting chance for slavery and statism. Democracy is the worst possible system of government, and increasing it will only bring further pain, suffering and chaos. Agreed. What will it bring to Hong Kong or the PRC at large that they don't already have? We imprison more than the Chinese Communist Party in this supposedly great republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I read Hoppe (all his books in fact). It is telling that he does not provide historical examples for his thesis. Instead, he constructs an alternate history a priori. No, he provides countless historical examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Historically, the Chinese people have had a strong streak of anti-governance and individualism. The most prevelent philosophy of the east before Confucionism was that of Laozi who mostly advocated for no government, individualism and strong anti-war sentiments. We here on FDR can look at this, scoff and say that they're just exchanging shackles. Which to an extent they are, but realistically you can't expect them to even understand that they have shackles given how they have been raised. Your assertion may have relevance in ancient Chinese history, but I don't think it applies to recent history. Of the Chinese people I've had the pleasure of meeting, they typically have embraced family traditions of honoring mother and father, past relatives, and the familial hierarchy. This is the foundation for the general acceptance of a totalitarian government in China. The Chinese living in Hong Kong have a lingering memory of non-Communism under the 99 year lease as a British colony, which reverted back to the PRC in 1997. There has been a strong movement for democracy in Hong Kong ever since the Tiananmen Student Protests of 1989. In the spirit of the season, I am parting with my People's Liberation Army coat, which will make a great Halloween costume, especially considering the current Hong Kong protests. I lost the matching cap, unfortunately, but there are a lot of knock offs for sale online. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-People-039-s-Liberation-Army-Winter-Coat-People-039-s-Republic-of-China-1990s-/261614334812? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whieduk Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 a bit off topic: [ I lived in Hong Kong for 7 years, and thought it was strange when a poster above described Mong Kok as a downtown area of Hong Kong. I've always thought of Central and/or TST as the "downtown" of Hong Kong. But to each his own :-) ] Yah, I consider Mong Kok to be more downtown-ish because of it's location geographically compared to the major roads and the rest of Hong Kong but there is no official downtown that I'm aware of. In regards to the topic at hand, the protests are continuing and there are provocateurs and accusations of the mafia getting involved. It's constant updates every second on most channels here. I'm not sure how many days this can go on for. The other angle that isn't being discussed much is the fact that many people have businesses in those areas completely closed down during all of this. So these owners are complaining and getting into minor altercations. I was watching a video and a woman even said that the protestors were all students taking their tax money that she "gave." I just had to laugh... It was taken from you, not given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Takacs Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 To think that any society can embrace and implement the truth at the state is an immoral institution of violence without manly long and costly steps is illogical. It is the equivalent of thinking you can convince a person the medication they have been taking all there life is not only not helping but slowly killing them and then expecting them to stop taking it cold turkey and thinking they won't have a massive withdraw. Humanity has been addicted to the narcotic of violence for a very long time now society is sick. The treatment of logic, activism and peaceful parenting will take a long time and have manly steps forward and set backs. Steps in the right direction are critical. We all know that the founding of the united states was an immoral act. It was people violently enforcing there will on others. However can we not say that it isn't better in comparison to communist china where in this century alone there government family planing board boasts it has preformed over 400 million forced abortions? One is obviously better then the other. The problem is that society gets comfortable in the prosperity that added freedom creates and losses sight of truth. It is philosophies job to keep society moving forward in pursuit of ultimate truth. It's not the peoples fault. It's easy to forget the dangers of the wolf when you no longer see him in your life nor hear his howl in the night. Just as it is easy for a patient to mistake a absence of the symptoms to mean the illness is cured. Just as a good doctor knows better so does a good philosopher. Just as doctors its is every philosophers moral duty to promote any societies movements towards the light of truth and to then not allow it to stop until ultimate truth is achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 We all know that the founding of the united states was an immoral act. It was people violently enforcing there will on others. However can we not say that it isn't better in comparison to communist china where in this century alone there government family planing board boasts it has preformed over 400 million forced abortions? Aborting fetuses does not compare to initiating the use of force against people. I hope you'll check out the discussion found here. Whether or not unprincipled "steps" are steps at all is logically discussed there. You mention the unseen wolf and illness, so is the act that is believed to be moving forward that isn't actually moving at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Takacs Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 When you force the mother whom does not want to have the abortion to have one it is. If these mothers wanted to have an abortion (which is there right to do with there body as they see fit) the state wouldn't have dragged them away at gun point and sexually assaulted them to end a pregnancy they wanted. By the logic you present no one in prison is a victim of state violence either. The gun to there head had no baring on them choosing to go to prison. I think that peaceful parenting is the sing most important thing we can do to end the state. It will make the soil of the human mind poison to the idea of the state. However to think that it is the only action needed to put an end to the state is like planting a seed walking away and expecting a garden. If nothing is done in the present to stop and reverse the growth of the state the only thing the peaceful children of the future will get to do is fill a shallow grave. They will be seen as the heretics of the religion of the state that vast majority of people and will be treated like all other heretics of the past. We must start cutting away the limes of the state all the way down to the roots. Only then will are children be able to live in our world unmolested and start changing the very soil of society so that the homicidal flower of the state may never grow again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 By the logic you present no one in prison is a victim of state violence either. "the logic I present" is that doing something to a fetus is not the same as doing something to a person. How do you get from that to people in prison are not victims of violence in the name of the State? It was helpful for you to clarify that you were focusing on the force initiated upon the mothers not the fetuses. (Though that does raise the question that if you were trying to focus on the initiation of the use of force, why bother with just forced abortion or just China, or use just the creation of the US for comparison?) However, it's not helpful (and in fact insulting) to put words into other people's mouths. I've noticed that you like to use metaphors and talk about peaceful parenting as not being enough. Since we're talking about the language of aggression, the metaphor that best fits is that of a foreign language. It's as if you're saying that if you don't want people to speak French, then not exposing them to French is not enough, which is demonstrably false. Not exposing the next generation to aggression would in time eradicate aggression. If that is the goal, then perhaps it would be useful to deal with those who already speak aggression today. I would agree with that, but that's not what you're communicating. In this thread, you're referring to choosing being aggressed against as a step towards people not being aggressed against, which is demonstrably false. Accepting that people are not fundamentally different and therefore cannot have greater claim over others than they have over themselves is a step. It reveals that old method and new method are both immoral, and therefore the act of choosing it to be inflicted onto others (voting) is also immoral. It's something you can do today that does not involve peaceful parenting alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Takacs Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 And how do you propose keeping them from being exposed to French when its the language of the state and is forced on them at every turn in an Orwellian nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 How do you get from that to people in prison are not victims of violence in the name of the State? You made a wild accusation, I sought clarity, you changed the subject. Sorry, but I only spend my time on people interested in the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I agree with the point dsayers made about voting for the hood ornament vs. choosing not to be run over; Does this include the nomad capitalist/flag theory concept of "going where you're treated best"? This is also related to "voting with your feet" (the term "voting" may be incorrectly used in this phrase?) so that the world's talent and wealth will leave more oppressive countries and settle where there is more freedom; when another country can provide even more freedom, then the wealth and talent of the world will likewise move again. This cycle is a theoretical (and possibly false/incomplete) way to bring about a stateless society since the progressive competition will lead to the freest country becoming the one that dissolves any remnant of violent rule and therefore the best place to attract the world's wealth and talent. All that said, peaceful parenting seems to be an even more direct root to a nonviolent country (maybe the two methods can be used concurrently?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whieduk Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 People are still voting with their feet or however you want to put it. There are thousands of people from China immigrating to Hong Kong still even with all the turmoil. That tells me that people still think Hong Kong is better than mainland China. In regards to peaceful parenting, China and Hong Kong are years behind compared to places like Sweden or Canada so it may take many more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efioptv Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Since i found this thread, might as well continue on here. Recant facebook posts has shown that the protesters are supporting the use of violence which is truly disturbing to me. Why would they initiate violence when they know it will has an opposite affect of what they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Since i found this thread, might as well continue on here. Recant facebook posts has shown that the protesters are supporting the use of violence which is truly disturbing to me. Why would they initiate violence when they know it will has an opposite affect of what they want? Be aware that any protest movement that lasts longer than a few hours has likely been co-opted or prompted by organized interests. In this case there is some indication that the Hong Kong protests were instigated by none other than the US State Department. Go to nashownotes.com and search for "Hong Kong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efioptv Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Be aware that any protest movement that lasts longer than a few hours has likely been co-opted or prompted by organized interests. In this case there is some indication that the Hong Kong protests were instigated by none other than the US State Department. Go to nashownotes.com and search for "Hong Kong". ya there were news about the leader of the protest had contact with the US government. It feels like Ukraine, but with much less violence. people are being called traitor when pointing out how extreme they are on hating the police, which has shifted the focus onto hating each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootoo Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 No, he provides countless historical examples. That settles it then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geneloper Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 The Hong Kong protests will be in vain, but at least they didn't just stand by and give silent consent. Nobody expects anything to change, but they had to try - HK really did think that the PLA was going to come down here and impose martial law. If anything, the lasting impact is huge. It's been a great platform for getting to know like-minded freedom lovers, even if they have other ideas about how to achieve it. People are realizing that police are agents of the state, and that government is based on violence. Democracy is really besides the point now - they just reject being lorded-over, being spied on, housing prices being jacked up... just like everyone else here. It's not a psy-op, the problems are very real. This is an entire Facebook-generation awakened to the possibility of having no state, and as Occupy comes to an end, they are looking for solutions. We have lots of solutions here on FreeDomainRadio, so this is where I'm directing them to! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whieduk Posted December 6, 2014 Author Share Posted December 6, 2014 The government has successfully gotten rid of the base camp at Mong Kok but are still having problems at Admiralty. I think that apathy is setting in for most of Hong Kong as the daily life of people there are not really being affected. Although a lot of people are awakening to a lot of problems... They still don't understand the root of the problem. I had someone say to me that the police are not supposed to use the weapons on the students, even though, he astutely recognized that the weapons were given to the police by the people in the first place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geneloper Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Today is the end of Occupy Central as it has been for 72+ days. Instead of violent and pointless confrontation with police, Occupy will stand peacefully until the end. It will take far longer than HK's occupiers previously thought. Nobody's giving up. It takes far more self-control to be non-violent than to go with the urge and fight aggression. Instead, Occupy realizes that the only way to keep pushing for freedom is through community service and engagement in the housing estates and communities. To watch it LIVE (11 DEC 2014) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efioptv Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Today is the end of Occupy Central as it has been for 72+ days. Instead of violent and pointless confrontation with police, Occupy will stand peacefully until the end. It will take far longer than HK's occupiers previously thought. Nobody's giving up. It takes far more self-control to be non-violent than to go with the urge and fight aggression. Instead, Occupy realizes that the only way to keep pushing for freedom is through community service and engagement in the housing estates and communities. To watch it LIVE (11 DEC 2014) I really hope everyone knows violence doesn't solve problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AynRand Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I really hope everyone knows violence doesn't solve problems. I wish the government's around the world understood that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts