[Correction Update: Grayzone and others have presented evidence that the story of the Ughurs is greatly misrepresented in western media. There is not a million people incarcerated because of religious persecution. It is more like a small group of hardened violent separatists who are in re-education. I will update this essay when I have digested this evidence which is new to me.]
https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/what-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-campaign-against-uighur-muslims/
I could point out many parallels in the US, starting with the locking up of over a million non-violent drug users--people who have not caused harm except, by their own preference, and possibly in less degree than many other legal things, to themselves. By principles I subscribe to, such behavior should not be made criminal. But "Illegal Drug Use" is a forbidden religion in the USA.
Some things about the Chinese re-education of Ulghurs might make more sense than the War on Drugs in the USA and other countries--which makes no sense.
Both phenomenon, however, fundamentally result from illiberalism. Nowadays, it seems even antiwar opinionators are apt to cite the (desireable) end of liberalism in this same sense, but as a virtue. This has especially caught on among some anti-Imperial tendencies, and is wrong if the context is civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and so on, as already well stated by international human rights declarations that many countries have agreed to on paper.
If the context is "economic" liberties, then yes, such liberties should in many cases be restricted or not exist. I don't actually recognize the existence of "economic" liberties. As far as I'm concerned, there is no inherent right for citizens to move wealth from one country to another, or do business with or in other countries, or have patents or copyrights universally respected, and so on. Countries may centrally determine such things collectively for the benefit of all their citizens, and then citizens are obliged to follow those rules, avoiding certain kinds of transactions, or paying certain kinds of taxes.
I'm also totally opposed to violence because of higher prices, higher taxes, or even lower pay. Demonstrations may be warranted but not violence.
Now back to Civil Liberties.
it's true, a state has an actual responsibility to promote true civic virtue. But this needs be promoted through love and opportunity, not oppression. Taking the opposite approach creates a Police State, as is now playing in the USA and China and most other places.
An example of love would be free anonymous drug treatment. Of course the solution to most drugs is to regulate and tax them, and also provide anonymous free treatment for those that want it.
Examples of opportunity are: free education, guaranteed jobs, national healthcare.
We could begin on this project right away by electing Bernie Sanders.
https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/what-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-campaign-against-uighur-muslims/
I could point out many parallels in the US, starting with the locking up of over a million non-violent drug users--people who have not caused harm except, by their own preference, and possibly in less degree than many other legal things, to themselves. By principles I subscribe to, such behavior should not be made criminal. But "Illegal Drug Use" is a forbidden religion in the USA.
Some things about the Chinese re-education of Ulghurs might make more sense than the War on Drugs in the USA and other countries--which makes no sense.
Both phenomenon, however, fundamentally result from illiberalism. Nowadays, it seems even antiwar opinionators are apt to cite the (desireable) end of liberalism in this same sense, but as a virtue. This has especially caught on among some anti-Imperial tendencies, and is wrong if the context is civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and so on, as already well stated by international human rights declarations that many countries have agreed to on paper.
If the context is "economic" liberties, then yes, such liberties should in many cases be restricted or not exist. I don't actually recognize the existence of "economic" liberties. As far as I'm concerned, there is no inherent right for citizens to move wealth from one country to another, or do business with or in other countries, or have patents or copyrights universally respected, and so on. Countries may centrally determine such things collectively for the benefit of all their citizens, and then citizens are obliged to follow those rules, avoiding certain kinds of transactions, or paying certain kinds of taxes.
I'm also totally opposed to violence because of higher prices, higher taxes, or even lower pay. Demonstrations may be warranted but not violence.
Now back to Civil Liberties.
it's true, a state has an actual responsibility to promote true civic virtue. But this needs be promoted through love and opportunity, not oppression. Taking the opposite approach creates a Police State, as is now playing in the USA and China and most other places.
An example of love would be free anonymous drug treatment. Of course the solution to most drugs is to regulate and tax them, and also provide anonymous free treatment for those that want it.
Examples of opportunity are: free education, guaranteed jobs, national healthcare.
We could begin on this project right away by electing Bernie Sanders.
No comments:
Post a Comment