What's funny is that people worried about pollution are afraid of Peak Oil... If they truly believe in alternative technologies they should hope for it.
No, the government (theoretically, us) has decided to give its hard-earned productivity coupons away to others in trade for them not stealing to eat, etc.
I think you're wrong about money - it doesn't standardize prices. Who'd buy a shovel if they couldn't resell it for more? You'd have to go to the factory to buy a shovel, not the hardware store. Not that you meant that precisely, but that's what standardizing prices would be.
Money increases liquidity. You can sell your chicken to one guy and buy a shovel from some other guy, even in a different order if you have a float. That chicken would never be swappable for a shovel on another continent, but money easily is.
Liquidity brings choices - no captive markets. You don't have to hope the guy with the shovel likes chicken, you can sell it to someone who does. That does keep prices more consistent...
"Having a mass of uneducated people... they're less productive and more prone to becoming criminals..." Yet more unsupported assertions. Your common sense might make you believe such, but that is not evidence. You know full well that it's true. Otherwise the smart money would be to put your kid in a textile mill at seven.
It is not the responsibility for the government to take care of everyone's kids. To prevent a violent and disenfranchised lower class from arising you've got to prevent parents from abandoning their children, or (better) run good orphanages.
You can't have wild children any more than you can have wild dogs - and you can't shoot the children once they go wild, so you have to prevent the problem.
It's not that we're doing the deadbeat, probably crack-addicted, parents or their children a favor - this is simply the cheapest way to keep the streets safe and society productive.
Partly, but the best law is "dump it and you pay for it". You don't need special laws against each type of waste, etc.
Maybe if it was more like cars - the government won't let you on the road unless you agree to pay for your accidents. Similarly, we should require people to purchase pollution insurance for their activities. (Like carbon-taxes, but based on the chance of an accident and the cost of cleanup.) If you want to store mercury, pre-pay the EPA to come and clean it up, perhaps in the form of a guaranteed insurance payout, and store away. When you stop storing mercury you get your money back - minus the cost of any cleanup.
Do you really expect us to publish "How to run a Mormon Congregation: a non-mormon's guide to leadership in the Mormon Church!"? No. But if you don't, people will want to read what is available.
It doesn't look good when a religion has to hide its books. If it's inspired by god it shouldn't sound ridiculous.
I don't think the point was that governments wouldn't do this, merely that they already are in more violent ways so they aren't clamoring for the new tech.
Not that they wouldn't play with M.I.B. type tech if they had it. Just that a lack of it is no deterrent.
How do I vote for you? That's exactly what I'd like to see done.
Both in the sense of rewriting our current laws to be easier to understand, but keeping the same behavior, and then in terms of simplifying the actual law.
Ideally the entire thing - anything a cop could arrest you for - would be in a pamphlet small enough to be read and remembered by a graduating student, and would be a standard part of the curriculum. "Your Country - Laws and Legalities"
A lot more people read open source than closed. Maybe only 200+ people outside of the Mozilla project have read Firefox, but how many external developers have read IE7? 0?
I can't see how you don't understand that all else being equal, an open source program is going to be more screened for this stuff.
As for trusting it, well, I'd rather trust the thing I could verify, even if all I had time to check was random subsets of it, than the thing I couldn't...
Well, I had meant serious about religious topics. But, indeed, there is a question of how to take them seriously at all. I handle that like Fox news - nobody is totally right or totally wrong. I have to read between the lines everywhere.
Given that I already don't trust car salesmen, or politicians, it's not much of a stretch to not trusting the religious about their religion, or anyone about anything too valuable to them.
Seriously though, if you were at lunch with someone and they expressed a literal belief in Zeus, wouldn't you wonder if they were okay?
That girl could use some rescuing. Just as blacks in America could use it 45 years ago. Or openly muslim people could use it after 2001. [...] I happen to think Americans are enslaved. That sounds fair. After all, as you point out, we all have our own version of happy, and mine won't necessarily be yours.
Tell you what, prepare any literature you want to give to these people as preparation for their possible new life and I'll help you distribute it to them. You won't get arrested, nor will they need exit visas if they choose to go. You won't even need UN protection for your visit.
After that though, I'd like to see the same done in much of the world, from China and North Korea to Equatorial Guinea. In most places we'd probably need protection as the literature we brought would be illegal and the government would consider the people to be their property.
We'll have to leave the historical cases until we get a time machine. But they can wait.
The only thing I'd insist on is that everyone be given a choice to leave (and of course, to stay). No matter how crazy their situation looks to outsiders, it's not a problem so long as they choose it. But nobody gets to answer that for them or deprive them of a chance to honestly consider it against the alternatives.
btw, if so many Chinese citizens agree with censorship, why do you need censorship? Can't they just all not look?
No, really. Who likes China? Chinese people are fine. Chinese products are fine. But China, the country? The politics? It's profitable, but unsavory. But it's the people and economic system that are valuable and they'd be profitable under another political banner...
So that answers the carve-up. Whatever country those people wish to join or form. Sure, it might end up being a lot of countries, but so is Europe and the EU works fairly well. There is no age of legitimate countries - there are merely countries marking themselves as failed and ready for replacement.
As for your definition of partner, would you accept me as a business partner if I wasn't going to let you actually see the business records or newspapers/etc?
It's funny how you attribute all the success to the Chinese government, not to the people, or the world economy which they joined. Seeing as how all the government had to do was get out of the way I don't see how you can laud them.
Which brings us to power. China's extends only so far as it controls the actions, and to do so, the minds, of its people. It won't exist as a consolidated world power once the walls of censorship fall. People will realize they can run their own lives, and China will splinter. You're seeing in Tibet now that China isn't going to be allowed to use force - or to keep Tibet if it does.
This isn't China's time anymore. So far it's gotten by as a master - see it's censorship (or don't, if you're in the country), but now it's going to have to compete for the loyalties, and land, of its citizens.
It's just hard to tell when an anti-Mormon is serious and when they are just being a troll. The arguments are pretty similar. When you're debating with people who believe in what can best be described as fairy tales or mythology it's hard to be serious.
I mean, if you met someone who literally believed Zeus existed and could blast you with lightning, would you think it likely?
I've got this unicorn for sale. Special unicorn. Pink. Catch is, she's invisible...
The church copyrights stuff not to make a profit but so that things aren't taken out of context. To deny someone information because you think they are incapable of understanding is called censorship.
No, by assuming that in general, someone who is allowed to read the news is more informed than someone who is not.
By feeling that by denying someone information you deny them the ability to think and that it's wrong to deny people the right or ability to think for themselves.
Thus any government that acts like China does is evil.
China is a slave state so it's an enemy. It doesn't matter how the people are treated, merely that their fate is decided for them, without their input. It's expansionist so it's a current threat. It's already conquered 1/6th of the planet and it's looking for more, while brutally consolidating its position.
You may not like that description, but I note you aren't posting from Tibet, with shattered ribs.
There are literally hundreds of millions of people who would prefer self-government. Not just Tibet, but much of the rest of China. And why shouldn't they have it? Who is China to overrule them, and why do you think it can't be as summarily overruled by others?
I think that was the point. Instead of picking up ancient history, bitch about something current - like the things you suggested. After all, it's not like there isn't a lot to pick from.
Do you realize how childish you make China seem? Entire country, nobody there with a thicker skin than a school-girl?
The point though, *is* whether those values are correct. The Chinese government is abusing its people. The government has no right to tell the people what they can and can't talk about. That the people are offended when foreigners point out the absurdity of their situation is no reason it isn't absurd.
Your opinion, and that of billions of brainwashed Chinese, is irrelevant. It isn't going to change reality. Your government abuses you - treats you lower than cattle in other countries. It's true. And if you take offense to what a foreigner says in a newspaper you're a retard - like Muslims who riot over cartoons - pawns whose emotions are manipulated for the news. These opinions you think are those of the Chinese people, aren't. They're the state's opinions coming out of their lips - anything else would get them jailed or worse. Just like the USSR under Stalin.
China sees its people like slaves, and by extension, the rest of the world. Like a tiger that's gotten a taste for man, China will have to be put down. It's simply to dangerous to have a state that doesn't understand its place in the world.
You can either grow up and join the discussion, even if some of it is a bit insulting, or you can be amazed when the world acts without you. Just because someone appears to be tactless doesn't mean they don't have a point.
China censors the net to ensure stability - yeah, stability of the invalid Chinese government.
As for how the politics play out, obviously you do not understand. At this stage in world development countries are changing their role. Those that do will remain relevant, those that do not will be thrown off. If China controls Tibet, there won't be a China. Plain and simple. The Dalai Lama has more friends than China. We're trying to use words now, but if China kills anyone else the situation is going to be even more cut and dried.
Ditto Taiwan. I've tried to put this nicely... "What if Taiwan doesn't want?"
That's over.
Taiwan DOES NOT WANT. Some do, they can get to China on a plane. Others do not, and never will. Leave them alone.
Everyone knows that if China did take over Tibet or Taiwan fully that there'd be a ton of executions as the opposition was liquidated, mass resettlement, and vast civil-liberties violations. China's bloodthirsty and vindictive reputation is obvious and well documented - recently and historically. Its enemies would die, and anyone who speaks out is an enemy.
Because it maintains their concept of China... And you think this matters in the slightest?
This is exactly why China is backed into a corner. This kind of attitude just isn't allowed. Hopefully their idea of China can be served with a plaque and some artifacts in a museum, because that's all that's likely going to be left the way this is going. Between what we carve up and give to Tibet, Taiwan, Vietnam, SKorea, and others China has abused, there won't be much left.
I didn't say there should be a war to liberate China, I said that one is justified. The people are abused and oppressed. The government is warlike, cruel, controlling, and unwilling to change.
If you think freedoms are something that comes later, you're a victim. Life isn't something the state hands to you like a welfare check, it's something you do yourself. Are you supposed to just sit quietly your entire life because it just isn't the time for freedoms yet, but hopefully will be soon?
In ~1999-2000 I supported UN incursion into Afghanistan. Many people were being killed for religious reasons and if they had a way to leave the country they obviously would have. China isn't the only country ruining its people, but it's definitely on the list.
Essentially, I imagine life from the POV of others and plan to do for them what I'd wish someone would do for me in that situation. It's hard to imagine being an Afghani peasant, but an honest life even if hard isn't abuse. Imagine the life of a Muslim girl who got raped and is about to be killed for her crime - that's unfair and she needs to be rescued. Imagine the life of a Chinese guy - living much like I am in the western world, who then tries to speak out against the government on a forum like Slashdot. He could get shot or merely imprisoned for years. That's obscene. He needs to be rescued.
And not war, just drive UN columns through every town and take anyone who wants to leave. Fight in defense only. China might turn it into a war (slave owners are desperate to keep their stock) but that's not the goal.
China *is* a political reality. However, that doesn't mean that it needs to stay that way. Do you see the USSR anymore? Yugoslavia? What's still up in the air, is how China goes away. Peacefully, in the night, or fighting a war to keep its people slaves like a giant East Germany. Tibet is more important to the rest of the world than China - just an FYI...
Certainly that would be disturbing. Being part German I felt the aftershocks of the holocaust - back when people thought Nazis were unique, not everywhere (Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Russia, etc). It must be disturbing to be part of and trying to bring peace to a nation that not only suffered on this level, but has the shame of inflicting it as well.
Not having any sentimentality for the current lines on the map I'd suggest that it might be made easier if everyone was allowed to secede and form communities of their choosing rather than being forced into a larger coercive one. (Of course I think the same of many other countries. China isn't alone in its infamy - the USA is moving into the neighborhood.)
I understand that governments don't represent anyone properly. That's why the concept of government, especially a coercive one that feels it owns everyone inside a certain boundary and prevents their movement, is becoming obsolete. China is just making an ass of itself and drawing a lot of attention. (As is the USA.)
You attitude about censorship is amusing. "It's always bad, except...". Two things protect peoples' sensibilities, their eyelids! Controlling what information you can encounter is never a decision that is okay to take from someone. (Even a child. A parent's job is to help the child understand the world - or at least that some people are crazy and need not be emulated, not to distort that child's view of the world and prevent them from every being capable of ruling themselves.)
In this way, China fails miserably. It's one of those parents who is jealous of its children's success. If Taiwan is part of what China sees as China, brag about its successes. "That's Taiwan - a small offshoot of what the real China is, and they kick ass." That's the British attitude towards Canada, for example. They might still prefer direct control but stepped gracefully from power so that their children could flourish and they have a great relationship as a result.
Until China recognizes the people as sovereign, and for example, their right to uncensored information inviolate, it's not even in the running for a nation. It appears that keeping Tibet in China is more important than stopping human rights abuses. The sleeping dragon might just be put down before it awakes, and its captives freed.
I agree that the light being shown on China's actions is brighter than that in Rwanda for example, but Rwanda isn't claiming to have a stable government and be an aspiring first-world nation.
What power-vacuum would it leave if China dismantled all military installations facing Taiwan and officially recognized them in the UN?
What harm could come from stopping all internet censorship?
Perhaps if China left Tibet in a hurry people would be hurt, but the UN could come in before they left and stay to help transition to democratic self-government instead of either existing one. Has China asked the UN to relieve them of Tibet?
Maybe there's no nice quick answer that also keeps the paper tiger in control of so many people, and such a central part of world events, but if China were willing to walk away when people asked it to it might have some claim at legitimacy where it was wanted. If not it'll be torn down with the rest of last millennium's garbage and be replaced with something by and for the people.
History *could* just be history. But China is still censoring what people can know - this is not an acceptable act in any way and it alone in my mind would justify a war to liberate the people. North Korea is far worse, but they're headed by an insane guy. China should know better.
The people are paramount, the state is a funny flag you wave on holidays. For a country to forget this and treat the people as commodities is absolutely unforgivable. China makes some small moves towards freedom but only while taking direct physical ownership of its slave populations bodies and working to control their minds. This absolutely overwhelms any motions in the other direction.
As for relations with Taiwan this is always the refutation I hear.
"But it's okay because Taiwan is very pro-China these days and is looking to become an ally."
But what if they didn't want to be friends, as is their right? Would that still be okay? (And we both know it would not.) For what it's worth, they do have the best claim to actually being China - the mainland being under control of an abusive illegal government.
China, the state, the legal fiction drawn on a map, is an outdated concept. It's a product of a different time, and its increased fights to remain a thing of power (like the USA's actions) are not acceptable in our new global perspective.
It's not expected to end all strife, but the human rights abuses are unacceptable for a country that claims to be stable - that claims to be civilized enough to host an international event. China's own claims about its civility are why the standard is so high. It recognizes abuses but still tolerates them.
Slashdot Mirror
What's funny is that people worried about pollution are afraid of Peak Oil... If they truly believe in alternative technologies they should hope for it.
No, the government (theoretically, us) has decided to give its hard-earned productivity coupons away to others in trade for them not stealing to eat, etc.
I think you're wrong about money - it doesn't standardize prices. Who'd buy a shovel if they couldn't resell it for more? You'd have to go to the factory to buy a shovel, not the hardware store. Not that you meant that precisely, but that's what standardizing prices would be.
Money increases liquidity. You can sell your chicken to one guy and buy a shovel from some other guy, even in a different order if you have a float. That chicken would never be swappable for a shovel on another continent, but money easily is.
Liquidity brings choices - no captive markets. You don't have to hope the guy with the shovel likes chicken, you can sell it to someone who does. That does keep prices more consistent...
You can't have wild children any more than you can have wild dogs - and you can't shoot the children once they go wild, so you have to prevent the problem.
It's not that we're doing the deadbeat, probably crack-addicted, parents or their children a favor - this is simply the cheapest way to keep the streets safe and society productive.
Partly, but the best law is "dump it and you pay for it". You don't need special laws against each type of waste, etc.
Maybe if it was more like cars - the government won't let you on the road unless you agree to pay for your accidents. Similarly, we should require people to purchase pollution insurance for their activities. (Like carbon-taxes, but based on the chance of an accident and the cost of cleanup.) If you want to store mercury, pre-pay the EPA to come and clean it up, perhaps in the form of a guaranteed insurance payout, and store away. When you stop storing mercury you get your money back - minus the cost of any cleanup.
It doesn't look good when a religion has to hide its books. If it's inspired by god it shouldn't sound ridiculous.
I don't think the point was that governments wouldn't do this, merely that they already are in more violent ways so they aren't clamoring for the new tech.
Not that they wouldn't play with M.I.B. type tech if they had it. Just that a lack of it is no deterrent.
In general, any law perceived to be bad, or toothless, will lessen the credibility of all laws and the lawmakers.
That's why getting rid of old laws and consolidating the ones we have should be a high priority.
How do I vote for you? That's exactly what I'd like to see done.
Both in the sense of rewriting our current laws to be easier to understand, but keeping the same behavior, and then in terms of simplifying the actual law.
Ideally the entire thing - anything a cop could arrest you for - would be in a pamphlet small enough to be read and remembered by a graduating student, and would be a standard part of the curriculum. "Your Country - Laws and Legalities"
A lot more people read open source than closed. Maybe only 200+ people outside of the Mozilla project have read Firefox, but how many external developers have read IE7? 0?
I can't see how you don't understand that all else being equal, an open source program is going to be more screened for this stuff.
As for trusting it, well, I'd rather trust the thing I could verify, even if all I had time to check was random subsets of it, than the thing I couldn't...
Well, I had meant serious about religious topics. But, indeed, there is a question of how to take them seriously at all. I handle that like Fox news - nobody is totally right or totally wrong. I have to read between the lines everywhere.
Given that I already don't trust car salesmen, or politicians, it's not much of a stretch to not trusting the religious about their religion, or anyone about anything too valuable to them.
Seriously though, if you were at lunch with someone and they expressed a literal belief in Zeus, wouldn't you wonder if they were okay?
Tell you what, prepare any literature you want to give to these people as preparation for their possible new life and I'll help you distribute it to them. You won't get arrested, nor will they need exit visas if they choose to go. You won't even need UN protection for your visit.
After that though, I'd like to see the same done in much of the world, from China and North Korea to Equatorial Guinea. In most places we'd probably need protection as the literature we brought would be illegal and the government would consider the people to be their property.
We'll have to leave the historical cases until we get a time machine. But they can wait.
The only thing I'd insist on is that everyone be given a choice to leave (and of course, to stay). No matter how crazy their situation looks to outsiders, it's not a problem so long as they choose it. But nobody gets to answer that for them or deprive them of a chance to honestly consider it against the alternatives.
btw, if so many Chinese citizens agree with censorship, why do you need censorship? Can't they just all not look?
No, really. Who likes China? Chinese people are fine. Chinese products are fine. But China, the country? The politics? It's profitable, but unsavory. But it's the people and economic system that are valuable and they'd be profitable under another political banner...
So that answers the carve-up. Whatever country those people wish to join or form. Sure, it might end up being a lot of countries, but so is Europe and the EU works fairly well. There is no age of legitimate countries - there are merely countries marking themselves as failed and ready for replacement.
As for your definition of partner, would you accept me as a business partner if I wasn't going to let you actually see the business records or newspapers/etc?
It's funny how you attribute all the success to the Chinese government, not to the people, or the world economy which they joined. Seeing as how all the government had to do was get out of the way I don't see how you can laud them.
Which brings us to power. China's extends only so far as it controls the actions, and to do so, the minds, of its people. It won't exist as a consolidated world power once the walls of censorship fall. People will realize they can run their own lives, and China will splinter. You're seeing in Tibet now that China isn't going to be allowed to use force - or to keep Tibet if it does.
This isn't China's time anymore. So far it's gotten by as a master - see it's censorship (or don't, if you're in the country), but now it's going to have to compete for the loyalties, and land, of its citizens.
I mean, if you met someone who literally believed Zeus existed and could blast you with lightning, would you think it likely?
I've got this unicorn for sale. Special unicorn. Pink. Catch is, she's invisible...
Magic == god == vampires == werewolves == honest politicians
It's a cracker.
See the comment earlier about magic underwear.
If you think people need context, supply context.
No, by assuming that in general, someone who is allowed to read the news is more informed than someone who is not.
By feeling that by denying someone information you deny them the ability to think and that it's wrong to deny people the right or ability to think for themselves.
Thus any government that acts like China does is evil.
China is a slave state so it's an enemy. It doesn't matter how the people are treated, merely that their fate is decided for them, without their input. It's expansionist so it's a current threat. It's already conquered 1/6th of the planet and it's looking for more, while brutally consolidating its position.
You may not like that description, but I note you aren't posting from Tibet, with shattered ribs.
There are literally hundreds of millions of people who would prefer self-government. Not just Tibet, but much of the rest of China. And why shouldn't they have it? Who is China to overrule them, and why do you think it can't be as summarily overruled by others?
I think that was the point. Instead of picking up ancient history, bitch about something current - like the things you suggested. After all, it's not like there isn't a lot to pick from.
Do you realize how childish you make China seem? Entire country, nobody there with a thicker skin than a school-girl?
The point though, *is* whether those values are correct. The Chinese government is abusing its people. The government has no right to tell the people what they can and can't talk about. That the people are offended when foreigners point out the absurdity of their situation is no reason it isn't absurd.
Your opinion, and that of billions of brainwashed Chinese, is irrelevant. It isn't going to change reality. Your government abuses you - treats you lower than cattle in other countries. It's true. And if you take offense to what a foreigner says in a newspaper you're a retard - like Muslims who riot over cartoons - pawns whose emotions are manipulated for the news. These opinions you think are those of the Chinese people, aren't. They're the state's opinions coming out of their lips - anything else would get them jailed or worse. Just like the USSR under Stalin.
China sees its people like slaves, and by extension, the rest of the world. Like a tiger that's gotten a taste for man, China will have to be put down. It's simply to dangerous to have a state that doesn't understand its place in the world.
You can either grow up and join the discussion, even if some of it is a bit insulting, or you can be amazed when the world acts without you. Just because someone appears to be tactless doesn't mean they don't have a point.
As for how the politics play out, obviously you do not understand. At this stage in world development countries are changing their role. Those that do will remain relevant, those that do not will be thrown off. If China controls Tibet, there won't be a China. Plain and simple. The Dalai Lama has more friends than China. We're trying to use words now, but if China kills anyone else the situation is going to be even more cut and dried.
Ditto Taiwan. I've tried to put this nicely... "What if Taiwan doesn't want?"
That's over.
Taiwan DOES NOT WANT. Some do, they can get to China on a plane. Others do not, and never will. Leave them alone.
Everyone knows that if China did take over Tibet or Taiwan fully that there'd be a ton of executions as the opposition was liquidated, mass resettlement, and vast civil-liberties violations. China's bloodthirsty and vindictive reputation is obvious and well documented - recently and historically. Its enemies would die, and anyone who speaks out is an enemy. Because it maintains their concept of China
This is exactly why China is backed into a corner. This kind of attitude just isn't allowed. Hopefully their idea of China can be served with a plaque and some artifacts in a museum, because that's all that's likely going to be left the way this is going. Between what we carve up and give to Tibet, Taiwan, Vietnam, SKorea, and others China has abused, there won't be much left.
I didn't say there should be a war to liberate China, I said that one is justified. The people are abused and oppressed. The government is warlike, cruel, controlling, and unwilling to change.
If you think freedoms are something that comes later, you're a victim. Life isn't something the state hands to you like a welfare check, it's something you do yourself. Are you supposed to just sit quietly your entire life because it just isn't the time for freedoms yet, but hopefully will be soon?
In ~1999-2000 I supported UN incursion into Afghanistan. Many people were being killed for religious reasons and if they had a way to leave the country they obviously would have. China isn't the only country ruining its people, but it's definitely on the list.
Essentially, I imagine life from the POV of others and plan to do for them what I'd wish someone would do for me in that situation. It's hard to imagine being an Afghani peasant, but an honest life even if hard isn't abuse. Imagine the life of a Muslim girl who got raped and is about to be killed for her crime - that's unfair and she needs to be rescued. Imagine the life of a Chinese guy - living much like I am in the western world, who then tries to speak out against the government on a forum like Slashdot. He could get shot or merely imprisoned for years. That's obscene. He needs to be rescued.
And not war, just drive UN columns through every town and take anyone who wants to leave. Fight in defense only. China might turn it into a war (slave owners are desperate to keep their stock) but that's not the goal.
China *is* a political reality. However, that doesn't mean that it needs to stay that way. Do you see the USSR anymore? Yugoslavia? What's still up in the air, is how China goes away. Peacefully, in the night, or fighting a war to keep its people slaves like a giant East Germany. Tibet is more important to the rest of the world than China - just an FYI...
Certainly that would be disturbing. Being part German I felt the aftershocks of the holocaust - back when people thought Nazis were unique, not everywhere (Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Russia, etc). It must be disturbing to be part of and trying to bring peace to a nation that not only suffered on this level, but has the shame of inflicting it as well.
Not having any sentimentality for the current lines on the map I'd suggest that it might be made easier if everyone was allowed to secede and form communities of their choosing rather than being forced into a larger coercive one. (Of course I think the same of many other countries. China isn't alone in its infamy - the USA is moving into the neighborhood.)
I understand that governments don't represent anyone properly. That's why the concept of government, especially a coercive one that feels it owns everyone inside a certain boundary and prevents their movement, is becoming obsolete. China is just making an ass of itself and drawing a lot of attention. (As is the USA.)
...". Two things protect peoples' sensibilities, their eyelids! Controlling what information you can encounter is never a decision that is okay to take from someone. (Even a child. A parent's job is to help the child understand the world - or at least that some people are crazy and need not be emulated, not to distort that child's view of the world and prevent them from every being capable of ruling themselves.)
You attitude about censorship is amusing. "It's always bad, except
In this way, China fails miserably. It's one of those parents who is jealous of its children's success. If Taiwan is part of what China sees as China, brag about its successes. "That's Taiwan - a small offshoot of what the real China is, and they kick ass." That's the British attitude towards Canada, for example. They might still prefer direct control but stepped gracefully from power so that their children could flourish and they have a great relationship as a result.
Until China recognizes the people as sovereign, and for example, their right to uncensored information inviolate, it's not even in the running for a nation. It appears that keeping Tibet in China is more important than stopping human rights abuses. The sleeping dragon might just be put down before it awakes, and its captives freed.
I agree that the light being shown on China's actions is brighter than that in Rwanda for example, but Rwanda isn't claiming to have a stable government and be an aspiring first-world nation.
What power-vacuum would it leave if China dismantled all military installations facing Taiwan and officially recognized them in the UN?
What harm could come from stopping all internet censorship?
Perhaps if China left Tibet in a hurry people would be hurt, but the UN could come in before they left and stay to help transition to democratic self-government instead of either existing one. Has China asked the UN to relieve them of Tibet?
Maybe there's no nice quick answer that also keeps the paper tiger in control of so many people, and such a central part of world events, but if China were willing to walk away when people asked it to it might have some claim at legitimacy where it was wanted. If not it'll be torn down with the rest of last millennium's garbage and be replaced with something by and for the people.
History *could* just be history. But China is still censoring what people can know - this is not an acceptable act in any way and it alone in my mind would justify a war to liberate the people. North Korea is far worse, but they're headed by an insane guy. China should know better.
The people are paramount, the state is a funny flag you wave on holidays. For a country to forget this and treat the people as commodities is absolutely unforgivable. China makes some small moves towards freedom but only while taking direct physical ownership of its slave populations bodies and working to control their minds. This absolutely overwhelms any motions in the other direction.
As for relations with Taiwan this is always the refutation I hear.
"But it's okay because Taiwan is very pro-China these days and is looking to become an ally."
But what if they didn't want to be friends, as is their right? Would that still be okay? (And we both know it would not.) For what it's worth, they do have the best claim to actually being China - the mainland being under control of an abusive illegal government.
China, the state, the legal fiction drawn on a map, is an outdated concept. It's a product of a different time, and its increased fights to remain a thing of power (like the USA's actions) are not acceptable in our new global perspective.
It's not expected to end all strife, but the human rights abuses are unacceptable for a country that claims to be stable - that claims to be civilized enough to host an international event. China's own claims about its civility are why the standard is so high. It recognizes abuses but still tolerates them.