Live data from Hacker News

Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

persuasion.community

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#31

Why the heck would this submission be flagged? For what?

somewhat ironic, since this is the kind of political topic (political philopsophy) that a curious mind should gravitate toward rather than the popularity contests and tribal rhetoric we're otherwise awash in. with that said, i do see liberalism as having 'jumped the shark' so to speak, and become too much of a virtue totem, rather than a sociopolitical model worth examining and critiquing.

Dare I say that flagging the submission is ... illiberal?

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

somewhat ironic, since this is the kind of political topic (political philopsophy) that a curious mind should gravitate toward rather than the popularity contests and tribal rhetoric we're otherwise awash in. with that said, i do see liberalism as having 'jumped the shark' so to speak, and become too much of a virtue totem, rather than a sociopolitical model worth examining and critiquing.

Dare I say that flagging the submission is ... illiberal?

This is disappointing and it changes how I think of HN.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s done a lot of really good work since then. I recommend “Origins of Political Order.” He really has some fascinating ideas.

But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…

He’s done a number of post-mortems. Most recently, and probably most extensively, he addressed the topic in “After the End of History: Conversations with Francis Fukuyama”.

His post-mortem analysis has changed over time - understandably so. A postmortem done in 2009 should be very different from one done in 2021.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#34

Fukuyama: Liberal societies are more innovative, wealthier. Reality: It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be. In evaluating that assertion its important to note that absent production of desirable goods & services no country can maintain its wealth. Fukuyama: Neoliberalism = hostility to the state. Reality: Neoliberals lack faith in the individuals who make…

> Reality: It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be. In evaluating that assertion its important to note that absent production of desirable goods & services no country can maintain its wealth.

Really? Mean US wealth per capita and net wealth per capita is still growing fast YoY, and China will eventually hit the top of the S-curve, at the same time they run into a huge demographic problem with an inverted demographic pyramid.

And how do you define innovation? China does a lot of incremental improvement on disruptive innovation that occurred elsewhere, but no major disruptive innovations that have launched entirely new fields of study or industry sectors have arisen out of China in the last decades as far as I'm aware.

Let me give some examples: The PC, the GUI/DTP Mac Era, the Smartphone, The Web, Cryptocurrency, Deep Learning, FDM 3D Printing, Tesla-like EVs, SpaceX-like reusable rockets/NewSpace/etc These are all areas where China produces very compelling products, but the spark that kicked off these huge product categories didn't come from China. I love DJI drones for example, but they aren't the company that got everyone excited about drones, Parrot AR was. 3D printing has been around for ages, but it was Makerbot RepRap/University of Bath which kicked off the huge consumer 3D printing race.

And cryptocurrency has been slowly developing since the 90s, as an anti-statist measure by crypto-anarchist libertarians, obviously not a field of study the CCP would look kindly on. Again, most of the math and developments, did not originate from the Mainland. Which is ironic, because you'd expect if you live under a lot of statist restrictions, wouldn't circumvention technology be an area of hot underground research? Yet most of the tools, onion routing, VPNs, distributed hash table file sharing, anonymous remailers, crypto tools like PGP, all came from the West and people looking to avoid liberal democratic government restrictions and copyright regimes.

China is also deploying AI surveillance like crazy, but did the explosion of interest and investment in DNNs/CNNs/etc arise from a Chinese breakthrough, or was it the result of years of work in the academic and commercial sector in the West, culminating in easy to use tools like Torch and Tensorflow, and off the shelf components to glue together, which made those rapid deployments in China possible?

Another example I hear: China is ahead in Quantum Computing. Well, no, they've managed to extend distance records on quantum cryptography/computation, and qubits, but who invented quantum computing? Peter Shor was the first to develop a practical quantum algorithm, and that's one of the big drivers that triggered a renewed flood of interest. That's disruptive innovation, because it changes the world -- one day people are doing X, the next day, a big chunk of people drop what they've doing, and all rush in to do Y.

And you can usually feel this innovation when it happens. All of us old timers had 'smartphones' before 2007, iPAQs, PalmPhones, Nokia Communicator 9000, etc On January 9th, 2007 after you saw the iPhone presentation, you knew the world had changed. It doesn't happen often, and you are lucky to witness it.

I wish China was producing their own Steve Jobs, they've got 1.4 billion people, and the world would be better off if more disruptive innovation happening, but Jack Ma and Lei Jun are no Steve Jobs or Elon Musk.

Fundamentally, liberal arts and sciences are about criticism. Self criticism. The ability to critique society, the government, the establishment, to rebel against it, to agitate for change is crucial for artistic and scientific revolution. And I just don't feel the CCP is conducive to creating an environment like that, when you can be jailed for writing a movie review of the latest state sponsored epic War Movie and give it a bad rating. (recently a movie critic was jailed for calling "The Battle at Lake Changjin" a "potboiler" in his review)

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#35
post #27
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is China innovative? Or is Chinese labor inexpensive? The US is still the second largest manufacturer in the world and broke it's own record in adjusted dollars for production in 2018. Pandemic aside, the US has never been more productive. Your sentence about hostility to government is spot on, I think, and brings to mind that old Bastiat quote asking if government officials are, "made of finer clay."

I don't really know what "smaller is safer" means? The US government is massive in terms of number of people it employs, so do we mean just less taxes and to leave more to the private sector? Like private energy, water, sewage, garbage, shorelines, parks, hospitals, military, schools, etc. ? Or do we mean overall we need less institutions with less people employed, less judges, less senators, less mayors, less milita…

> I don't really know what "smaller is safer" means?

It means the less there is, the less can be exploited.

> Like private energy, water, sewage, garbage, shorelines, parks, hospitals, military, schools, etc.

Many of those things are already private, for most people.

> I wouldn't say "smaller is safer"

Most people wouldn't.

Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s done a lot of really good work since then. I recommend “Origins of Political Order.” He really has some fascinating ideas.

But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…

Also, read the book instead of responding to the title. If you want a response to the idea of the end of history, read the end of The End of History.
Post reply on HN