Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 110 posts

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#61

Post by pod4369 »

rayiner wrote: post #59
pod4369 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore is comparable to Nazi Germany? Get help.

Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship, but that does not mean that all fascist dictatorships are comparable to Nazi Germany. The U.S. and Bangladesh are both democracies--that does not mean that Bangladesh is comparable to the U.S...

"Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles. Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism."

Yeah, Singapore is nothing like that. The fact that 20%+ of its population are immigrants, and how it embraces immigration, disproves your pet theory. Singaporeans don't have statues of their leaders in their homes, and they're not mobilizing anyone to fight some greater evil. Singaporeans are more devoted to their iPhones than their prime minister.

Using "fascism" loosely is just ignorance.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#62

Post by mseebach »

rayiner wrote: post #53
mseebach wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally well known that Singapore has no political freedom and only limited freedom of speech. However, financial freedom is in short supply in the world, and Singapore is one of the nicer places that have it. To call Singapore a "fascist dictatorship" is only true in the most literal senses of the words. It's by no means perfect, but Singapore has a much better record on human rights than anyone generally con…

> To call Singapore a "fascist dictatorship" is only true in the most literal senses of the words. Not only the literal sense, but also in any dictionary sense of the words. What you perhaps meant to say is that it doesn't have some of the secondary characteristics (e.g. starving peasants) that are usually connoted when the phrase "fascist dictatorships" is used.

noun [mass noun] an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism

Singapore is "partly free" (Freedom in the World) and has a "hybrid government" (meaning that it contains authoritarian and democratic elements, Democracy Index), so not flat-out authoritarian, and certainly not authoritarian in "social organisation". It is generally not considered "extreme right wing", and save for drugs and criticism of the government, isn't particularly intolerant - indeed, it goes to lengths to protect a multiracial, multi-religious society. Not a quality typically associated with dictionary-fascists. Caning is a cruel practise than can be said to be "intolerant", but it's a bit of a stretch.

noun [mass noun] government by a dictator: the effects of forty years of dictatorship [count noun] a country governed by a dictator. absolute authority in any sphere.

https://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictatorsh...

Absolute mean unhindered by constitution and the law. Both exists (as it does in most dictatorships) but Singapore generally enjoys the rule of law. So not, actually not a dictionary-dictatorship.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#63

Post by javert »

rayiner wrote: post #40
javert wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

You're playing fast and loose with the word "free." Sure, no country in history has ever been a utopia of freedom, but I don't consider any country "free" in any sense of the word (even "1% free") that doesn't have meaningful democracy. Indeed, that's what "freedom" has meant for the better part of the last 300-400 years: political self-determination, not "economic freedom." I can't look at a map and conceive of livi…

No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use.

Sure, politicians and others try to distort freedom to mean something else all the time - like "political self-determination" (i.e., the majority can dispose of you; see India, or even Soviet Russia, for an example). But they need to be called out on it, just like I'm doing now.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#64

Post by rayiner »

javert wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're playing fast and loose with the word "free." Sure, no country in history has ever been a utopia of freedom, but I don't consider any country "free" in any sense of the word (even "1% free") that doesn't have meaningful democracy. Indeed, that's what "freedom" has meant for the better part of the last 300-400 years: political self-determination, not "economic freedom." I can't look at a map and conceive of livi…

No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use. Sure, politicians and others try to distort freedom to mean something else all the time - like "political self-determination" (i.e., the majority can dispose of you; see India, or even Soviet Russia, for an example). But they need to be called out on it, just like…

> No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use.

No, that's not what it means (in the political context, anyway), it's not the definition that normal people use, and importantly, it is not how the term has been used for hundreds of years in western political literature and philosophy. You can't just go around appropriating words and giving them your own idiosyncratic meanings.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#65

Post by dmix »

PeterisP wrote: post #45
javert wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

Freedom and "economic freedom" are two orthogonal, completely different things. You can (and often do) have one without the other and vice versa.

Not according to Milton Friedman:

> In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman developed the argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom, is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression.

> He argues that, with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist. Additionally, economic freedom is important, since any "bi-laterally voluntary and informed" transaction must benefit both parties to the transaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

So for example, if something like free speech is limited, economic transactions are no longer free if either side has limited information. Or if you are investing money and the government has manipulated public perception about the market or the economy itself, there is a hazard.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#66

Post by csomar »

rayiner wrote: post #30
revelation wrote: post #7

Oops, the cool, tax-saving getaway is a fascist dictatorship. Who could have known.

Singapore and China are proof of two things: 1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years); 2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems. I nearly puked on Metro North the other…

1- China is not prosperous.

2- Singapore is a small and unique example.

3- The middle east is wealthy because of natural resources, and here lack of freedom really helps.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#67

Post by Symmetry »

javert wrote: post #34
rayiner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore and China are proof of two things: 1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years); 2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems. I nearly puked on Metro North the other…

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

Between various sorts of capital controls, the huge amount of state owned business, and endemic corruptions I don't see any way you could talk about China being more economically free than the us, unless it's maybe in that many regulations are only sometimes enforced. I disagree with some of Heritage's methodology in their rankings, but they're consistent and there's no measure by which China is ahead of the US in the categories they look at. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#68

Post by javert »

rayiner wrote: post #64
javert wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use. Sure, politicians and others try to distort freedom to mean something else all the time - like "political self-determination" (i.e., the majority can dispose of you; see India, or even Soviet Russia, for an example). But they need to be called out on it, just like…

> No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use. No, that's not what it means (in the political context, anyway), it's not the definition that normal people use, and importantly, it is not how the term has been used for hundreds of years in western political literature and philosophy. You can't just go around…

You said that freedom means "political self-determination." But what you apparently mean by "self-determination," is "majority-determination."

You should read "1984." It covers doublespeak. Apparently, in the sources you read, doublespeak about "freedom" has been going on for about 300-400 years.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#69

Post by Steko »

mseebach wrote: post #46
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're playing fast and loose with the word "free." Sure, no country in history has ever been a utopia of freedom, but I don't consider any country "free" in any sense of the word (even "1% free") that doesn't have meaningful democracy. Indeed, that's what "freedom" has meant for the better part of the last 300-400 years: political self-determination, not "economic freedom." I can't look at a map and conceive of livi…

What China shows (and what counters the US rhetoric) is that evidently economic freedom can (at least to some extend) cause prosperity without political freedom. Common wisdom has predicted the rise of some kind of political freedom in China for years now, but what has actually been seen to be on the rise is better governance - an oft-cited example is the case of Bo Xilai[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai…

"What China shows"

We certainly haven't seen the endgame of China's development. Confidently claiming that China has 'prosperity without political freedom' is simply playing fast and loose with terminology. The stronger and more educated the middle class gets, the more freedoms they demand.

Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships but get freer every year. Still it took decades of small steps to get where they are today (legitimate elections, opposition parties winning) and clearly China has a long road to even get to where those neighbors are today.

"some kind of political freedom"

While 2013 China is no poster boy for freedom hasn't the situation improved every decade for 40 years? Isn't China today far more permissive and free than in the past? Obviously in terms of elections maybe not so much but looking only at elections might be ignoring real gains made in rule of law, property rights, speech and social freedoms.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#70

Post by rayiner »

javert wrote: post #68
rayiner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use. No, that's not what it means (in the political context, anyway), it's not the definition that normal people use, and importantly, it is not how the term has been used for hundreds of years in western political literature and philosophy. You can't just go around…

You said that freedom means "political self-determination." But what you apparently mean by "self-determination," is "majority-determination." You should read "1984." It covers doublespeak. Apparently, in the sources you read, doublespeak about "freedom" has been going on for about 300-400 years.

The "self" in "self-determination" refers to the people, not individuals.
Post reply on HN