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

91–100 of 110 posts

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

#91

Post by EliRivers »

dmix wrote: post #78
EliRivers wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes." So why isn't Somalia, for example, the richest country on earth?

Lawless != freedom. For example, the fair enforcement of property or contract laws is essential for economic prosperity. Also the comment you cited implies relative prosperity within the country itself, not compared to every country in the world.

So what's actually needed is not freedom but a set of enforced laws conducive to economic prosperity.

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

#92

Post by dmix »

EliRivers wrote: post #91
dmix wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawless != freedom. For example, the fair enforcement of property or contract laws is essential for economic prosperity. Also the comment you cited implies relative prosperity within the country itself, not compared to every country in the world.

So what's actually needed is not freedom but a set of enforced laws conducive to economic prosperity.

Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation

An uncorrupted legal system, as well as police force, are a necessity for healthy economic functions. Those are the two biggest things Somalia is lacking.

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

#93

Post by dragonwriter »

dmix wrote: post #92
EliRivers wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's actually needed is not freedom but a set of enforced laws conducive to economic prosperity.

Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation An uncorrupted legal system, as well as police force, are a necessity for healthy economic functions. Those are the two biggest things Somalia is lacking.

> Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation

Property and contract laws are compulsory rules backed by government force and, therefore, regulation in every meaningful sense.

They may be desirable regulation (even assuming a value system where regulation, but for certain special exceptional cases, is undesirable), but calling them "not regulation" is just an exercise in creatively redefining terms to prevent communication.

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

#94

Post by lolcraft »

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…

What? No.

> There is not a single exception. [of lack of economic freedom and economic prosperity]

Except China -- Mostly Unfree. And Brazil -- Mostly Unfree. And Argentina -- don't you know it's Repressed, of all things, according to Heritage's bullshit, yet still a G-15. And Russia -- Mostly Unfree.

You know, I just cannot fathom how someone could seriously say Bahrein is more free than Argentina, for any meaningful sense of the term. I mean, in Bahrein atheists are put to death, FFS. Just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt and self-deluded the Heritage Foundation is.

> a "class," in the Marxist sense: a bunch of people who all think alike. [...] I hope you don't justify punishing _me_ on the basis of your characterization of the "global business community."

I get you're a budding capitalist and all that, but you could at least read the philosophy of your enemies to criticize them. And stop victimizing yourself, while you're at it.

But I guess my main point is, congratulations, you took the noble, if largely unrealized, principles of the European forefathers, passed down since the Athenians through Robespierre, Paine, Marat, Jefferson, Bakunin, even Lenin... and then turned them in for the petty ideals of a shopkeeper.

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

#95

Post by dmix »

dragonwriter wrote: post #93
dmix wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation An uncorrupted legal system, as well as police force, are a necessity for healthy economic functions. Those are the two biggest things Somalia is lacking.

> Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation Property and contract laws are compulsory rules backed by government force and, therefore, regulation in every meaningful sense. They may be desirable regulation (even assuming a value system where regulation, but for certain special exceptional cases, is undesirable), but calling them "not regulation" is just an exercise in creatively redefining terms to preve…

Indeed - backed by court systems.

Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.

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

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

dmix wrote: post #95
dragonwriter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation Property and contract laws are compulsory rules backed by government force and, therefore, regulation in every meaningful sense. They may be desirable regulation (even assuming a value system where regulation, but for certain special exceptional cases, is undesirable), but calling them "not regulation" is just an exercise in creatively redefining terms to preve…

Indeed - backed by court systems. Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.

> Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.

This distinction is artificial: there is no difference between defining the scope of property rights and enforcing rights within those boundaries, on the one hand, and generalized economic regulation, on the other: they are different words for the same thing. All economic regulation is part of defining the scope of property rights, and all definitions of the scope of property rights regulate the economy.

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

#97

Post by rayiner »

dragonwriter wrote: post #96
dmix wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - backed by court systems. Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.

> Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating. This distinction is artificial: there is no difference between defining the scope of property rights and enforcing rights within those boundaries, on the one hand, and generalized economic regulation, on the other: they are different words for the same thing.…

But you see, the arbitrary set of rights he picks are "rights" while other ones are "regulations." And its better for him to pick than to do something stupid like having a democratically-elected body pick.

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

#98

Post by lominming »

This does not make much sense. How do you regulate media talking about you? This essentially means that you want to regulate everyone's freedom of speech.

"Online news sites that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here will require an individual license" This is so vague. If everyone on Facebook and Twitter is talking about Singapore (which are not news sites), would FB and Twitter require a license?

It says that it does not apply to blogs. So everything here is ok? Again, blogs/news site/video sites are so vague. News is essentially a content type, not a platform type. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/blogs/directory.html

I think this is unrealistic and is not going work in the long run.

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

#99

Post by javert »

lolcraft wrote: post #94
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…

What? No. > There is not a single exception. [of lack of economic freedom and economic prosperity] Except China -- Mostly Unfree. And Brazil -- Mostly Unfree. And Argentina -- don't you know it's Repressed, of all things, according to Heritage's bullshit, yet still a G-15 . And Russia -- Mostly Unfree. You know, I just cannot fathom how someone could seriously say Bahrein is more free than Argentina, for any meaningf…

> Except China -- Mostly Unfree. And Brazil -- Mostly Unfree. And Argentina -- don't you know it's Repressed, of all things, according to Heritage's bullshit, yet still a G-15. And Russia -- Mostly Unfree.

They are all approximately prosperous relative to their economic freedom. Your list here isn't very helpful, because rather than comparing two contries and their relative economic freedom in the historical context, you're just saying "Mostly Unfree." That's like saying, "That country gets a 20," without specifying any meaningful scale.

> You know, I just cannot fathom how someone could seriously say Bahrein is more free than Argentina, for any meaningful sense of the term. I mean, in Bahrein atheists are put to death, FFS.

First, I didn't say that. "Economic prosperity" != "One rich group of families and everyone else is poor." Also, religious freedom != economic freedom.

So, yeah, you're just making a mockery of what I said.

> I get you're a budding capitalist and all that, but you could at least read the philosophy of your enemies to criticize them. And stop victimizing yourself, while you're at it.

> But I guess my main point is, congratulations, you took the noble, if largely unrealized, principles of the European forefathers, passed down since the Athenians through Robespierre, Paine, Marat, Jefferson, Bakunin, even Lenin... and then turned them in for the petty ideals of a shopkeeper.

You've stooped to the level of doling out personal insults. I don't get why you would do this. Does it help your argument? No. Does it provide intellectual stimulation? No. Is it within the ethics of this community? No.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN