Comments by "Holger P." (@holger_p) on "laowhy86" channel.

  1. It's well known, USA is one of the most unsafe countries in the world, just because there are two many people with guns. Freedom is a point of view. Gay people might prefer USA, Drug people might prefer China.
    2
  2.  @typicalmountainbiker  Maybe it's rural areas, where more guns are used for hunting? Entire world proofs, it's safer without guns. Even when you own one for defense only, an intruder can take it and use it agains the owner, or the kids play with it and have an accidents. It's all happening.
    2
  3.  @anon20  well said. And if the authority can be inaugurated or released by the people, it's called democracy.
    2
  4. It's the same with any non-democratic country. 90-95% of people actually do like and enjoy it. It's the little rest, that ist forced into a way they don't want and they are treated inhuman sometimes. All beeing equal, meaning being forced to be equal.
    1
  5.  @chompchompmaster2885  it' s proven by criminality statistics. If there are no killings, you cannot reduce it by selling arms, and the secret poisoning that may happen, or if somebody overruns you with a car by intention, is not avoidable by arms. Simple thing, no arms no victims. Selling arms always means you sell to the criminals in first place. They cannot even steal one and use it illegal, if nobody owns one to steel from.
    1
  6.  @nerttimer4817  The freedom to kill somebody, is a heavily discussable point. It continous to the discussion to threaten somebody. You can say, the freedom to call the police is freedom enough. It is impossible to give the freedom of self defense, withoug giving the freedom to attack. There is no simple answer to that. The low population density and the wildlife in US might have encouraged the idea of gun ownership. But as we see, it has side effects. Gas stations sometimes become a fortress. Freedom is not an absolute thing, it's not there or not there. It's always a "freedom to do this or to do that". You can give one freedom and deny another. You talk like you necessarily have to couple freedom of speech with freedom to own guns. That's bullshit. Entire Europe shows such a coupling is not necessary. If nobody has a gun, you do not need to protect yourself from gun owners. A very simple idea. Even half of the police is unarmed. To check for speeding or to regulate an accident, this is not dangerous.
    1
  7.  @nerttimer4817  Well, I just had no idea why you came up with china. The idea is, instead of protecting people, you make it unnecessary to protect them. Removing the danger, has higher priority then protection. Yes, there is no strategy to disarm US in a matter to achieve a gun-free society. But what feels strange is, there is not even the wish or the understanding, such a society would be at least a nice dream. I cannot imagine a safer world, then a world without guns. Of course as good as possible, since a kitchen knife can be used as an arm also.
    1
  8.  @nerttimer4817  Sorry, forget about the origin of discussion. No, the full control is not necessary. You have to go to the origins of criminality. This is huge differences in wealth between people. This is very large in USA. Robbing a bank or another house is fast money. Especially if you don't have enough alternative jobs. And if you prohibit other "easy money" like from prostitution. If everyhting is illegal, and social welfare is low, you force people into criminality. USA is creating it itself very much. The freedom "everybody takes care of itself - nobody cares for somebody else" is the extreme wording for "too much" freedom. The freedom to be poor. The freedom to have no health insurance, etc. Maybe one would swap this for some limitations in freedom of speach. You have to remember , enforcement or control is only negative, if you want something else. If you don't want to go to the moon, you don't feel bad if someone is prohibiting you to go to the moon. And USA once prohibited alcohol, they prohibit prostitution, partially abortion. So it is just another set of freedom. For China, I'm just astonished how well they do in their weird combination of communism and capitalism - however we may call this. By the way, I'm east german and I made this change from communism to capitalism 'in place'. I don't want to change back. But as I said, the "control" or enforcement didn't harm most people that much, except for traveling. People were annoyed by availability of products, not so much by ideology. They learned to ignore that.
    1
  9.  @nerttimer4817  You seem to make a difference, from knowing about apples financial internas vs. chinese economy internas. It's also not everything public in the West, privacy means the right to hide information. Yes a story like Erin Brockovich, a private person digging into enviromental files, would be impossible, that's right. Dictatorship is also a too harsh word, this I would only apply to North corea. Anywhere else, there wasn't this "personal cult" any more, after Stalin. Actually you accuse China to hide something, and you say any foreign journalist or tourist is under control, where to go, what to ask, etc. That's definitly wrong. That is all correct in North corea. Sounds kind of conspirational, if you say they hide something, but cannot say what. The camps fors special minorities are known. Cause hiding doesn't work. Google is locked in China, would be an example, but is not concerning our view on China. Since china opens to capitalism, they had to allow private/individual initiatives. Control for environemtal protection, for fire safety or labour safety is also known in the west. So the only what they not have, is democracy, no real choice of parties. But since in the western world, only about 70% go to poll in an election, it shows "you can live without it". And USA with just 2 parties - also kind of strange. Yes, justice and courts, is an important point, that you need in a "free country". As you say, you need a certain level of discontent/dissatisfaction to do a revolution. You arrange with little inconveniences. So in effect there is a natural common target, between regime and population, they want to minimize dissatisfaction. The other thing is "you don't mind, if you don't know better". I'm very honest, and really I would be more afraid to end in prison in US, then to end there in China. Any US-policeman can put you in jail for missing a stop sign, if they want to. There are 655 per 100.000 people in prison in US and 118 in China. You really want to measure freedom , by the risk of getting in jail ? Or you want to compare, humanity of a Gulag versus Sing Sing ? Both not as nice as a german prison ;-) At least from "Orange is the new black" or "Prison Break" we know the insides in US. Maybe you have seen Papillon recently ? It's 1960. Western World. France. Remember Civil rights movement in USA, Marthin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. Just 50 years ago. Keyword was Freedom. Yes , we are a little further in human rights, but only a very little. And there is not really a connection to the "regime" or the political system. There are restricted people and they can fight for their rights. For decades. Took 100 years in USA from end of slavery to end of seperate toilets. Outside impression is very important for some country, Inside impression also. And I have to notice Trumps "Make America greate again" does perfectly fit in there. National Pride, Feeling Great, Feeling better than others. Calm you own people down, by telling them they belong to priviledged people. It's all the same pattern - there are no ideologic differences. Except: You could get rid of Trump by voting.
    1
  10.  @typicalmountainbiker  I'm not gonna change it, but I can have hope Americans get smart enough one day to change it themselves. Any constitution has good and bad parts and only a few paragraphs are declared as permament for eternity. The ammandments are not. If people change, the laws changes. That's the idea of democracy.
    1
  11. Not really, the freedom to eat other people, or to shoot other people, is everything else than precious. Ultimative Freedom is anarchie, the opposite of Zivilisation. Zivilisation needs rules, that means Limits.
    1