Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Great Decisions 2018 - China and America: the new geopolitical equation - Dr. Richard Lacquement" video.

Of course America has the right to criticize other abusers. In fact we have a responsibility to because of our position in the world. Our criticism would be much more effective if our hypocrisy was not so blatant and we should definitely clean up our own house posthaste, but regardless we should absolutely call out human rights abuses where we find them in other countries and other countries should absolutely call us out in return. I agree with your second point as well. Of course politics plays into our diplomacy but our criticisms are lopsided and some of the countries we shield are more deserving of criticism than some of the countries we blast. I think you are right to point that out and I would suggest that you continue to do so.
3
America has many human rights issues from over-incarceration to institutional racism to operation of extrajudicial prison facilities, most noticeably the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Because we do have these human rights issues we come across as hypocritical when we admonish others. That being said, we are nowhere near the worst abusers of human rights. We are not expelling a religious minority like Myanmar. We are not legally requiring women to cover their hair in public like Iran or forbidding it like France. We are not publicly beheading or stoning those involved in crimes of passion like Saudi Arabia and our opposition journalists do not keep showing up dead (admittedly I don't know if the state is involved in the murder of Russian journalists but it doesn't look good). I'm generally reluctant to criticize other countries unless it's out of control in part because I understand the hypocrisy. I also am aware that just because some local government officials in another country pulled some messed up crap doesn't mean it's necessarily an issue with the whole country. And while I do admit that we in the U.S. definitely need to clean up our act regarding human rights, I feel like you should understand that we are nowhere near the top of the list of abusers.
1
Most poor countries that select democracy as it's government type languish in poverty in large part because it's hard for democratically elected leaders with short terms to concentrate resources on key industries when everyone in the electorate wants their share of the pie. All countries that have progressed from third world to first world since Bismark's Germany have done so under a strong, usually right-wing government with the authority to funnel capital into key industries and the ability to make business owners toe the line for the national interest. Many of those societies have gone on to become thriving democracies although for some the price of transition was dear. "Letting everyone choose for themselves…" does not lead to freedom, it is the textbook definition of freedom. Freedom is a key concept in western propaganda that most of us buy into without really thinking it through. Freedom is, if not a zero-sum gain, a very low-sum gain. The best way to maximize one's own freedom is to oppress and exploit others because you are most free when others are unquestioningly taking care of your needs, desires and obligations. I would disagree that freedom is a moral concept, in fact I think it's a particularly amoral concept because those with real freedom have the ability to choose between good and evil actions without real consequence. I think you may have intended to suggest that robbing people of all of their freedom is immoral and although I think there are some circumstances where a temporary suspension of freedom might be appropriate I would agree with you on that for the most part.
1
Respectfully, I think you've just effectively argued that freedom is an amoral (not to be confused with immoral) concept. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that morality is a check on the abuses taken by those exercising their freedom. Anarchy is the extreme form of liberalism, a system where government has no power over individuals. People in an anarchy are totally free of government control, but only those who are strong and lucky prosper at the expense of everyone else.
1
I'm glad to hear that you think democracy requires morals. Too many people believe that so long as everyone pursues their own interests that the resulting average will be the best outcome. Morality is taught. It can be taught by religious institutions or by governmental institutions. It's definitely taught by parents and by the larger community. Morality usually ages well as the urge to question everything recedes and you're definitely right about it improving democracy. As for Venezuela, there certainly are a lot of issues there. And while I'm sure that a great many of Venezuela's problems are a result of mismanagement within their government we need to be aware that we Americans did everything we could to make sure that Venezuela failed and we did this for ideological reasons. How much of Venezuela's failure is due to international pressure from the U.S. and our ideological allies is debatable, but I'm confident that it was substantial. As for morals in Venezuela, the working poor who voted in the Chavistas were voting their interests against the industrial classes who were exploiting them while the liberals who were resisting that movement were voting for their interests in hopes of maintaining their wealth and power. Morality was the foundation of neither side but of course it was claimed by both.
1
Yes, government can teach morals, both through example and through official education channels like schools. The morality of a government is indeed dictated by the morality of the individuals in government and largely influenced by the historical morality as expressed through law. I don't think we're going to agree on the rights of the state to control key industries, and as I admitted earlier there was mismanagement by the Venezuelan government but the U.S. threw some harsh sanctions on Caracas and arm-twisted all our allies to follow suit. We bankrolled the underground opposition and supported a failed coup. I think that if we tried to help Venezuela instead of sink her then she might have a chance to succeed, but we'll never know because it will not happen.
1
Okay, you don't trust government. Whatever. And mia culpa on the sanctions. Apparently the only real sanctions on Venezuela where on arms, military interaction and targeted individuals. I should have been better informed before I made the argument. That being said, I still think that our attempts worldwide to undermine states that dabble in socialism play a large role in many of their failures. I know you don't believe that and I'm not going to change your mind so I'm going to quit trying. I hope for both of our sakes that the government around here never gets as brutal or as one-dimensional as you believe it to be. Best of luck.
1
I don't think he was anti-China but the questioners sure were.
1