Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Big Think" channel.

No, his offense is declaring that we haven't as yet solved the problems of institutional inequality and human misery so we shouldn't try. He's entitled to his opinion, but some of us have higher aspirations for humanity.
11
The problem with this is that equity of result, while extreme, is not morally repugnant in the way that racism and xenophobia are. The far left lacks the cruelty agenda that would make walling them off seem reasonable to those of us in the moderate left. And while we definitely disavow those acting violently to promote their agenda, that's such a small sliver of the left as to be practically negligible. That's not to say that the moderate left and the far left get along. We don't, and it's tearing the Democratic party apart. But nobody in the moderate wing thinks that the hard-core progressives are anything remotely comparable to the alt-right and because of that we're not going to see them pilloried by the "reasonable" left.
10
The Chinese have used military expansion when it suited them.
8
If you look at China throughout its history it gradually grows from the Upper Huanghe basin into the colossus that it is today expanding with every dynasty during it's early years when the army was strong and the emperors were engaged. All of those growth spurts occurred at the edge of a sword or at least at the credible threat of such. I don't think China has a particularly violent history. In fact it's tendency to have long periods of relative political stability makes it a lot less violent historically than more typically fragmented regions like say, Europe, but to suggest that military expansion was rare is historically inaccurate. It is true that Imperial China commonly used soft power methods to spread its influence beyond its military reach particularly through the spread of writing, Confucianism and other philosophical treatises like Sun Tzu's "Art of War". I think in the future China will be able to use similar tools around the world and I think the world will benefit for it. But people are people and rulers are rulers and where the state's interests are best served through the projection of force, force will be projected.
7
The thing I really like about Confucianism is that it is humanist. It's all about doing your part to make society better because that's the right thing to do, not because it pleases some deity. I think it is undeniably one of the most important ingredients to China's long term success over the last two millennia and change. I like the fact that it's not really religious even though Chinese regularly pray to Confucius which is mostly to do with his position as an honorary ancestor to everyone in China. The biggest problem I have with Confucianism is the subservient position it places on women. However, I think that's changeable. Confucianism has been overhauled once to the long-term benefit of China during the Song Dynasty and once to the long-term detriment of China during the Ming Dynasty. In order for it to fully benefit China in the future it'll need to be similarly overhauled again and gender equality could and should be incorporated into that overhaul.
7
A lot of what you say is correct. A lot of it is anti-Chinese propaganda. China has through most of history been the hegemon of the east Asian civilization and they're not going to be comfortable with their position in the world until that position is solidly re-established. As uncomfortable as many in the west and elsewhere might be with that reality it probably is where China truly belongs. Whether China's hegemonic ambitions extend beyond east Asia is not yet certain, though they are certainly seeking influence in central and south Asia as well as east Africa. These are areas of the world that the United States has largely ignored so it may just be a matter of picking up the scraps or, maybe, at some point they're going to challenge the U.S. for global hegemony. The more the west attempts to thwart Chinese ambitions though the more likely China will see the west as something that has to go. Doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be any pushback, just that pushback may have long-term consequences, as might non-interference. The potential consequences of any actions or non-actions need to be considered at the time.
5
I've always thought that China's gotten itself into an enviable position ideologically. As long as their state-guided capitalism satisfies the public they can ride with it. If it ever fails they can claim that that step in the process towards communism has run its course and it's time to move to the next step. Either way the party remains in control of government and the country avoids chaos.
4
I respectfully disagree. People who make large sums of money only provide jobs for people who move around large sums of money, usually to increase their resource absorption or to avoid taxation. Demand creates jobs. Some clever folks create goods or services that society finds desirable creating demand. The people who create these things should get rich. But if somebody would create something like this to become the next billionaire but won't create something like that if it only means he can be a millionaire then he's a greedy bastard, an idiot, and a detriment to society. You don't need to lock up insane amounts of money in a limited number of individuals to stimulate ingenuity and entrepreneurship. As for the money that some of these people distribute through philanthropy? I'm not impressed. That's exactly what government is for, to gather the community's resources and apply them according to the priorities of society, not the priorities of some rich guy. I agree that opportunity needs to be available to industrious, ambitious, intelligent, well-connected, lucky individuals to obtain more wealth than their less industrious, less ambitious, less intelligent, less connected, less lucky counterparts and it should be enough to make it a goal worth striving for but it doesn't need to be insane. And to the extant that a bum on the streets of New York has opportunity? Of course many "bums" could pull their lives together and move into normal society. But the opportunities he has to do this are provided in large part by social programs that assist with housing and job placement, not to mention the "streets" of New York that he walks are built and maintained through municipal socialism.
4
"Given their history of behavior, I think it is very likely that they will try to do force their imperialistic will onto everyone if they ever become the global power like US. It really could be the future of humanity that we will all be watched and scored based on what we buy on Amazon using our cellphones. People criticize US for meddling in foreign affairs, but believe me, US is by far the best gentleman world has ever seen. Nowhere in world history I've ever seen a world dominating power constraining itself this well." As an American I'm touched, I never realized I was so awesome. Judging the behavior of China in the future based on their past is highly suspect because in many ways modern China is very different from imperial China. Judging the behavior of China in the future based on humanity's past is probably a better bet. Powerful countries exert power based on their perceptions of their interests. That's the case with the United States today, as it was with Britain before us and Spain before them. Our greatest propaganda points during the Cold War centered on our personal freedoms versus those of Soviet citizens. But in America today, if the police ask to see your papers, you'd better produce something. And while it's nice to see that MagicSteel1 appreciates the magnanimity of American imperialism, I'm not sure our Latin American neighbors would agree. MagicSteel1's concerns are legitimate. However, his aggressive approach is unfair. China is many things, some good and some bad and while unlike the United States they have a few territorial issues outstanding and their government is more hands-on in the lives of its citizens, she's probably no more threatening than any other state of similar strength and influence.
3
It depends a lot on where the war takes place and what each country's objectives were as well as who attacked whom and what the rest of the world thought about that. I don't think either side would benefit from a war nearly as much as it would cost them though and despite the ignorance of Trump I think both sides are aware of that reality.
3
adventwrath, I'll admit, I don't know a lot about this guy. I've heard his name tossed around a bit as a libertarian type. I'm a strong believer in the value of collective accomplishment through state government which is my definition for high aspirations for humanity. He seems to be advocating for more of an entropic future which to me seems like a sad future reminiscent of our sad past. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions and I appreciate people who can demonstrate ambition and succeed through merits like work ethic, drive, study and talent, but I still see a need for affirmative action for historically disenfranchised groups and he seems to be suggesting that that makes me and people who agree with me the leftist equivalent of neo-nazis, which is nonsense.
3
Most of what Magicsteel1 says has some basis in fact. A lot of it is expressed from a Sinophobic angle though. Point for point: "China has track record of constantly oppressing and robbing South Asian countries until European countries(+Japan) came and kicked their asses." Assuming that he means Southeast Asian countries - China never had the political or military capacity to dominate South Asian countries - China has a complex history with her neighbors that varied from time period to time period and from region to region. By and large her relationships were in some ways beneficial and some ways detrimental. China has always been the culturally dominant entity in the region and during its periods of strength has taken a patriarchal approach which some found oppressive but it also provided peace and stability in the region which provided it's own forms of freedom and it often did so at its own cost, a noticeable example would be the protection of Korea from the invasions of Hideyoshi in the 1500s. "Their world view has not really changed in recent history; that they are center of world, or they should be, and the 'Central Country' cannot recede by an inch. Almost all neighboring countries have been attacked and subdued by China at some point and ended up paying tribute including humans." Their worldview has changed a great deal since the time of the Qianlong Emperor. Chinese today are well aware of the rest of the world and most are sober enough to understand that the United States is the dominant state in today's world and that that will continue to be the case for many decades to come. Historically, most countries that have been attacked and subdued by China are now part of China, and that is a very real example of China's history as an aggressor, but most of China's current neighbors have never been subdued by China. The northern half of Korea, Mongolia and some parts of Russia were and afterwards they were part of China for a time. It is true that China has regularly been very aggressive in their use of diplomacy and economics which manifested in the tributary system. And while it's true that some tribute was in the form of concubines and eunuchs, the end of the tributary system coincided with the height of the Atlantic slave trade. Needless to say, human rights standards have evolved around the world since then. "Onto more recent history, they are currently invading 'South China Sea', claiming that this sea belonged to them from ancient times although the sea is surrounded by Southern Asian countries. After building artificial islands on it, they now run military post there." The term "invading" here is clearly anti-Chinese. While I think the nine-dash line is a little dubious as a legitimate claim marker the Chinese feel very strongly that those waters have always been theirs since long before the current rules came into existence and that others are trying to steal away their legitimate territory. That being said, Magicsteel1 is understandably perturbed that the Chinese are taking such measures to physically defend their claim to these contested waters. This is getting really long I'll try to classify his other points with less commentary. "Corporations have to maintain 'quanchi'(relationship) with CCP just to run businesses. When Western companies come in, they are forced to work with their local businesses, give up their trading secrets, then get kicked out by Chinese government harassing them. They censor internet and force Apple to do their bidding just to do business there." You wanna live in my house, you gotta follow my rules. Not all governments roll over for their corporate masters. "They spy on their own citizens, arrest certain religious groups and sell their organs." Falun Gang propaganda. A few instances involving overzealous prison wardens may have occurred but this has never been government policy nor has it been condoned by the CCP. "…and hold down Tibet by force." True "When South Korea invited US to install THAAD to defend against North, China harassed Korean companies and tried to prevent their citizens from traveling there as retaliation." True "They're preparing 'social score' system to rate and grade everyone and manage them." This is true and many in China are viewing it with some degree of apprehension. On the other hand, the government is really getting tired of failing to get people to quit engaging in deceptive, dangerous and unhygienic behavior - something that I can sympathize with as a Portlander. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. "When somebody criticize CCP outside of China, often they try to put political pressure on foreign powers to silence them." The Chinese government can be thin-skinned when it comes to certain critics who they think could be particularly aggravating nuisances such as the Dalai Lama. I don't think MagicSteel1 has anything to be worried about. "Their ambassadors keep track of Chinese college students studying abroad and send them to run political protests." I think MagicSteel1 underestimates the patriotism felt by many Chinese students studying abroad. "Some Hollywood actors are banned from China for making movies critical of them." True, and understandable. "They threaten to invade Taiwan by force if they ever claim independence although they are two countries in reality. They have threatened travel companies to post Taiwan as part of China." Taiwan is part of China, and except for the period of Japanese occupation Taiwan has been governed as part of China since the early Qing Dynasty beginning in 1683, a lot longer than any part of America, the Caribbean or the Pacific Islands have been part of the United States. This is also longer than Okinawa has been part of Japan. The governing state on Taiwan is the Republic of China. The debate isn't whether or not Taiwan is part of China but rather which government rules all of China, Taiwan included. So except for the "although they are two countries in reality." illusion MagicSteel1 is correct. The PRC will invade Taiwan if its government declares the island not to be part of China.
2
On the socialist/liberal political axis liberal is definitely on the right. Classic liberals are individualists who push for extremely limited government (low taxes and no regulation). Traditionally they've been exploitative and avaricious. On the conservative/liberal axis they're on the left because they're against traditional institutions like the Church and class (mostly because old money won't let new money play with them). The concept of political left and right is actually way too simplistic, especially considering that these labels have had three centuries to grow and get themselves mangled.
2
Mr. Antsy, I totally agree with you. There has to be an incentive to succeed otherwise people won't try. That being said, there's no need, considering our capacity as a society, for nutritional shortage, homelessness, lack of medical care, poor infrastructure, etc., etc. A lot of the misery present in our society is due to a lack of will to deal with it and much of that is because those with the power to make change are comfortable with the status quo (why wouldn't they be?). There certainly is no need for one individual to be absorbing a billion dollars worth of resources. The prospect of obtaining a little fame, having authority to make decisions and bringing in a quarter of a million dollars a year in today's dollars should be enough incentive for anybody to work hard and be as clever as possible so long as we make sure that contributors are recognized and lauded for their contributions and that free riders, when identified are called out and punished. There are always going to be abusers of any system. In a socialist system the abusers are free riders who absorb public services while refusing to contribute. In a liberal system the abusers are exploiters who concentrate the contributions of the many into the hands of an avaricious few. The real danger to society is ideological purity. If you go totally socialist nobody has any incentive to contribute and society stagnates. If you go totally liberal that the vast majority of the population is impoverished and miserable while the tiny sliver of rich people live in a state of constant paranoia. The best answers are in the middle and the optimal position changes from society to society depending on their development as well as other needs and conditions.
2
Mr. Clockwork, so many people are always worried about a world government and there is legitimate concern about whether that government would be a good government or not but there would be many advantages to a world government. It would almost certainly reduce and likely eliminate the instances of war and it's effective horrors. It would eliminate "off-shoring" style tax evasion, it would eliminate the risk of nuclear annihilation and it would provide a legal authority to which all people could have recourse. Their would be no evasion of jurisdiction for hackers, tax cheats, embezzlers, traffickers, fugitives or other ne'er-do-wells. The entire planet's resources could be focused on non-conflict related priorities like poverty elimination, climate stabilization and space exploration to name a few. Of course whether or not it would be a good government would depend on whether or not the government was strong, largely uncorrupted and had the interests of the people at heart, but that's the case with any government. Of course people who are satisfied with their current states government (both with the way the government works and the influence the government carries in the world) are unlikely to want to risk the kind of change that would usher in a global government so it's really unlikely we'll ever see a truly effective global government, but we shouldn't be inherently afraid of one, so long as we take measures to ensure that it governs well.
1
China's a complicated country with a lot of complicated issues. I'm glad you can appreciate that. You definitely should not take everything that I say as fact; I am definitely a sinophile and I can get very worked up when I think China's being unfairly maligned. Nonetheless, China is frequently unfairly maligned. As for China Uncensored, it is operated by the Falun Gong which is at war with the Chinese government. Not everything they say is a lie, but they definitely are grinding an axe so take it with a pound of salt.
1