And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.

In international issues, it's important to not lose sight of the possibility that there are multiple correct ways to solve political problems.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_...

I think China is lacking in some important rights, but I think being vague about them to the degree that we say they have "less freedom" only muddies the problem, and allows people to use the rights they do have as a counter-argument. Being clear that China's suppression of free speech allows them to shape discourse, suppress ideas they don't like, and propagandize their citizens easily makes the dangers clear. It does also open up the discussion for how the west attempts to accomplish the same things through the media, but that's not necessarily a bad thing have have brought up.

No, there's a fundamental difference between living in a country where you have recourse against the government and living in one where you don't.

In the US, I am not allowed to say things that are considered slanderous, but I am allowed to say that I should be allowed to say things that are slanderous. This makes it at least possible to change the status quo.

The same is not true in countries without free speech protections.

I'm not convinced. I've seen plenty of (presumably) US citizens complain here that Europe doesn't have free speech, because we have laws to curb hate speech.

Still, we are very much free to discuss and organize against our government.

Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.

It's easy for people to embrace the rhetoric that China is a bound society and the West is made of free societies. In reality, the shape of the bindings is different. A free society wouldn't have forced a man to flee because he knew he wouldn't find justice after revealing an uncomfortable political truth to the public that is oppressed by it. America's methods are different, but being a superpower and an empire demands supreme authority in key areas.

I thought he was claiming in the US it was possible to be a dissident without censorship or repression. My mistake!

Also, one must not confuse the US with "the western world". I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. I also believe this is true for most other European countries.

My original point was that the statement: > And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.

Is simply not true. Mentioned Mr. Snowden as an example -- but there are more, like the huge leak of the panama papers.

I'm less familiar with Germany, but I'm willing to bet that while people in principle can say whatever they want (with some exceptions), there are other, less visible forms of repression and/or means of neutralizing those opinions. That they are less overt than in China doesn't mean they are not there.

Just don't say "The Nazis are great and I really wish they were back in power." That'll get you straight-up jailed under section 86a of Strafgesetzbuch, if I understand correctly. Everything else is on the table. ;)

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

() There are still people wandering about who say this and similar things who are not in jail. You much more likely would get in trouble if you call someone a "goat-fucker" (google erdogan and jan böhmermann).

I do like freedom of speech just about as far as I have the freedom to not have to listen to it (or, Goddess forbid, take it seriously).

Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war.

> Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance)

OK...

EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?

My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome.

As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership.

As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it.

More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die.

Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.

" we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all.

We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored.

...the Battle of France is over ... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.

The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour. "

This was Churchill, June 16, 1940, when it was not at all obvious that there was any way to win the war. My grandfathers and great uncles volunteered anyway, as did tens of thousands of others. They did not want to, but knew they had to. As Churchill said, it was '...let us brace ourselves to our duties...'.

As for China, it is our duty to show that there is another way to organize a society. Give them full exposure, through trade and visits. Then, as they figure things out, be there to help them through the process.

My point is just that facing an existential threat to your country, and by extension most of the people and places you've ever loved, is clear and highly motivating – and unusual for western countries in the last 60 years.

It's very different from the Korean War, Vietnam War, Falklands War, Gulf War, War in Afghanistan, etc. Those were not existential threats; they were mostly geopolitical posturing. I'm not making a statement on whether those were good or worthy wars (posturing can be necessary), but it's at least an arguable position that most casualties in those wars died "because delusional leaders sent them into battle," not because they were choosing to fight and die for some grand idea.

The surrounding point in this discussion is that if we're going to talk up the values of freedom and democracy we have to live them as well. That would include the US giving up its little gulag in Guantanamo and applying the rule of law there as well, among many other things.

The issue is not to let perfect become the enemy of better. Just because we fall short of an ideal of freedom does not mean we are therefore not in a free society. Just because our society in the WWII era was not as free as our own, does not mean it wasn't dramatically freer than the alternatives.

Even Churchill's promise to fight until all Europe was free was only half kept, for half of Europe fell behind an iron curtain until nearly fifty years after WWII. It was the right decision not to continue to war to free the other half of Europe. Time and exposure to another way to organize society did the job, without millions more dead or nuclear weapons.

It will be the same with China, with Cuba and even with North Korea. All we have to do is stand fast with our freedoms, and advance them where we can. Time and exposure will do the rest.

And in the other half minorities such as homosexuals were persecuted. Including Alan Turing, who in WW2 helped break the ciphers of the German military.

>All we have to do is stand fast with our freedoms

Yes, our freedoms (see above)...

However you are missing the bigger point, western democracies are almost always leading the way with more rights than any one else. For how homosexuals were treated in Germany see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_...

There is a broad spectrum of (personal) causes that leads one to follow an order which inherently brings with it the risk of dying. Many deaths were of people that did not had any real choice other than avoiding prosecution (which sometimes involved certain death). Many where brain washed by propaganda. Maybe not that many actually trusted in their war masters if not understanding themselves what they are fighting (and dying) for. Some, however, might have had an understanding of the cause behind the fights they were involved in, and being seduced by pure ideas/ideals rolled on as true volunteers. It's not that nice to make this distinction when talking about the dead and for the sake of it they choose to elevate all the victims to the last category, of heroes (in ideals).

Not knowing what nightmares you sign up for, plus the group pressure of a replacement tribe/family, those are the ingredients cooked with in hells kitchen.