Original:
HK leader kills bill but some say too late
A conversation, defined as the equal exchange of ideas, with a gun pointed at your head is not really a conversation. In law duress can make a contract void or voidable for similar reasons. Statists know that their power to control a disproportionate number of people comes from the threat of violence (coercion). Their power is diminished by the use of actual violence although it is necessary at times to make the threats credible. They have a huge imbalance of power in their favor through their monopoly on violence, control of weapons and plundered loot to pay for manpower. These realities combined means they like to pretend they are having a 'conversation', 'dialogue' (in places like Parliaments) or whatever euphemism of the day is in the particular Statist territory. The more draconian the concessions the negotiator can extract from his target as a result of the imbalance of power the greater the incentive to make those concessions appear to have been the result of a 'fair and balanced dialogue'. When the draconian measures are carried out a great deal of potential opposition can then be neutralized by the simple refrain that 'it's what you consented to'.
What has really just happened in HK? A 'victory' for the Commoners? Over 1000 facing fines and/or being caged, some after having been beaten. The article, from a mainstream news conglomerate, is replete with Statist slants - Freedom is 'enjoyed' in HK in a way that equates it with something like a trip to DisneyLand.
'Many are furious at perceived police brutality' ... but there's no 'perceived' qualifier for the 'pitched battles' by those who 'drove the former British colony to the edge of anarchy'; using, as ever, the term 'anarchy' in the pejorative sense that the mainstream media ensures the public understands it to mean i.e. chaos.
Instead of what it really means which is simply 'leaderless'.
By 'too late' what is meant is that Carrie Lam's gang should have withdrawn this bill at a much earlier stage, perhaps when the protests with large numbers were predominantly peaceful? People can, and perhaps will, endlessly debate what constitutes the 'right' moment for a politician like Lam to do such a thing. All these debates miss the point, which is that any 'dialogue/conversation' etc. that takes place between the State and it's antagonists does so under the shadow of violent coercion.
People 'taking to the streets' is an absurd way to carry on. I appreciate they are forced into it out of sheer desperation, however any 'victory' forged in this fashion is hollow. It sets the precedent that every time anyone wants to 'negotiate' with the State they must spend months out of a busy and demanding life, hanging about in all kinds of weather, with the prospect of being violently assaulted/caged ever present and the very real chance that whatever issue it is they are campaigning for will not be 'heard' at the end of it all. That millions do this is a testament to human Will. However, I suggest a little more of that Will be spent examining the true nature of the relations that exist in society and a little less time wasted making your cause appear like one of a disorganized rabble that is then characterized as 'the edge of Anarchy' by mainstream media conglomerates that have vested interests in the State and all of it's machinations.
People with a point to make can do so online, in their conversations with those around and by organizing their own lives to be consistent with the values they purport to espouse. Don't agree with the violent coercion of the State and/or being shipped out to an even more draconian State? Why stamp a seal of approval on the idea that violent coercion be used against others implicit in a vote?
A seeming Statist concession, because violence and chaos were threatened, plays right into their hands. This is playing their game, by their rules. Thank goodness the 'leaders' are level headed and reasonable negotiators. They have decided not to brutally suppress the population with their instruments of destruction. The next step is returning to the 'negotiating table' and starting all over again. People will have to be prepared to continually march out onto the streets for some long, wet days. At the end of it all very little will have changed ... just the way the State likes it as it continues to probe for new avenues of control ...
shaping young minds for example ...