Original:
China warns Canada to ‘stop meddling’ in Hong Kong affairs
It's easier to appreciate what Statists are up to when you consider their acts as a nation in the same way that we consider them as acts of an individual. You can argue that the individual is not the nation, however, this doesn't sit well with the constant Statist clarion call of 'acting together', 'acting as one' and all the other expressions of 'national unity' they are so fond of espousing. An important hallmark of Statism is meddling. They don't know how to leave anyone or anything alone. Taxation, regulation and a constant propaganda bombardment are just some of the more obvious manifestations of their incessant meddling in the lives of ordinary people. When they consider themselves as 'one nation' within the 'international community' however, the narrative suddenly changes. Everything that the individual is supposed to simply waive away becomes a matter of great 'national pride' and the 'sovereignty of the nation' is jealously guarded.
So, for as long as it exists, you will find the arch hypocrite, the arch meddler, complaining about other 'meddlers', while it gets on with the business of 'meddling' in the lives of it's 'own people'.
One of the popular refrains whenever one dares to question the State, is 'if you don't like it why don't you leave and go to ... (X country)?' The irony is that the more Statist the world becomes the more absurd, yet powerful, this statement is. In a world of genuine individuality and free markets it's quite true that if X doesn't like Y, and Y's preferred environment, they can avoid them with little consequence. Simply move on to a more conducive environment, or find a way to work out the differences, often via a value exchange of some kind. In a world of nation States, with vast areas of land under control of different States, it is far harder to simply change one's environment and move to a more conducive one; more likely simply jumping from the 'frying pan into the fire'. Taken to it's absurd logical conclusion, with a global super-State, such a refrain would mean moving to the Moon or similar.
The Statist making this refrain is avoiding the real issue, which is the right to 'meddle' backed by violent aggression that lies at the heart of voting, which is a major justification that's used for the existence of the State. Y may want to meddle in X's life by, for example, voting for a law that restricts free speech. X may want to meddle in Y's life by, for example, voting for a law that X considers protects the environment. Both want their positions to, ultimately, be backed by physical violence. Otherwise they're simply having a debate; which is fine, but there's a big difference between a debate and aggressive violence. Voting and Democracy appear to involve the former, but actually revert to the latter by default and stay that way unless explicitly repealed. Anyone who doesn't conform to the Law will be fined and/or beaten and/or caged. If something matters to you, e.g the environment, back that up with your economic value (i.e. pay for whatever measures you believe will improve the environment). In other words use your economic, not your political, power. Your political power is virtually non-existent as it manifests today, no matter how much you are told otherwise, and is highly susceptible to manipulation. We tend to be far more discerning and honest with our economic power; if not we more clearly and fairly bear the costs of our mistakes, delusions and in-competencies from which we are able, or not, to learn from as we grow up. This may appear to be an unnerving prospect. No 'Big Brother' to save us from ourselves. Pick up the pieces when we make a foolish error. Look after us when we don't make enough medical provision etc. But 'Big Brother' doesn't come for free either. Every part of his existence is paid for by you in terms of economic, political, social and virtually every other existential dimension you care to think of. You're going to pay, one way or the other. The difference is which 'way' do you individually have more control over?
So next time you hear them talking about 'meddling' via their talking heads, ask yourself what's really being said. Do they really believe that 'meddling' is a bad thing in principle? See how far they're prepared to carry that principle in practice. It won't be long before you start hearing excuses and logical fallacies relating to 'pragmatism' and similar intellectual escape hatches.
For once the Chinese State is right. It's not ok to meddle. But do they really look for the wisdom within themselves or are they just looking out and lecturing the rest of the world like all the others?
