You know, free elections, the right to arm yourself, the right to buy chewing gum.
Singapore is pretty creepy under the surface and reeks of covert oppression, at least to my American eye. It seems to work for them, but I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
>You know, free elections, the right to arm yourself, the right to buy chewing gum.
It is easier to get chewing gum in Singapore than it is to buy kinder eggs in America.
Additionally, the reason for banning chewing gum was a whole lot more reasonable (it makes the streets dirty & jammed train doors).
>I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
And I wouldn't want to live in America either. I'm happily trading chewing gum and semi-automatic pistols for affordable healthcare, summer every day and clean streets.
There is a difference between laws based on principle, and laws based on observation. I think Singapore has been a model based on empirical observation -- tightly controlled, but prosperous and happy (vague terms, admittedly), despite what most people think (I think most of the people on HN hating on Singapore have actually never been there, let alone know anyone from there).
Contrast this with the USA, whose laws are (supposedly -- it has been much more complex since the Great Depression) based on principle, on a Western logic that, I believe, still holds strong. It is beautiful, as many writers have shown. In past years I have been a great appreciator of this, having held strong libertarian and even anarcho-capitalist values (not a part of the Ayn Rand hype train, I assure you).
But politico-economic systems are much more complex, human nature so rich, that logic and rhetoric cannot fully capture, perhaps ever. As of late I've read a bit more into histories of Communism in the last 100 years, looked at alternative systems of government. And I just don't think the victory and purity of Western idealism -- that it is the One Way, the Only Way -- is as valid as most of us think. There is that banal idea that "Communism works on paper, but not in reality", but I am gradually leaning towards replacing "Communism" with Capitalism.
I know we cannot really compare the Nordic models of governance with Singapore, but I think they, like Singapore, also incorporate many political ideas based on empirical observation, rather than stubborn insistence of value systems.
Unfortunately even the USA isn't so pure. There are so many systems of principles now, that clash all the time -- and they themselves have changed drastically from the USA of 100 years ago. Thus the Libertarian argument still stands. I think the question is, does that Argument even matter?
Yes, you may legally kill people, either by "standing your ground", through capital punishment or by waging war. You may also pollute, and I'm leaving it up to you to figure out how, because I'm not going to bother arguing for the obvious. Hint: gasoline.
Just saying it's a gray area. You can't argue for all rights, and you can't argue for absolutely no rights. In a free society, you still have to give up some rights.
This is not true. His exact words were "I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today".
> Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success
This is bullshit. What a sweeping generalisation to make of all the citizens of a country.
> willing to accept less freedoms
What are these "less freedoms" exactly?
> in exchange for economic success
At least the original comment also conceded "low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy"