A Statement Of Support for Taiwan
I produced this video to show my support for Taiwan. I hope others can make their own using the same text and post to their blogs / Facebook etc, in English, Mandarin, Hoklo, Hakka and Austronesian languages.
Text Here:
My name is ______________ and I love this country, Taiwan. I recognise that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent democratic country. I do not recognise the existence of the 1992 Consensus and I do not accept any interpretation of the 'One China Principle' that includes Taiwan. I will not be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Republic of China. I support any party that wishes Taiwanese to solely determine their own future free of any form of coercion.
我的名字是 ______________，我愛這個國家，台灣。我承認台灣是一個主權獨立的民主國家。我不承認九二共識的存在，我不接受任何包含台灣在內的'一個中國原則'解釋。我不會慶祝中華民國的第一百週年。我支持任何政黨--其同意台灣人民在不受任何形式的脅迫下獨立決定自己的未來。
posted Wednesday, December 29, 2010 @ 3:51 PM by Ben Goren
[Permalink]
Tweet
RSS Feed
9 Comments:
"I support any party that wishes Taiwanese to solely determine their own future free of any form of coercion."
Not so. The subject of that sentence (party) contradicts its predicate (free from any form of coercion) since it (party) presupposes a State, and all States, democratic or otherwise are inherently coercive.
You should be arguing about kinds and degrees of coercion - e.g. democratically sanctioned coercion, or constitutionally limited coercion. For you, a social democrat, to issue a blanket condemnation of 'any form of coercion' merely demonstrates your incompetence at handling basic political concepts crucial to your own position.
Or else that, like Turton, you are a goddamned double-think liar.
Oh Mike, you are a card! LOL
I am happy to accept Weber's observation that the State holds a monopoly of violence and therefore coercion. Any social and collective institution that seeks to determine social order through establishing a monopoly of violence (the church etc) is coercive, the key point being that this is usually exercised by the establishment of law that should be consistent internally and consistently applied externally. Not often the case admittedly but do we need to spell this out in every discussion? Yes, I could have been more literal in using 'democratically sanctioned coercion' but then that would mean confusing and turning off 99.9% of the audience I am aiming my statement at.
BTW: Oxymoron alert - you can't be a double-thinker and a liar since a double-thinker by definition genuinely believes two opposing ideas to be congruent without any cognitive dissonance. hence there is no intent to lie since there is no awareness that a lie is being propagated.
So ... FAIL ....tell me again about incompetence at handling basic political concepts?
Putting aside asinine and pedantic objections to my wording, do you have any constructive comments about the statement I made? Do you agree with my position against the 1992 consensus, one-China principle and not celebrating the 100 years of the ROC? Do you support these? What is your position on them.
Troll you may be but at least give me credit for at least trying to elicit a reasonable debate with you.
"...do you have any constructive comments about the statement I made? Do you agree with my position against the 1992 consensus, one-China principle and not celebrating the 100 years of the ROC? Do you support these? What is your position on them."
Creative destruction, Ben. Am I against all of those things too? Yes, of course. But I am in favour of the freedom of individuals from coercion as much as possible. The central question for me is therefore not who should rule (as with your "I support any party that..." schtick), but how to restrain human evils by rational design and redesign of social institutions.
"I could have been more literal in using 'democratically sanctioned coercion' but then that would mean confusing and turning off 99.9% of the audience I am aiming my statement at."
Why assume your readers are thick? Does it help with winning vain popularity contests?
"....you can't be a double-thinker and a liar"
Double-think is merely the art of lying taken to its perfect conclusion. Both are violations of reality, the one a more complete form than the other.
"...tell me again about incompetence at handling basic political concepts?"
Gladly - lying is a social phenomenon which only becomes 'political' by virtue of context.
And I am not a troll - I subject you, and Turton and Reid and others to criticism and challenge because you pontificate on serious issues, which, in an open society demand such challenge and criticism.
It is to your collective discredit that someone like me has been banned at each of those joints, although you are all perfectly within your rights to do so.
Ben - I applaud you for having the integrity to publish Michael's marginally relevant, aggressively worded comment. Here's to the pain of honoring free speech.
That said, I'd like to hear your view on this: Do you really see this petition signing, repeat after me "Taiwan is already a sovereign nation", opinion poll "would you prefer independence?" gathering approach to make any dent into Taiwan's bid for realistic, world-recognized independence?
I look around the world, and back through history, and can't think of too many examples of how an oppressed people simply asked for their freedom and were given it without a costly fight of some kind.
"I applaud you for having the integrity to publish Michael's marginally relevant, aggressively worded comment. Here's to the pain of honoring free speech."
Fool. This is not a free speech issue for the simple reason that this blog does not belong to me. If Ben asks me to leave I will and I will not make a single complaint about "free speech" - it is his property (or shared property) and he is perfectly entitled to tell me to leave.
As to "marginally relevant" - the problem of how to bring violence under rational control is centrally relevant to the entire political problem of how large numbers of people are to live together in society with one another.
You are a foreigner, your ARC is issued by the Republic of China.
Come back once Taiwan is called R.O.T. ! Or how would you like Palestinians in Tel Aviv to burn your Israeli flag or foreigner cheering for Hamas in Jerusalem?
Tone down your protest! Even the DPP is more reasonable than you - keep CSB's 4 stages theory in mind.
Michael -
The free speech reference was to your "right" to be rude and to gratuitously agitate Ben in a way that you would never dare to do if you were in the same room with him, for fear of your personal safety. This is an unwanted by-product of the founding father's concept of freedom of speech.
Ben - please enlighten me/us. I want to know why Taiwanese think that they are special and think that they can break away from China without a single NT spent or a single life lost. That's my perception: that this "sovereign nation status" thing has no teeth.
Michael F., saying that a particular way of expressing something would confuse most readers isn't the same as thinking they're "thick."
All of your comments here have contained ad hominem attacks, and that won't convince many people that you are right about anything.
East Maverick, I am the one who decides what appears here, and your repeated implication/insistence that Taiwanese must suffer some kind of nasty fate in order for the world to recognize their independence/nationhood doesn't contribute anything to the discourse. Why not direct some of that energy at the bellicose Chinese side which has well over 1,500 missiles aimed at us here in Taiwan?
Tim Maddog
Jan - I would certainly never do damage to the ROC flag in this country nor would I suggest anyone else do so. Ironically, it was the police who desecrated the ROC flag for the visit of Chen Yunlin and I don't remember you threatening the ROC Govt at the time in the same manner you do to me. Why the double standard? That doesn't mean I have to actively celebrate the existence of the ROC in Taiwan or its history, a cursory examination of which reveals an inability to achieve stability with recourse to violence or corruption. Palestinians could cheer for Hamas in Jerusalem if they wish - that does not equate with violent insurrection or suggesting the violent overthrow of the state. Also, can we drop this ROT thing. I have never suggested that ROC be replaced with ROT - that presupposes a preference for a republican government. In my presentations at conferences I have been very careful not to project one system or the other onto a future independent Taiwan. My argument is that in a future Taiwan constitution, the country simply be called 'Taiwan', nothing more, nothing less. Hell, It could be called Naruwan or Formosa or some other name if more Taiwanese preferred that. Its their choice.
EM - I don't think any countries are formed entirely without some form of sacrifice but at the same time I always hope that they can. Your argument seems to be don't wish for that which cannot be had without loss of some kind yet that argument is the bully's get out clause. What if the people's of Eastern Europe had taken the same approach to the communist regimes that ruled them? or the people of South America and the dictatorships that ruled them? Is no-one supposed to seek change because of the threat such a change might pose to them? How do we move forward? How do we free people from dictatorship? Tim has a point - it's Stockholm Syndrome to internally criticise those who would wish for change rather than the agents that pose a real and ongoing threat to the continued and very real, if de facto, independence Taiwanese enjoy today. One might confuse you for an apologist for Beijing and the KMT.
Post a Comment
<< Home