There is a lot going on in this field of law. First, the historic concept is called “common carrier.” Someone with such a designation is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating among customers. That has a historically determined meaning -- they can charge differently in ways that relate to their underlying cost, risk, or value being delivered. But not to unrelated things.
Second there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting banks and other financial institutions from making decisions about financial support to businesses based on ESG scores or opinions.
Third, there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting use of social credit scores in a variety of business decisions.
Both the second and third points also have variations that are much more extensive and cover a person’s affiliations or opinions.
There are problems with this. For example, if and employer doesn’t want to hire Klan members, it seems like that ought to be OK. But what about the employer who doesn’t want to hire Democrats or Methodists? And how do we distinguish a social credit score from a real credit score when looking at a bank’s lending decisions? And for lending to businesses, how do we distinguish between consideration of (a) risks arising directly from global warming, like investing in construction on beachfronts, (b) risks arising from litigation and regulatory exposure of alleged polluters like oil companies, and (c) an ESG score?
Apart from figuring out how to write these laws, their proponents need to make sure that they provide a private right of action for statutory damages and attorneys’s fees. That will turn the plaintiffs lawyers loose.
Several decades ago, it was decided that "common carriers" couldn't discriminate against members of the KKK and the Communist Party. And now it's apparently okay for them to discriminate against conservatives, anyone associated with conservatives, anyone not discriminating against conservatives, anyone objecting to all the discrimination, etc.
Having alternatives doesn’t have to mean that it competes with conglomerates. It might be more useful to build smaller, local alternatives. Something akin to having a small community bank instead of Chase. Or going to smaller markets for organic food and avoiding supermarkets.
I put it to you that Twitter, AirBnB, etc are not public squares but private land more akin to shopping malls.
But as Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) tells us, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers.
"Free speech and free association in our new digital malls" might not be the most catchy phrase ever, but it has legal precedent.
If it has an HR department, its effectively a government agency.
It's fine to let Joe's fish shack do whatever it wants, but once decision making it being made by a committee of mediocre mid level beuracrats with no skin in the game, its fine to put common sense guardrails on the outcome.
The full Libertarian position would be any business could choose not to provide services for any reason. An airline could cancel your reservation over an insensitive Tweet, a restaurant owner could refuse to seat you etc. In a world with intense competition in all sectors, this might work. You could simply choose other places to do business. Realistically though that's difficult.
I don't really want to live in a world where I have to review every purchase decision I make through the lens of the companies political opinions.
You always talk in this very polished and articulated way, 0 background noise too i have too say i've read listened to almost all of your content, and while i don't follow you or "get on" with everything you've explored and proposed and in this your project, i acknowladge you are a smart, polite chap i've learned from all you've done, from one man to another matthew may you achieve more success in the years to come
I don’t know about in the UK as the law differs. The baker who refused to make the cake won his Supreme Court case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They said the state was hostile to his religion giving other protected classes more protection. But being associated with an E-Celebrity who mostly does political commentary and social issues is probably not protected by civil rights legislation. They would have the okay to cut them for what ever reason as long as it’s not race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or who you specifically voted for, they’d probably argue “oh, she does hate speech, & they are so close to her, ya da ya da & so forth.” I’d probably just ride it out in a hotel. You shouldn’t give your business to people who don’t want it. People put cameras in Air B&Bs. It’s pretty bad for the real estate market too. People buying houses to rent them takes away from people buying houses to live in them. The world will always be the same and you’ll never change it. Eventually the house of cards will collapse (mass foreclosures, yesterday I read news that apparently half the people who make 100k are living check to check, just loans up the wazoo.) A more organic market will emerge hopefully in reaction to the mistakes we’ve made. Jails are filling up and people abuse the system, what would be the pragmatic approach? Raise our children to be better people? Equal opportunity to be a fool playing a fools game in the age of decadence, nay I say tis’ better to live as Diogenes. Take a whizz on the next air B&B you see.
Have a question, why is freedom of speech a critical, deterministic, fulcrum point?
I, personally think it matters much less than you think, as evidenced by most people not caring.
Like, I want you to fill this in
If no freedom of speech, then....
_________________________
I'm into Asian history and I'm fine with collectivism or authoritarian ways. Freedom of speech matters in specific ways that were important in the past, say Mokyr's "Republic of Letters" thesis on development. A marginal reduction in the freedom of speech in our current world bothers mostly those on the right. I could care less and you all have not given evidence for the conclusion to the premise. It's what you learned in 11th grade of High School, but is it even true? I feel if you do some kind of regression discontinuity on states/counties that banned more speech, you would find no effect. Willing to change my mind, but think it matter very little. Core belief for a lot though.
I think it's hard to answer that question without specifying what we mean by an absence of freedom of speech. The UK has famously shitty libel laws compared to the US, for example. So it's a very nuanced pictured, not a binary. I also think that the Asian point overlooks rather obvious group differences in personality. I'm not saying that one system is better or worse. They could be equivalent peaks in the Eudaimonia mountain range. But I obviously cannot ascend the Asian peak without doing some serious gene editing!
But the point about Southern's parents isn't a free speech issue, of course.
All I am saying is y'all have a super strong determinative premise.
It is not based on evidence, but dogma.
There is no way to falsify your system.
I give little value to freedom of speech or other freedoms in America. We are animals and we hate being told what to do and love having choices that we make. I have two American children and my father in law lives with me. My father in law is immobile and 85 and although people love to say "twitter is not real life". My perception of my father in law's view of the world is entirely shaped by local news. He is kind of an angry old bird and says no to a lot. It's important that he makes choices to be like a fulfilled individual even if it's the anglo versions of like I am choosing chicken nuggets over a hot dog tonight. This is really important to him. If I take away that choice, he gets really resentful, like I am forcing my will on him.
When you raise children in the West, it's all about choices and freedom. I mean I am sympathetic to the right's characterization of resist libs as NPC's, but I mean just take it one step further, we are all NPC's. It's really important that my kids look at menus and always choose chicken nuggets. In American schools, they have these Socratic seminars and they even try to bring those concepts into mathematics classes as if 12 year olds are going to discover important theorems by having a debate. The entire conception is just absurd. We have had the smartest mathematicians working on theorems and concepts over millenia, but it is important that Timmy figure it out on his own by having a discussion with Veronica.
I have a lot of core premises that are in opposition to yours probably. I don't think this stuff matters at all. IQ matters much less, academia matters much less, fairy tales about markets v. communism.
I am ape, I know I am because I poop. Take away my choice to poop and I will be upset. Hit me on the head hard enough and I may just accept it and poop my pants.
While Asians don't care about political freedoms as much as long as they possess some economic ones, the reason is pretty obvious Ray Tseng.
Suppose you have a group. Or an authority. They get taken over, and no longer represent your interests. Now X incidence happens. Maybe an exploding nuclear plant. Or an inconvenient under-the-shrug event like government officials negligence causing massive harm.
You know, the kind where people were intentionally left to drown in the long tunnels of China for cars with the government telling people to not intervene.
True, you may not value other people's lives that much. BUT, let's suppose these -things- did happen to you. Would -you- not like to know some POSSIBLE negative events like the government redirecting waterflows away to backwater villages just to preserve cities, if you were a villager, or nuclear fallout that's going to kill you if you aren't getting away from the area? -Covering up- and look the other way or saving face might be a GOOD thing temporarily because ignorance is ignorance, but this is why people see such people as -bugmen- who aren't empathic at all. And this has negative consequences. Your people poison each other, your food, your toothpaste, your cosmetics, exploding batteries. Now compare that to HONEST people who care about the truth. You get well, as least presumptively, some minimal level of 'I can be sure that when I do this or buy this product or use this' that I am afforded some level of -decency- in knowing that the knowledge is factual and I won't be harmed say vs well.. an asian government just covering it up. Not to say that the US or whatever isn't just as corrupt with having biolabs in Ukraine and testing -medical- interventions on the military, or Canada or Norway or whatever but the fact is the -populace- determines your standard of living. I can sit in Japan and not have to worry about looting or losing my place in line even after a storm say something that wouldn't happen in the states. While in Asia you might not get violence, you might have to bribe to get ahead in life or endure more negative things I rather not like. If the people care about clean air and water like some parts of the EU do then you see more stringent regulations, and hence the people get better life. Just like the Japanese don't poison their own children with proper meals because they are -honorable- with -dignity- and not just mindless hyperconsumerist hypercapitalists, though there's negative with overwork and whatnot.
So it's really a matter of what you want. Yes China has a higher standard of living now in terms of parity of dollars, but there's trade-offs to be had. I dont' really care about the LEFT vs RIGHT vs whatever political debates that White people seem to love a lot (like some sporting event). **but** imagine your ECONOMIC freedoms will also be scored against ESG measures or you have to fraternize with people of other races that you don't want to for behavioral reasons because your political system is corrupt and you can't say anything contrary to it. Sure a korean in NK may just bow down everyday and just take it up the ass, but you can't really have -everyone- just taking it up the ass and be regimented if the conditions are that perilous, no? There's the eugenics passport in China if I recall for moving about. While in principle it may be a good thing, it's just -another- factor that decreases your standard of living if you are not from the upper class or new rising class.
You are right, the majority of humanity will never be inventors or originators because the majority of people neither possess the willpower nor intellect. -but- remember, the people -whether in power or not- determine what the society's outcome will be. even elites without the political power are hapless. you can't inject LBTIQAIE+ into asian societies that easily because people are -resistant- to it just like weeds are resistant to certain things unlike white people.
The thing you need to know is -just existing- and being bugmen cannot create civilization in itself. You need to always be -exploring new possibilities and initiatives- that did not exist before, and all asians just studying the baokaomao for 999 light years just to have 1 in 1 majillion attend some elite university to be pathwayed into an elite education force is idiocratic when you can just sample the genetic data from the start. There's a place and time for conformity and there's a place and time for individualism.
You don't need to work 12 hours 12 days a week to secure a victory as germans demonstrate otherwise. Yes that might transform a society from A to B in less than 3 decades, but it is about -working intelligently- not -working harder-. Though I guess with the superior visualspatial intelligence of asians and engineering it's not that too far off in terms of AI, the price of buying a robot with top of the spec features is 75% less than the west.
However, there are certain values to say that I prefer in the West to the East. Functionality and form, convenience vs features, etc. A lot of premium products in the West are created in the West because there are innovative minds. I know asians have caught up mostly and made it at a lower-cost point with more features but copying is not enough. One needs to originate new technologies in my view and that requires ideation and exchange of ideas and a broader viewpoint which being a studious robot cannot afford. Which is why the political power of the world still resides in groups with higher verbal intelligence.
The benefit I feel when I live in the West is I can behave as I am and however I want. When I go to the East, there's more nuanced concepts like 'the face' and such which restricts the degree of behaviour I can enact with a very rigid-minded thinking of linear paths. Would I rather work less hours per week in the West and enjoy greater care (like Switz) or spend my days hypercompeting with 9 bajillion similar GPU units just to afford a piece of parcel of land? I rather be in the less competitive land and live in urbanville and get to spend my days free to read blogs like these.
I like to spend my leisure time as I please. I like clean air. I like clean food. I like not having to worry about government corruption to the extent that I need to bribe people (at least the low-level bureaucrats). I like not having to spend 99% of my life studying just to forget 95% of it in 6 months, and not having to compete so hard while having a decent affordable standard of living. I am not as sociable as other white people in my country as an introvert but there's a bit more reciprocity (i.e. door-opening, come over for some bread and dinner) etc for things even if I don't interact that much. It's undeniable in Asia there's better safety, tech and other stuff but my health and life come first, then standard of living, then the other things.
I'd prefer a Japan standard of living with Western freedom-ideals and truth-seeking. I already get to see the first hand negative effects everytime I have to go to amazon and see your countrymen spam 999,999 5-star reviews with low quality products which you never see in Japan with them feeling shame for even saying something is 'mint' condition even if it was never opened. These are just some of things I look for in a society. Maybe a norway or singapore-style wealth fund is also good. Some 15 minute cities for biking may be good too. I look for the best qualities of people in the world and I hope to live in societies with those attributes. Destiny collectivism has its merits, and so does political freedom/valuing truth. There's corruption at high-levels everywhere, sure. But there's varying functional levels of corruption. African levels are unacceptable. Chinese corruption is so-so. European corruption is more political in nature but less so about ignoring the populace (more sensitive to the populace's reaction b/c white people tend to shout and yell and make a lot of noise when they get angry) at least some concessions can be made.
Either way there's trade-offs to be had everywhere.
Exploding batteries and collapsing apartments are unacceptable. I don't want to live anyone with those kind of genetics still permeating in my land or country. Call me racist or whatever but this is a fact. Demographics is destiny, genes are destiny. There's a reason why europeans cut off antisocial people (not asocial) worst 2% like their hands for stealing, it's to purify the gene pool from bad qualities. imo china was conquered too much and now suffers from a mix hedgehodpad of qualities of not caring/extreme regimentation. may be good for militarization but until those negative factors in such societies leaves, I cannot advocate such a standard of living as better even if technologically it is more advanced from an engineering stand point unless all people share the same ideals/values from a behavioural standpoint. Neither is arrogance (looking down on others for inferior socioeconomic statsus) something I value as much like the Koreans. There's a time and place for eugenic game theory but plastering / deceiving to point of surgeries about your health status is just as bad imo. White people may be more covert about it (unless they are a liberal) with passive-aggressiveness like the Canadians which is slightly more tolerable. I do like the utilitarianism of the Chinese and pragmatism at least, not having to deal with LBGIQTA whatever and I guess having wives put up their e-stats / posters is very straightforward. anyways point being made, just certain personality attributes of certain populations and certain policies are preferred in one population over another.
There is a lot going on in this field of law. First, the historic concept is called “common carrier.” Someone with such a designation is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating among customers. That has a historically determined meaning -- they can charge differently in ways that relate to their underlying cost, risk, or value being delivered. But not to unrelated things.
Second there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting banks and other financial institutions from making decisions about financial support to businesses based on ESG scores or opinions.
Third, there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting use of social credit scores in a variety of business decisions.
Both the second and third points also have variations that are much more extensive and cover a person’s affiliations or opinions.
There are problems with this. For example, if and employer doesn’t want to hire Klan members, it seems like that ought to be OK. But what about the employer who doesn’t want to hire Democrats or Methodists? And how do we distinguish a social credit score from a real credit score when looking at a bank’s lending decisions? And for lending to businesses, how do we distinguish between consideration of (a) risks arising directly from global warming, like investing in construction on beachfronts, (b) risks arising from litigation and regulatory exposure of alleged polluters like oil companies, and (c) an ESG score?
Apart from figuring out how to write these laws, their proponents need to make sure that they provide a private right of action for statutory damages and attorneys’s fees. That will turn the plaintiffs lawyers loose.
Great comment. Very insightful..
Several decades ago, it was decided that "common carriers" couldn't discriminate against members of the KKK and the Communist Party. And now it's apparently okay for them to discriminate against conservatives, anyone associated with conservatives, anyone not discriminating against conservatives, anyone objecting to all the discrimination, etc.
Yes, good comment
Having alternatives doesn’t have to mean that it competes with conglomerates. It might be more useful to build smaller, local alternatives. Something akin to having a small community bank instead of Chase. Or going to smaller markets for organic food and avoiding supermarkets.
I put it to you that Twitter, AirBnB, etc are not public squares but private land more akin to shopping malls.
But as Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) tells us, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers.
"Free speech and free association in our new digital malls" might not be the most catchy phrase ever, but it has legal precedent.
If it has an HR department, its effectively a government agency.
It's fine to let Joe's fish shack do whatever it wants, but once decision making it being made by a committee of mediocre mid level beuracrats with no skin in the game, its fine to put common sense guardrails on the outcome.
It seems to me if we have a baker that will potentially be forced to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-01-27/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-transgender-birthday-cake) - the rule should hold that businesses can't arbitrarily deny services to people based on their political affiliations.
The full Libertarian position would be any business could choose not to provide services for any reason. An airline could cancel your reservation over an insensitive Tweet, a restaurant owner could refuse to seat you etc. In a world with intense competition in all sectors, this might work. You could simply choose other places to do business. Realistically though that's difficult.
I don't really want to live in a world where I have to review every purchase decision I make through the lens of the companies political opinions.
You always talk in this very polished and articulated way, 0 background noise too i have too say i've read listened to almost all of your content, and while i don't follow you or "get on" with everything you've explored and proposed and in this your project, i acknowladge you are a smart, polite chap i've learned from all you've done, from one man to another matthew may you achieve more success in the years to come
What kind words. Thank you very much!
Good article
I don’t know about in the UK as the law differs. The baker who refused to make the cake won his Supreme Court case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They said the state was hostile to his religion giving other protected classes more protection. But being associated with an E-Celebrity who mostly does political commentary and social issues is probably not protected by civil rights legislation. They would have the okay to cut them for what ever reason as long as it’s not race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or who you specifically voted for, they’d probably argue “oh, she does hate speech, & they are so close to her, ya da ya da & so forth.” I’d probably just ride it out in a hotel. You shouldn’t give your business to people who don’t want it. People put cameras in Air B&Bs. It’s pretty bad for the real estate market too. People buying houses to rent them takes away from people buying houses to live in them. The world will always be the same and you’ll never change it. Eventually the house of cards will collapse (mass foreclosures, yesterday I read news that apparently half the people who make 100k are living check to check, just loans up the wazoo.) A more organic market will emerge hopefully in reaction to the mistakes we’ve made. Jails are filling up and people abuse the system, what would be the pragmatic approach? Raise our children to be better people? Equal opportunity to be a fool playing a fools game in the age of decadence, nay I say tis’ better to live as Diogenes. Take a whizz on the next air B&B you see.
Have a question, why is freedom of speech a critical, deterministic, fulcrum point?
I, personally think it matters much less than you think, as evidenced by most people not caring.
Like, I want you to fill this in
If no freedom of speech, then....
_________________________
I'm into Asian history and I'm fine with collectivism or authoritarian ways. Freedom of speech matters in specific ways that were important in the past, say Mokyr's "Republic of Letters" thesis on development. A marginal reduction in the freedom of speech in our current world bothers mostly those on the right. I could care less and you all have not given evidence for the conclusion to the premise. It's what you learned in 11th grade of High School, but is it even true? I feel if you do some kind of regression discontinuity on states/counties that banned more speech, you would find no effect. Willing to change my mind, but think it matter very little. Core belief for a lot though.
I think it's hard to answer that question without specifying what we mean by an absence of freedom of speech. The UK has famously shitty libel laws compared to the US, for example. So it's a very nuanced pictured, not a binary. I also think that the Asian point overlooks rather obvious group differences in personality. I'm not saying that one system is better or worse. They could be equivalent peaks in the Eudaimonia mountain range. But I obviously cannot ascend the Asian peak without doing some serious gene editing!
But the point about Southern's parents isn't a free speech issue, of course.
All I am saying is y'all have a super strong determinative premise.
It is not based on evidence, but dogma.
There is no way to falsify your system.
I give little value to freedom of speech or other freedoms in America. We are animals and we hate being told what to do and love having choices that we make. I have two American children and my father in law lives with me. My father in law is immobile and 85 and although people love to say "twitter is not real life". My perception of my father in law's view of the world is entirely shaped by local news. He is kind of an angry old bird and says no to a lot. It's important that he makes choices to be like a fulfilled individual even if it's the anglo versions of like I am choosing chicken nuggets over a hot dog tonight. This is really important to him. If I take away that choice, he gets really resentful, like I am forcing my will on him.
When you raise children in the West, it's all about choices and freedom. I mean I am sympathetic to the right's characterization of resist libs as NPC's, but I mean just take it one step further, we are all NPC's. It's really important that my kids look at menus and always choose chicken nuggets. In American schools, they have these Socratic seminars and they even try to bring those concepts into mathematics classes as if 12 year olds are going to discover important theorems by having a debate. The entire conception is just absurd. We have had the smartest mathematicians working on theorems and concepts over millenia, but it is important that Timmy figure it out on his own by having a discussion with Veronica.
I have a lot of core premises that are in opposition to yours probably. I don't think this stuff matters at all. IQ matters much less, academia matters much less, fairy tales about markets v. communism.
I am ape, I know I am because I poop. Take away my choice to poop and I will be upset. Hit me on the head hard enough and I may just accept it and poop my pants.
While Asians don't care about political freedoms as much as long as they possess some economic ones, the reason is pretty obvious Ray Tseng.
Suppose you have a group. Or an authority. They get taken over, and no longer represent your interests. Now X incidence happens. Maybe an exploding nuclear plant. Or an inconvenient under-the-shrug event like government officials negligence causing massive harm.
You know, the kind where people were intentionally left to drown in the long tunnels of China for cars with the government telling people to not intervene.
True, you may not value other people's lives that much. BUT, let's suppose these -things- did happen to you. Would -you- not like to know some POSSIBLE negative events like the government redirecting waterflows away to backwater villages just to preserve cities, if you were a villager, or nuclear fallout that's going to kill you if you aren't getting away from the area? -Covering up- and look the other way or saving face might be a GOOD thing temporarily because ignorance is ignorance, but this is why people see such people as -bugmen- who aren't empathic at all. And this has negative consequences. Your people poison each other, your food, your toothpaste, your cosmetics, exploding batteries. Now compare that to HONEST people who care about the truth. You get well, as least presumptively, some minimal level of 'I can be sure that when I do this or buy this product or use this' that I am afforded some level of -decency- in knowing that the knowledge is factual and I won't be harmed say vs well.. an asian government just covering it up. Not to say that the US or whatever isn't just as corrupt with having biolabs in Ukraine and testing -medical- interventions on the military, or Canada or Norway or whatever but the fact is the -populace- determines your standard of living. I can sit in Japan and not have to worry about looting or losing my place in line even after a storm say something that wouldn't happen in the states. While in Asia you might not get violence, you might have to bribe to get ahead in life or endure more negative things I rather not like. If the people care about clean air and water like some parts of the EU do then you see more stringent regulations, and hence the people get better life. Just like the Japanese don't poison their own children with proper meals because they are -honorable- with -dignity- and not just mindless hyperconsumerist hypercapitalists, though there's negative with overwork and whatnot.
So it's really a matter of what you want. Yes China has a higher standard of living now in terms of parity of dollars, but there's trade-offs to be had. I dont' really care about the LEFT vs RIGHT vs whatever political debates that White people seem to love a lot (like some sporting event). **but** imagine your ECONOMIC freedoms will also be scored against ESG measures or you have to fraternize with people of other races that you don't want to for behavioral reasons because your political system is corrupt and you can't say anything contrary to it. Sure a korean in NK may just bow down everyday and just take it up the ass, but you can't really have -everyone- just taking it up the ass and be regimented if the conditions are that perilous, no? There's the eugenics passport in China if I recall for moving about. While in principle it may be a good thing, it's just -another- factor that decreases your standard of living if you are not from the upper class or new rising class.
You are right, the majority of humanity will never be inventors or originators because the majority of people neither possess the willpower nor intellect. -but- remember, the people -whether in power or not- determine what the society's outcome will be. even elites without the political power are hapless. you can't inject LBTIQAIE+ into asian societies that easily because people are -resistant- to it just like weeds are resistant to certain things unlike white people.
The thing you need to know is -just existing- and being bugmen cannot create civilization in itself. You need to always be -exploring new possibilities and initiatives- that did not exist before, and all asians just studying the baokaomao for 999 light years just to have 1 in 1 majillion attend some elite university to be pathwayed into an elite education force is idiocratic when you can just sample the genetic data from the start. There's a place and time for conformity and there's a place and time for individualism.
You don't need to work 12 hours 12 days a week to secure a victory as germans demonstrate otherwise. Yes that might transform a society from A to B in less than 3 decades, but it is about -working intelligently- not -working harder-. Though I guess with the superior visualspatial intelligence of asians and engineering it's not that too far off in terms of AI, the price of buying a robot with top of the spec features is 75% less than the west.
However, there are certain values to say that I prefer in the West to the East. Functionality and form, convenience vs features, etc. A lot of premium products in the West are created in the West because there are innovative minds. I know asians have caught up mostly and made it at a lower-cost point with more features but copying is not enough. One needs to originate new technologies in my view and that requires ideation and exchange of ideas and a broader viewpoint which being a studious robot cannot afford. Which is why the political power of the world still resides in groups with higher verbal intelligence.
The benefit I feel when I live in the West is I can behave as I am and however I want. When I go to the East, there's more nuanced concepts like 'the face' and such which restricts the degree of behaviour I can enact with a very rigid-minded thinking of linear paths. Would I rather work less hours per week in the West and enjoy greater care (like Switz) or spend my days hypercompeting with 9 bajillion similar GPU units just to afford a piece of parcel of land? I rather be in the less competitive land and live in urbanville and get to spend my days free to read blogs like these.
I like to spend my leisure time as I please. I like clean air. I like clean food. I like not having to worry about government corruption to the extent that I need to bribe people (at least the low-level bureaucrats). I like not having to spend 99% of my life studying just to forget 95% of it in 6 months, and not having to compete so hard while having a decent affordable standard of living. I am not as sociable as other white people in my country as an introvert but there's a bit more reciprocity (i.e. door-opening, come over for some bread and dinner) etc for things even if I don't interact that much. It's undeniable in Asia there's better safety, tech and other stuff but my health and life come first, then standard of living, then the other things.
I'd prefer a Japan standard of living with Western freedom-ideals and truth-seeking. I already get to see the first hand negative effects everytime I have to go to amazon and see your countrymen spam 999,999 5-star reviews with low quality products which you never see in Japan with them feeling shame for even saying something is 'mint' condition even if it was never opened. These are just some of things I look for in a society. Maybe a norway or singapore-style wealth fund is also good. Some 15 minute cities for biking may be good too. I look for the best qualities of people in the world and I hope to live in societies with those attributes. Destiny collectivism has its merits, and so does political freedom/valuing truth. There's corruption at high-levels everywhere, sure. But there's varying functional levels of corruption. African levels are unacceptable. Chinese corruption is so-so. European corruption is more political in nature but less so about ignoring the populace (more sensitive to the populace's reaction b/c white people tend to shout and yell and make a lot of noise when they get angry) at least some concessions can be made.
Either way there's trade-offs to be had everywhere.
Exploding batteries and collapsing apartments are unacceptable. I don't want to live anyone with those kind of genetics still permeating in my land or country. Call me racist or whatever but this is a fact. Demographics is destiny, genes are destiny. There's a reason why europeans cut off antisocial people (not asocial) worst 2% like their hands for stealing, it's to purify the gene pool from bad qualities. imo china was conquered too much and now suffers from a mix hedgehodpad of qualities of not caring/extreme regimentation. may be good for militarization but until those negative factors in such societies leaves, I cannot advocate such a standard of living as better even if technologically it is more advanced from an engineering stand point unless all people share the same ideals/values from a behavioural standpoint. Neither is arrogance (looking down on others for inferior socioeconomic statsus) something I value as much like the Koreans. There's a time and place for eugenic game theory but plastering / deceiving to point of surgeries about your health status is just as bad imo. White people may be more covert about it (unless they are a liberal) with passive-aggressiveness like the Canadians which is slightly more tolerable. I do like the utilitarianism of the Chinese and pragmatism at least, not having to deal with LBGIQTA whatever and I guess having wives put up their e-stats / posters is very straightforward. anyways point being made, just certain personality attributes of certain populations and certain policies are preferred in one population over another.