[xinuc]

> In addition to limiting China’s battery complex, the free world, especially the United States, must strengthen itself by expanding its own battery capacity and capabilities.

I just realized that western countries use the term "the free world" to describe themselves above other countries.

It's just funny how they like to fool themselves.

[adriancr]

> It's just funny how they like to fool themselves.

They are in essence free compared to russia and china's autocracies.

Do you mind detailing what you mean?

[Teever]

Why take the bait?

This guy wants to talk about something nebulous like freedom.

Let's talk about how we can bring domestic battery manufacturing to America so that we can use that to crush Chinese and Russian military opposition with the eventual goal of seeing proper democracy brought to those regions.

We need domestic battery production for so many things, and it needed to happen yesterday.

Another thing I've been wondering about is this: Who is the JLPCB or PCBWay of America? When is low cost rapid turn around PCB manufacturing in America going to be a thing? How can I be a part of that?

[somenameforme]

I'm not sure American democracy is in place to be a system we might want to see in the rest of the world. If we're speaking idealistically, I think there's a far more reasonable idea than hegemony. Imagine a multi-polar world, with certain limited global rights.

For instance we could have a guarantee of free emigration: If a person, of no real criminality, wants to leave their country (perhaps because they feel oppressed or whatever) then their government cannot prevent them, if another country is willing to accept them. Alongside this there should also be a global agreement for countries to not interfere, directly or covertly, in the matters of other countries. That would include things like funding or otherwise providing support to various groups within other countries.

It seems this would be a zillion times more viable, effective, harmonious, and productive - than trying to Americanize the rest of the world, which seems more likely to lead to the end of the world than anything else.

[jl6]

> of no real criminality

Just be sure not to let the true Scotsmen migrate!

> a global agreement for countries to not interfere, directly or covertly, in the matters of other countries

Such as interfering with their CO2 emissions?

[somenameforme]

Of course "real" would need to be defined, because the typical behavior of tyrannical governments is to charge their political opponents with "real" crimes, roughshod them through kangaroo courts run by cronies of the political establishment, and then imprison them. The general idea is to ensure you don't allow something like genuine murderous terrorists from being able to emigrate to a hostile country.

I don't know what you are implying with the CO2 stuff.

[jl6]

CO2 is the obvious example of where it is probably a good thing that countries attempt to interfere in what other countries do.

[adriancr]

> For instance we could have a guarantee of free emigration: If a person, of no real criminality, wants to leave their country

One should be a be able to live a fulfulling life anywhere, not be forced to emigrate just to be able to live...

> than trying to Americanize the rest of the world, which seems more likely to lead to the end of the world than anything else.

When you see injustice somewhere else, a good answer is action, better is pre-emptive. Autocracies are fundamentally bad for humanity (otherwise we're going to repeat the past with countries like russia and china repeating ww2 germany)

[somenameforme]

Don't you have the empathy to see how your comment would look to people in the overwhelming majority of the world? Think about what's happening in Gaza and how people see that? Or for that matter consider our decades of absolute brutality all throughout the Mideast including backing terrorists when convenient, overthrowing governments all around the world (including democracies that voted the 'wrong' way) often to replace them with the brutal and unpopular autocracies, centuries of exploitation in Africa - which is still ongoing if you were not aware, and so on endlessly.

So if you think the proper response to "injustice" is action, then you largely just explained endless war and violence because one person's just and righteous nation is another's den of tyranny and villainy. This is why a mutually respectful multipolar, where countries stop screwing around in the matters of others', is likely the only way we can ever create anything even remotely like a stable and peaceful world order. The right of emigration ensures the worst possible scenarios are largely limited.

[adriancr]

> Don't you have the empathy to see how your comment would look to people in the overwhelming majority of the world?

Oh but I do.

I was born in a country behind USSR iron curtain. I am very grateful for whatever help was provided to destroy USSR and topple russian placed dictators. (even if indirect)

A multi-polar world that you suggest was the case before 1989, and for the countries within russia's control it was hell.

[nradov]

So if one country's government decides to, let's say, kill all the Jews then no other country should interfere? Is that what you're proposing?

The level of strategic illiteracy on HN is breathtaking sometimes.

[somenameforme]

The right of emigration would generally preclude such possibilities. But I want to expand on this more generally, because I think appealing to the past is generally just a disingenuous rhetorical tool. The reason is that the "right" answer is commonly shared. We all know the exact context of how something went down, who ultimately won, history's perception of such, and all of the major details. But in the present things lack such clarity and tend to look very different because of such.

Take, for instance Israel. We know that they have directly killed about 2% (~40,000) of all Gazans, mostly civilians, alongside an unknowably large number of indirect (famine/disease/etc) deaths also being caused, with some evidence of intent - all in just 9 months! And we also know they have senior officials making lovely comments like 'Palestinian residents of Gaza should leave the besieged enclave to make way for Israelis who could make the desert bloom.' [1]

And so now what, would you say, is the right way to respond to this? Suddenly things are not so clear, and many people expressing this value or that will tend to directly contradict it after some fanciful mental gymnastics. This is why I largely think self interest, realpolitik, should be the prevailing guidance in political relations - not virtue. Because the former is very real, while the latter only generally exists up to the point that it becomes inconvenient. It leads to an unstable, unbelievable, and hypocritical world order.

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-r...

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

>Imagine a multi-polar world, with certain limited global rights.

Who backs those limited global rights?

[somenameforme]

Well we did say idealistically didn't we? But in general I don't really think this idea is so radical. This seems to be one of the very few topics countries of widely different ideological values could see eye to eye on. It's not because of some sort of grander ideological values or whatever, but good old fashioned self interest.

The cost of participation would be less than zero in one case - don't screw around in other people's countries, and negligible in the case of allowing emigration, which near to all countries excepting a handful of places like North Korea, already do. While the benefits of not having others screw around in your country would generally be significantly greater. So violating the agreement would generally not be in one's self interest.

[AlbertCory]

Wasn't that the idea of the Fourteen Points?

[Ylpertnodi]

>how we can bring domestic battery manufacturing to America so that we can use that to crush Chinese and Russian military opposition with the eventual goal of seeing proper democracy brought to those regions.

Why take the bait, indeed.

[api]

What happens in Russia or China if you viciously criticize their leadership?

Most of the “free world” is at least comparatively free compared to the rest. No it is not black and white but it’s definitely light grey vs dark grey or black.

There’s a reason places like the USA, Canada, etc continue to be the most desirable destinations for immigration while you see very few people trying to get into Russia or China. Only people trying to get into those are fleeing much worse places or in the case of Russia have drunk certain brands of kool-aid.

[8372049]

In absolute numbers, the US is the #1, but immigrants as percentage of population has the US as #65 (Canada #41).

Still way higher than Russia or China. While a little over 15 % of the US population are immigrants (defined as not born in the country), only 0.07 % of the Chinese population are immigrants. Roughly 7 % of Russian population is immigrants.

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...

[anamax]

> In absolute numbers, the US is the #1, but immigrants as percentage of population has the US as #65 (Canada #41).

The relevant denominator would seem to be "population outside the target," not "population in the target." After all, the immigrant population comes from outside their destination.

[jheitmann]

Also, China's battery production is described as a "battery complex" while US battery production is described as a "battery industry" or "battery industrial base".

[AlbertCory]

Old USSR joke:

Anti-communist says, "In America, I'm free to stand on the corner with a sign saying, 'Nixon is a criminal' "

Loyal communist supporter, "Here, too, I'm free to stand on the corner with a sign saying, 'Nixon is a criminal' "

[vasco]

I mean, "the west" also doesn’t mean much unless there is a bunch of assumed convention. To know what the "western countries" are, basically you need to know more than "west of what" and "go west until when" but actually something more like "post WW2 allied countries with NATO membership", and even that isn't a great way to figure it out.

[jszymborski]

China is an authoritarian regime without elections, let alone free and open ones.

Equivocating the systems of government of the US or "Western Countries" as you've put it with that of China, is so blatantly false that someone less charitable than I might question whether you are arguing in good faith.

[riku_iki]

US's president elections are effectively decided by 10k delegates in two parties during primaries, population chooses from two options they are given. It is better than in China(which has one party), but is it really by far better?

[8372049]

Let's also not forget that only 538 people have actual voting rights in US presidential elections. It's mostly a formality, but one of many flaws in the US democracy.

[AlbertCory]

> the US democracy

which doesn't exist. It's a republic.

[jszymborski]

Yes

[riku_iki]

why do you think so?