Unsubject by Simon

Throughout history, our understanding of the world has shaped the technology available to us. As our comprehension of reality evolves, so too does our potential for innovation. This is why it is crucial to study metaphysical problems, as they can provide us with valuable insights that guide the development of new technologies.

Human beings have always been driven by a need to classify and organize people, things, and ideas. This fundamental way of thinking has enabled us to identify patterns, make predictions, and develop systems of knowledge that have fueled technological progress. The tendency to classify stems from a fundamental human desire to create order and find meaning in the world. By categorizing and organizing information, we can better understand the relationships between different elements of reality and develop a more coherent picture of the world around us.

Our understanding of the world has undergone a remarkable transformation. Let us use the study of biology as an example. In the days of Aristotle, the subject focus on the classification of species. Modern biology, nevertheless, is more interested in ecological interconnectedness and evolutionary processes. This contemporary worldview acknowledges the world is a complex network of interconnected systems that are constantly in flux.

This shift in perspective has given rise to groundbreaking technologies such as the internet, the blockchain, and eventually networked money. These innovations represent a new paradigm in which decentralization, transparency, and trust take center stage. Blockchain technology allows for secure and efficient value exchange, while networked money like cryptocurrencies enables the creation of new economic structures that better accommodate the complexity of our interconnected world.

The concept of network changes how we understand money, value, and obligations. Rather than viewing money as a static object, we now see it as a dynamic system of value exchange that fosters cooperation and collaboration between individuals, institutions, and communities.

As we continue to deepen our understanding of the world and embrace the complexity of the networks that surround us, we will unlock new possibilities across disciplines. We will see the world differently. We will have totally different way of organizing society. We will have different needs for technology. Even our preferred enjoyment, human relations, and material values will be different.

In a Facebook post, Hong Kong rapper MC Yan remarked that freedom of speech is not just about saying what you want but also about the freedom to hear what you want.

But what exactly is freedom of speech, and why is it so important?

Some suggest that freedom of speech includes the right to remain silent. However, I would add that the most important aspect of free speech is the ability to say things that some may find offensive.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our existence as human beings. It is a basic right that is essential for individual and societal growth. It allows us to express our ideas, beliefs, and thoughts without fear of persecution or censorship.

Without freedom of speech, communication becomes stifled, and individuals become isolated. This hinders productivity and poses a threat to public safety. During times of crisis, no matter if they are natural disasters or political unrest, the inability to speak freely can prevent people from warning others or seeking help.

Freedom of speech means we can show our love and affection. It allows us to communicate our emotions, form relationships, and share experiences. In its absence, individuals may be forced to repress their feelings and thoughts, leading to detachment and loneliness.

Freedom of speech is not only about an individual's right to express themselves; it also encompasses our right to receive information and opinions from others.

Freedom of speech is also the freedom to remain silent. Being forced to say something one does not believe in is the same as being forced to lie.

A society without freedom of expression is a society without morality. Morality is based on individual values and beliefs, and without the ability to express these beliefs, there can be no discussion, debate, or consensus on what is right or wrong. Individuals may be forced to conform to a set of values they do not believe in, leading to a lack of purpose and meaning in life.

People living in totalitarian regimes are afraid to express their thoughts and opinions, and creativity, innovation, and progress suffer. Societal progress eventually stops at the level which depends on the sharing of ideas and collaboration.

Freedom of speech is both a necessity and a luxury. It is a fundamental human right that is crucial for individual and societal growth. It fosters an environment of openness, debate, and collaboration that is essential for progress and innovation. Without freedom of speech, we lose productivity, safety, love, and meaning in life.

Thank you for reading. Please help spread the idea of freedom by sharing.

In the past three years, I have shared my thoughts on how Hong Kong lost its freedom with my American friends, who often ask me how liberty is lost.

Liberty is more than just the absence of government control; it's the ability to think independently, challenge ideas, and pursue knowledge. It gives us the freedom to explore, innovate, and find solutions to the world's problems. But when these institutions are compromised, so too is our liberty. When knowledge is politicized, ideas are silenced, and the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to a commodity, our ability to think critically and challenge authority is diminished. We become passive consumers of information instead of active citizens.

The erosion of liberty is a slow and steady process that we first see in the decline of academic freedom, the rise of censorship, and the erosion of trust in science. Institutions of education and research have a responsibility to foster and protect this liberty.

Many Americans are acutely aware of liberty's erosion but view the danger differently. Conservatives see progressives, particularly on campuses, as a threat to traditional values, fearing suppressed free speech and indoctrination. Progressives worry about student debt, affordability, and higher education's failure to enable social mobility.

US higher education is collapsing, concerning all political sides. Critics argue that colleges fail to prepare people for evolving technology and markets, rendering college education an overpriced bubble. Universities, whether public or private, must deliver value on investment, or students will walk away. Many institutions struggle financially, while prestigious ones thrive on massive endowments.

Universities should advance our understanding of the unknown and expand our capability as a civilization. However, academics often publish papers to meet performance metrics instead of expanding human knowledge, and PhD candidates become cheap labor for tenured professors. Intolerance for differing opinions stifles debate and challenges to established views. The politicization of science replaces evidence-based research with ideologically driven studies.

Higher education once served as the most important check and balance against political authorities, with independent academics' opinions holding sway. Nowadays, academics' power to check the government has dwindled.

Restoring the institution of education and research is critical to preserving our liberty. This means fostering academic freedom, ensuring research is evidence-based, and valuing education as a fundamental right. We must invest in education and research, supporting institutions that promote critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and academic integrity. We must demand accountability from those institutions that fail to uphold these values.

If the current system is too broken to be fixed, we must build new institutions that will serve as a beacon of liberty and a lamp of knowledge for generations to come. The stakes are high. If we fail to restore the institution of education and research, we risk losing our ability to think independently, challenge authority, and pursue knowledge. We risk losing our liberty.

I would like to apologize for the lack of updates on the blog in recent weeks. I have been busy learning how to use various AI tools to improve my effectiveness, which has taken up much of my time. However, I am excited to share with you that I am determined to keep updating this blog and share more with the help of these tools.

I am also thrilled to introduce a podcast that will accompany the blog, and I hope that subscribers will enjoy it.

Fractured Foundations - A Report on Hong Kong

Today I want to talk about Fractured Foundations, a report fresh off the press by Atlantic Council on the fundamental changes in Hong Kong over the past three years. The report highlights six institutional risks that need to be addressed urgently:

* Unpredictable public policy administration.

* The possibility that Beijing may alter the Hong Kong dollar's peg to curb capital flight.

* Financial institutions may face challenges complying with international sanctions due to the existence of two distinct legal systems.

* Individuals and businesses may not have access to an impartial judiciary, thus eroding the rule of law.

* Businesses and individuals may face a more opaque environment as freedom of expression dwindles.

* The government may increase surveillance, compromise privacy, and create new data security risks.

The report suggests businesses should approach outreach to Hong Kong authorities collectively as a political campaign, emphasizing the importance of the norms that underpin Hong Kong's competitiveness. In lobbying against further changes in Hong Kong's legal and institutional structures, companies should emphasize that any crackdowns on media outlets would endanger the flow of information needed for commercial and financial transactions, and create new difficulties for addressing disinformation.

Businesses should also pay attention to their compliance infrastructure. Companies in Hong Kong face increasing compliance challenges due to the growing number of restricted individuals and corporations. Financial institutions should develop contingency plans to manage high-risk clients becoming subject to sanctions by the United States or China, or potential disinvestment.

What "National Security" Really Means in China

While I agree with most of the observations and recommendations of the report, it might have overlooked the underlying significance of the idea of "national security" in China, and especially why the CCP deems Hong Kong a “vulnerability” in this regard.

Hong Kong was once the go-to destination for business, where Chinese and American entrepreneurs came to achieve what they could not accomplish in their respective countries. It was a hub of opportunity and innovation that attracted people from all over the world.

Since 2012, Hong Kong's political landscape has undergone a tectonic shift towards Beijing's priorities, resulting in a loss of influence for the local leadership. As Hemmingway once said, changes happen gradually at first, then suddenly. In Hong Kong, the turning point came with the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, which established an all-encompassing system of authority.

Even so, some businesses in Hong Kong hold onto the hope that they will continue to receive preferential treatment despite the change in the landscape.

Totalitarian states view everything as a threat, not because they fear being replaced, but because they excel at maintaining power as if their authority could continue forever. What they lack is the ability to handle power transitions, whether through the death or incapacitation of their leaders.

What they are genuinely apprehensive about is internal competition. In democracies, there is an election process, whereas, in totalitarian states, power transitions frequently involve violence and the removal of the current leader.

During his tenure as Chongqing party leader, Bo Xilai, a charismatic princeling and rival to Xi, had implemented tactics that Xi later adopted. However, his approach was too overt, posing a threat to the party's integrity and causing division. Before Xi's ascension, the Party Politburo ousted Bo from his position and imprisoned him. Even Bo's ally, Zhou Yongkang, the head of the party's security apparatus, was expelled from the party and given a life sentence.

Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, the CCP has aimed to consolidate power and prevent fragmentation. The party's elites understand that any division could ultimately lead to their demise. As a result, "national security" encompasses anything that may disrupt the power structure, no matter how remote the potential destabilizing factor may be.

At the CCP’s 20th Central Committee 2nd Plenary meeting last week, the most crucial item on the agenda was the centralization of power in the hands of the party. There may be some confusion about the change's significance since some consider the party and state to be the same entity. While the ruling elites, or the top echelon of the party, and the state apparatus, or the bureaucracy, often overlap, there have been inherent conflicts between the two throughout history. It is worth noting that during the Cultural Revolution, Mao essentially launched a coup d'état against the bureaucracy using guerilla warfare tactics and a network that remained functional in the 1960s.

The events of recent years in mainland China can be explained in four simple principles: when conflicts of interest arise between the public sector and private enterprises, the priority is always to serve the public interest. In conflicts between the party and the state, the party takes precedence. When there are conflicts of interest between Beijing and the provinces, Beijing's interests will always be given priority. Any element that may cause fractionalization within the party or the nation will be dealt with swiftly and decisively.

The CCP deems it unacceptable for businesses to exert influence over national policy direction. Provinces should never prioritize their interests over those of the nation or use the central government for their own gain. When the bureaucracy's goals diverge from those of the party, personnel and institutions are precisely replaced to align with the party's stance.

Hong Kong's liberal business culture, global connections, and unique institutional framework are the cornerstone of its values. However, the CCP ruling elites view these essential features of the city as vulnerabilities rather than assets, driven by their sense of paranoia.

My outlook for the future of Hong Kong is bleak. The CCP's persistent paranoia will not dissipate unless there is a fundamental shift in the nation’s institutional structure, which historically takes centuries, if not millennia to achieve.

It is important for businesses and individuals to remain vigilant in the face of the changing landscape in Hong Kong. Despite the challenges, there is still hope for Hong Kong. We the Hong Kongers are resilient, and the values that have made it a thriving metropolis can still be preserved. It is up to all of us to advocate for these values and fight for a future where Hong Kong remains a beacon of freedom and prosperity.

I will continue to monitor the situation in Hong Kong and provide updates and analysis. I would like to invite feedback from my readers and encourage you to share this blog with others who may find it helpful. Last but not least, thank you for your time and support. I will update this blog and podcast more frequently from now on. Stay tuned.

Yours Sincerely,

Simon