TikTok: Chinese for “Trojan Horse”
An NBC News host just said of the proposed ban (or sale) of TikTok, “170 million users is a lot of voters.” So what?
His statement demonstrates why any faith in “democracy” is misguided. There is an inherent failing of “democracy.” At the outset, I will note that in a normal statistical distribution, a disappointing “average” is a standard, which is unmet by roughly half of the population. Parties who comprise a numerical “majority” acting with all of their faults, foibles, and failings, are not suddenly made omniscient, perfectly wise, and unwaveringly just simply because they choose to act in unison. Collective action often results in groupthink, and it tends to magnify or exacerbate the baser traits of our bestial species. Democracy is likely the most dangerous of all forms of government because its proponents act with a perverse moral certitude, which they mistakenly believe can be derived solely from their number.
The rights of others and public safety should not be conditioned upon the approval of an electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc). Popularity polls should not determine public policy. Propriety and morality are often unpopular. If something is “popular” among a given population is it necessarily “good” or “right”? Almost any vice comes to mind. If something provides immediate short term pleasure, should it be embraced by everyone (e.g. heroin)? Should we plan and set policy for short term pleasure or long-term benefit?
Apparently, those 170 million users are entirely ignorant of the legendary “Trojan Horse.” They covet the gift — any gift — and seek to move it into the city walls thus welcoming the threat into their midst. The irony is that they know OF the threat, but seemingly expect that the attack will never come.
Let me assure you that, if the authoritarian Communist regime in China has the power to do something, it certainly will use that power to advance its own interests. The regime has demonstrated routinely and repeatedly disdain for propriety, personal property, international law, and human rights. China is blatant in its threats, yet we, as a people and a nation, continue to handle the snake heedlessly and recklessly. We expect that the beast will act entirely contrary to its inherent nature and never bite. That is a loser’s bet. It is a bet that risks our very survival.
Admittedly, there are similar threats of abuses by our own government and from the IT companies, which serve as accumulators and purveyors of our most personal information. With time, opportunity, and a naive public, those abuses are certain to expand and to give rise to oppression and tyranny.
Power is an irresistibly corrupting influence. Having a “tool” — i.e. weapon — at your disposal means that its use is all but guaranteed. The initial argument is that vast power will only be used for “good,” but good as is understood by those, who hold zealously to the reins of power. They inevitably define good as being self-serving.
They promise to impose “safety” and “security.” The hoped-for safety is elusive or illusory, and the security is built upon false promises. They insist that “national security” is paramount. However, they quickly conflate “national security” with “job security” for those in positions of power. A populous, which is desperate for “security” or which is increasingly predominated by a growing dependent class, is either complicit or fearful: Complicit in that they wish to be beneficiaries of government’s largess and fearful that they may become targets of government’s wrath.
Regardless, an unrestrained state is inconsistent with individual liberty, and an unfettered government is incompatible with personal freedom. We are to be made “safe” from all but the state and “secure” from all but government. Government of any description is at best a necessary evil, but allowing the Chinese government into our homes and into our lives is neither necessary nor prudent.
