Kontextmaschine

30th August 2022

Post reblogged from a continuous cutting motion with 11,286 notes

deaths-accountant:
squareallworthy:
squareallworthy:
Suggested Alternatives to the One China Policy
Currently, the policy of the United States on the Taiwan question is that the US recognizes that polities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait hold that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. In the current tense international climate, it may be useful to considers alternatives to that policy.
Two Chinas Policy: The United States recognizes the independence of Taiwan as a sovereign state, separate from the People’s Republic of China.
Three Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the mainland as independent states.
Four Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and the mainland as independent states.
One China Policy (Retro 1978): The US switches its diplomatic recognition back from the PRC to the ROC.
One China Policy (Retro 1911): The US recognizes the Qing Dynasty as the legitimate government of China and finds some schmuck to play Emperor-in-Exile.
Many Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese province.
Too Many Chinas Policy: Hong Kong makes a perfectly fine city-state, so why not let everyone do that? The US recognizes every Chinese municipality as its own independent state.
1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese person.
2^1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every subset of of the set of all Chinese persons.
2^1436506450-1 Chinas Policy: Same as above, but not including the empty set, ~~because that doesn’t even make sense~~ because it’s already claimed by Germany.
Infinite Chinas Policy (Countable): The US recognizes that (1) The PRC is a China and (2) for every China c, the successor S(c) is also a China, and (3) for every China c, c != S(c).
Infinite Chinas Policy (Uncountable): The US recognizes that the set C of all Chinas is an ordered field, and that every non-empty subset of C with an upper bound in C has a least upper bound in C.
No Chinas Policy: The United States embraces mereological nihilism and recognizes only atoms and the void.
@deaths-accountant replied:
this gets countable infinity wrong. The way it’s specified here is consistent with any number of chinas larger than 1
Oh, dangit, you’re right. Hold on, gotta send a quick memo to the State Department.
Infinite Chinas Policy (Countable) (Amended): The US recognizes that (1) The PRC is a China and (2) for every China c, the successor S(c) is also a China, (3) for every China c, c != S(c), and (4) for Chinas x and y, x is equal to y if and only if S(x) is equal to S(y).
I’m afraid this hasn’t fixed it. This is still consistent with any number of China’s greater than 1. E.g. it is consistent with
s(PRC) = ROC
s(ROC) = PRC
any other finite cycle would work, and you still haven’t guaranteed that the only Chinas that exist are produced by applying the successor function to the PRC finitely many times. There could be floating China’s that exist in cycles on their own, not connected to the main bunch.
I think it would be sufficient to say:
(1) the PRC is a China (2) for every China c, the successor S© is also a China (3) for every China c, S© is not the PRC (4) for Chinas x and y, x is equal to y if and only if S(x) is equal to S(y) (5) if for every first order property, a of a China, for any China c: a© implies a(S©), and also a(PRC) is true, then a is true of every China
(you need the induction axiom to prevent floating Chinas)
an alternative would be:
every set of Chinas is either bijective with the set of all Chinas, or is not bijective with any proper subset of itself (assuming choice)

Prime China Policy:

much of the PRC’s fundamental logic derived from the historical pattern where a unified China is a comfortable hegemon invulnerable to external interference but upon internal disarray may fragment into multiple states strong enough to contend with each other but vulnerable to foreign divide-and-conquer.

The US encourages separatist identity in every province, ensuring that upon sufficient stress the PRC will break into a number of statelets too small to maintain sovereignty, allowing for their easy reconquest and integration into a successor state