"Freest nation on earth"? [Archive]

Jazzratt

12th July 2006, 02:41

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 11 2006, 11:38 PM
Define free:

One's ability to do what they please, as they please, with the least amount of repercutions compared to other jurisdictions. In this way, the U.S. wins hands down, much to the upsetness of many of my countrymen.

By that defenition it would be Somalia you're thinking of.

Regarding "self respecting punk band". You don't know T.S.O.L. and their political views?

Shame on you! It's just a quote in my signature that I find amusing, I couldn't give a tin shit about T.S.O.L mainly because punk music is vile shite.

Abolish Communism

12th July 2006, 02:44

By that defenition it would be Somalia you're thinking of.

Not a chance. If you try and take a piss in Somalia without permission from Your Friendly Neighborhood Warlord (see Spiderman comics if you don't understand that one), you get a bullet in your back and your daughter gets raped and your house gets burned to the gound.

Somalia: Free to die.

Jazzratt

12th July 2006, 02:49

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 11 2006, 11:45 PM

By that defenition it would be Somalia you're thinking of.

Not a chance. If you try and take a piss in Somalia without permission from Your Friendly Neighborhood Warlord (see Spiderman comics if you don't understand that one), you get a bullet in your back and your daughter gets raped and your house gets burned to the gound.

Somalia: Free to die.
You're talking out of your arse. People are perfectly free in somalia it is the very epitome of capitalism. YOu can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and become a warlord.

Also if you don't accept that consider how much more freedom there is in the ROI, Germany, France, Italy and England. America is free pretty much only by America's defenition of freedom.

Capitalist Lawyer

12th July 2006, 02:55

You're talking out of your arse. People are perfectly free in somalia it is the very epitome of capitalism.

Really? They have private property rights protected by the rule of law?

The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465016154/103-2017936-9975820?v=glance&n=283155)

You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and become a warlord.]

You can't do that in the USA. You don't have the freedom to become a warlord or kill anybody you deem a "pest".

Also if you don't accept that consider how much more freedom there is in the ROI, Germany, France, Italy and England. America is free pretty much only by America's defenition of freedom.

Those are all capitalist countries.

Janus

12th July 2006, 03:01

People are perfectly free in somalia it is the very epitome of capitalism.
No, Somalia is a land of turmoil and lawlessness because the entire country is split between many warlords and the northern portion of it has seceded.

There are no capitalist corporations or investments there because of this instability.

That's obvious that the USA is the freest nation on Earth.
Yes, that's why there is so much repression by the police and why the US has more prisoners than any other country.

LSD

12th July 2006, 03:13

No, Somalia is a land of turmoil and lawlessness because the entire country is split between many warlords and the northern portion of it has seceded.

Actually both Somaliland and Punt have seperated now. Neither seem to want to truly "seceded" from Somalia, but both are de facto states.

The rest of the country is indeed in lawless chaos. And while I suppose that a measure of capitalism exists, it would be unfair to call it "market" or "advanced" capitalism.

That's obvious that the USA is the freest nation on Earth. Duh. Name a freer one.

Althought this obviously depends on one's definition of "free", offhand, I would say that Canada and parts of northwestern Europe are probably "freer" than the United States by any reasonably definition.

Especially after the recent "anti-terrorist" measures instituted by your government, it's quite easy these days to find jurisdictions with less restrictive governments.

Obviously, however, none of these bourgeois states are actually free in any meaningful way. Many of them are merely more free than the US bourgeois state.

One's ability to do what they please, as they please, with the least amount of repercutions compared to other jurisdictions.

Well, one's ability to do all of that is strongly tied to one's acces to public resources. Even bourgeois "rights" are ultimately dependent on economic "power", especially in hypercapitalistic states like the US.

Accordingly, countries with stronger social safety nets are, by effect, "freer" for their citizens, as they are more able to actually excersize their rights and franchises in the state in question.

The United States may pay lip service to notions like "free speech" and the rest, but the reality is that given the US' economic system, unless one actually owns a press, one's "freedom" to it is rather functionaly moot.

This is not to say that other jurisdictions do not share the same flaw. On the contrary, it is not an "American" problem, it's a capitalistic one. But, that being said, there are certainly countries who's governments excersize more control over their local "markets" and in so doing protect their citizens from the sharper excesses of capitalism.

It's the social democratic way. ;)

Anti-Red

12th July 2006, 04:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:50 PM
Also if you don't accept that consider how much more freedom there is in the ROI, Germany, France, Italy and England. America is free pretty much only by America's defenition of freedom.
Really that depends. There are some things that are perfectly accepted in America that are not accepted in Europe and vice-versa. For instance, here in America, you can go out and buy pretty much any type of gun you want while in Europe you can't. At the same time Europe is softer on things like drugs and prostitution than America. Do I think any guns you want should be legal? Yes. But I also think that prostitution and drugs should be legal. There are other things too. For instance, in the US gays can't get married and in Sweden they can, but they also put a preacher in prison for speaking against gays. Do I think gays should be able to marry? Yes. Should you also be able to think it is wrong and say so? Doi. Also with free speech, you can pretty much say anything you want in America or put anything on TV... that is until it offends someone's sensibilities. Same for Europe, except it is people's sensitivities, not sensibilities. I think that my right to free speech is more important than both your morality and your little sensitive heart. So I think neither is free enough, but both are free, but not in the same ways.

violencia.Proletariat

12th July 2006, 06:00

Also with free speech, you can pretty much say anything you want in America or put anything on TV

Ask these guys what happened when they exercised their right to free speech

Sacco and Vanzetti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_vanzetti

Joe Hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill

Mumia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu_Jamal

IWW, you might like the part where the state made it illegal to speak on the street and put people in jail for it ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWW#Organizing

America making speech freer,

Cointelpro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

Palmer Raids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_raids

spanishinquisition

12th July 2006, 08:34

Jazzratt:

It\'s just a quote in my signature that I find amusing, I couldn\'t give a tin shit about T.S.O.L mainly because punk music is vile shite.
This coming from someone that thinks jazz is music :rolleyes: Punk is awesome.

In defence of the communists here, (SHOCK), Somalia is technically a libertarian society of a sort. But yes, whether it can be called capitlalist or not is in debate due to the lack of protection of private property. Consider Somalia an unstable feudal-like plutocracy.

One thing is clear however. Somalias wealth has increased under their unstable government. Roads are being built despite the lack of gov and trade is going through the roof compared to where it was 15 years ago and the people are increasingly well fed. Just another example of why Africa yearns for capitalism, not Mugabeism, socialism or dictatorship.

Janus

12th July 2006, 08:45

Actually both Somaliland and Punt have seperated now. Neither seem to want to truly "seceded" from Somalia, but both are de facto states.
I thought Somaliland seceded in 1991. Well by declaring independence, they have pretty much seceded. Puntland is autonomous but has not yet sought outright independence from Somalia like its neighbor.

Roads are being built despite the lack of gov and trade is going through the roof compared to where it was 15 years ago and the people are increasingly well fed.
That is because people like Aidid no longer hoard it. The new stability is also due in part to the Islamist faction.

12th July 2006, 14:31

That's obvious that the USA is the freest nation on Earth.

Did you know that you no longer have Fourth Amendment rights?

Name a freer one.

Venezuela. You can openly talk about the murder of Chavez and/or the overthrow of the government and nothing will happen to you (as compared to the US, where if you attend an anti-war demonstration they start gathering information on you).

Marion

12th July 2006, 15:50

Given that the Venezuelan secret police were reported to have been conducting surveillance on anarchist/autonomist events during the World Social Forum and given that anarchist/autonomist movement represents about a millionth of the threat (at present) to Chavez that the various right-wing forces do, I think its probably not the case that "nothing happens" to those who talk openly about murdering Chavez and overthrowing the government. At the very least I'd guess they'd collect information. What would their secret police do otherwise?

However, its probably still an awful lot more tolerant of this type of thing than most other countries would be.

Anti-Red

12th July 2006, 16:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:01 AM

Also with free speech, you can pretty much say anything you want in America or put anything on TV

Ask these guys what happened when they exercised their right to free speech

Sacco and Vanzetti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_vanzetti

Joe Hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill

Mumia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu_Jamal

IWW, you might like the part where the state made it illegal to speak on the street and put people in jail for it ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWW#Organizing

America making speech freer,

Cointelpro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

Palmer Raids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_raids
Sacco and Vanzetti were later exhonorated by the government that killed them, that also happened long ago. Joe Hill died in 1915 and not because he did free speech, because he was accused of murder, wrongly so, and probably because of his views, but the CHARGE was not free speech. That also happened long ago. Mumia is a toss-up, he wasn't given a fair trial to be sure, but don't presume his innocence. He was a punk to begin with, and drew a lot of attention to himself. I don't really give a damn about IWW, if I owned a factory I would let any union organize, but not a crazy radical one like that that wanted to murder me and seize my factory. As for Cintelpro that was wrong but it was done in a paranoid time by people like Nixon, and I'm sure it exists in some other form today, but that is not to say that European countries don't do the same thing, for instance, most European countries do that against Nazi groups. And the Palmer raids were so long ago that unless somebody on this forum is REALLY old, none of us remember it or are even close to being born in that stinking time!

Anti-Red

12th July 2006, 16:20

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 11:32 AM

That's obvious that the USA is the freest nation on Earth.

Did you know that you no longer have Fourth Amendment rights?

Name a freer one.

Venezuela. You can openly talk about the murder of Chavez and/or the overthrow of the government and nothing will happen to you (as compared to the US, where if you attend an anti-war demonstration they start gathering information on you).
Did I say that the US was as free as it USED to be? Heck no, it ain't, that's bad. Don't assume though that because I believe America is freest, that I am a Bush supporter, because I am certainly not. Freedom in the world hasn't done so well for itself lately, sorry to say. The thing that shocks me most is how you can sit here and admire Hugo Chavez, to whom free speech is something you see on Comedy Central, not in newspapers, television, or organizations, meaning it is a joke to him.

Tungsten

12th July 2006, 16:39

Abolish Communism

That's obvious that the USA is the freest nation on Earth.
Thanks to Bush and Clinton, not anymore.
LSD

Accordingly, countries with stronger social safety nets are, by effect, "freer" for their citizens, as they are more able to actually excersize their rights and franchises in the state in question.
Offer to opt out of this safety net and see how free you are. Safety nets only offer freedom for those who fall through at the expense of those who don't. In effect, they reward failiure.

12th July 2006, 16:45

The thing that shocks me most is how you can sit here and admire Hugo Chavez, to whom free speech is something you see on Comedy Central, not in newspapers, television, or organizations, meaning it is a joke to him.

So why is it that anti-Chavistas can go on corporate owned radio and TV stations and regularly call for the murder of Chavez and his supporters and a revolution to overthrow the government and nothing happens to them?

Thanks to Bush and Clinton, not anymore.

Wow, Tungsten actually said something I agree with. I think that's a first.

LSD

12th July 2006, 17:19

Offer to opt out of this safety net and see how free you are.

Relative freedom doesn't mean the ability to do anything; society, by definition, imposes rules on its citizens.

One is, for instance, not "free" to murder or rape as one wills in any so-called "free" society today. And, likewise, in almost all of them, one is not free to withhold needed support from other citizens.

Someone who refuses to participate in a social welfare program is harming other people just as much as if he assaulted them directly.

I know that as a capitalist (libertarian?), you reject the notion of positive rights in their entirety, but that rather idealist ideological perspective is irrelevent in addressing the practical problems of modern society.

The simple reality is that people who cannot eat or are unable to recieve medical attention cannot excersize any of their "negative rights" because they are liable to die.

Again, freedom is about more than legalistic "rights", it's about real flesh-and-blood capacity. Unless there are programs in place to counteract the naturally coercive nature of the capitalistic "market", "freedom" will only apply to the rich.

Safety nets only offer freedom for those who fall through at the expense of those who don't.

And since the nature of the "market" is that most people "fall through", that makes perfect sense to me.

Anti-Red

13th July 2006, 05:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:20 PM
And since the nature of the "market" is that most people "fall through", that makes perfect sense to me.
Actually, unless you live in a ghetto, this is not true at all. And the reason ghettoes exist is welfare. If there were no welfare, I guarantee there would be no poverty. Look at Hong Kong. And no, Hong Kong doesn't do well just because it is under 1000 miles from Mao's grave and gets a sprinkling of magic dust power from the Great One, it is that it is capitalist. And if you think Hong Kong is some poor dumpy old port, then you obviously still think it is the 1950s. Although I think maybe some of you do think it is the 1950s, in Russia that is.

Janus

13th July 2006, 11:30

If there were no welfare, I guarantee there would be no poverty.
What? Poverty would be worse.

Look at Hong Kong
There is a lot of poverty in Hong Kong, more so than many US cities. You think the tourist pics are gonna show the poverty stricken areas?

rioters bloc

13th July 2006, 11:46

Originally posted by Janus+Jul 13 2006, 06:31 PM--> (Janus @ Jul 13 2006, 06:31 PM)
Look at Hong Kong
There is a lot of poverty in Hong Kong, more so than many US cities. You think the tourist pics are gonna show the poverty stricken areas? [/b]
yeah, i've been to hong kong and you're kidding yourself if you think that all or even a great majority of people are well-off.

Anti-Red
If there were no welfare, I guarantee there would be no poverty.

no way! you guarantee it?! then it must be true! :o

the truth is, even though welfare doesn't do anything to actually fix any problems, welfare states are much more beneficial for low-income earners than nations where welfare is non-existent. and i'd like to see you provide examples of nations which prove otherwise.

bcbm

13th July 2006, 15:36

If there were no welfare, I guarantee there would be no poverty.

Yeah, like before we had welfare, when everyone had enough and nobody went without! :rolleyes: You're delusional.

spanishinquisition

13th July 2006, 16:18

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 13 2006, 12:37 PM

If there were no welfare, I guarantee there would be no poverty.

Yeah, like before we had welfare, when everyone had enough and nobody went without! :rolleyes: You\'re delusional.
He speaks the truth actually. Under a true capitalist society there is no need for welfare as there is excess abundance being remourselessly generated which filters down to the poor.

People today are tied up by red-tape like you wouldnt believe. Imagine if peopel had the freedom to hire and fire as they chose? Instead of running just one business, everyone would be able to run a business on the side. Without enormous taxes to pay to the greedy state people would have tremendous incentive to earn as they keep every cent. We will move from the ridiculous eight hour day back to the 10 or even twelve hour day, enriching everybody, and giving even greater opportunity to the destitute to rise from poverty into the wealth classes. But of course, as there is no compulsion in capitalism, one is free to work one hour alone if one chooses. Try making that choice in Cuba.

Black Dagger

13th July 2006, 16:25

One's ability to do what they please, as they please, with the least amount of repercutions compared to other jurisdictions. In this way, the U.S. wins hands down, much to the upsetness of many of my countrymen.

Well i suppose the US is one of, if not the biggest polluters in the world, but what about the 'freedom' of the oppressed? But then again i doubt you'd admit that anyone in the US is oppressed.

How free are queers to 'do as they please'? The US is outlawing same-sex marriage like its' going out of style, damn 'big government' :rolleyes:

As for 'repercussions', isn't the US the only 'liberal' democracy (they cant even beat out those chumps) that still executes children?

Matty_UK

13th July 2006, 16:33

Originally posted by spanishinquisition+Jul 13 2006, 01:19 PM--> (spanishinquisition @ Jul 13 2006, 01:19 PM)
black banner black [email protected] 13 2006, 12:37 PM

If there were no welfare, I guarantee there would be no poverty.

Yeah, like before we had welfare, when everyone had enough and nobody went without! :rolleyes: You\'re delusional.
He speaks the truth actually. Under a true capitalist society there is no need for welfare as there is excess abundance being remourselessly generated which filters down to the poor.

People today are tied up by red-tape like you wouldnt believe. Imagine if peopel had the freedom to hire and fire as they chose? Instead of running just one business, everyone would be able to run a business on the side. Without enormous taxes to pay to the greedy state people would have tremendous incentive to earn as they keep every cent. We will move from the ridiculous eight hour day back to the 10 or even twelve hour day, enriching everybody, and giving even greater opportunity to the destitute to rise from poverty into the wealth classes. But of course, as there is no compulsion in capitalism, one is free to work one hour alone if one chooses. Try making that choice in Cuba. [/b]
EVERYONE would be able to run a business on the side? Businesses need employees I'm afraid, and besides, how do you propose to prevent larger companies gradually buying out and monopolising the small ones?

While I have no love for the state, the state is hardly being greedy when it uses taxes for wealthcare and public services.

Back to the 10 or 12 hour day? Oh joy, the freedom. I can't believe how ridiculous this interpretation of capitalism is. There IS compulsion in capitalist, it comes from the bourgoisie. If you choose to work only one hour, you will lose your job. Without the 8 hour day law bosses will inevitably fire workers who aren't willing to work as much as others, so everyone would have to work 14 hour days assuming action is not taken by the working class, i.e. us.

Tungsten

13th July 2006, 16:55

LSD

Relative freedom doesn't mean the ability to do anything; society, by definition, imposes rules on its citizens.

One is, for instance, not "free" to murder or rape as one wills in any so-called "free" society today.
Oh right. So you think that because society forbids you to murder than it should be entitled to forbid you to do anything else that pops into its collective head too.

And, likewise, in almost all of them, one is not free to withhold needed support from other citizens.
The problem doesn't stem from those doing the witholding, but those demanding. Not being free to withold one's labour makes you slave. Would you ban striking?

Someone who refuses to participate in a social welfare program is harming other people just as much as if he assaulted them directly.
This goes back to that other topic and where this position can be used to justify slavery: While you're doing your own thing, you're not helping those in need, so doing your own thing should be banned and subservicnce to those in need should take precedence...lives are at stake!

I know that as a capitalist (libertarian?), you reject the notion of positive rights in their entirety, but that rather idealist ideological perspective is irrelevent in addressing the practical problems of modern society.
I hear this same excuse from people who argue in favour of the draft. "We'd all be speaking German." as if it somehow altered what the draft was. I don't call the removal of any kind of slavery idealistic.

The simple reality is that people who cannot eat or are unable to recieve medical attention cannot excersize any of their "negative rights" because they are liable to die.
That's no fault of those who do, so why should they be forced to give their rights up?

Unless there are programs in place to counteract the naturally coercive nature of the capitalistic "market", "freedom" will only apply to the rich.
What's naturally coercive coercive about it.

And since the nature of the "market" is that most people "fall through", that makes perfect sense to me.
If you advocate slavery, it would do.

spanishinquisition

13th July 2006, 17:01

Originally posted by Matty_UK+Jul 13 2006, 01:34 PM--> (Matty_UK @ Jul 13 2006, 01:34 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:19 PM

black banner black [email protected] 13 2006, 12:37 PM

If there were no welfare, I guarantee there would be no poverty.

Yeah, like before we had welfare, when everyone had enough and nobody went without! :rolleyes: You\\\'re delusional.
He speaks the truth actually. Under a true capitalist society there is no need for welfare as there is excess abundance being remourselessly generated which filters down to the poor.

People today are tied up by red-tape like you wouldnt believe. Imagine if peopel had the freedom to hire and fire as they chose? Instead of running just one business, everyone would be able to run a business on the side. Without enormous taxes to pay to the greedy state people would have tremendous incentive to earn as they keep every cent. We will move from the ridiculous eight hour day back to the 10 or even twelve hour day, enriching everybody, and giving even greater opportunity to the destitute to rise from poverty into the wealth classes. But of course, as there is no compulsion in capitalism, one is free to work one hour alone if one chooses. Try making that choice in Cuba.
EVERYONE would be able to run a business on the side? Businesses need employees I\'m afraid, and besides, how do you propose to prevent larger companies gradually buying out and monopolising the small ones?

While I have no love for the state, the state is hardly being greedy when it uses taxes for wealthcare and public services.

Back to the 10 or 12 hour day? Oh joy, the freedom. I can\'t believe how ridiculous this interpretation of capitalism is. There IS compulsion in capitalist, it comes from the bourgoisie. If you choose to work only one hour, you will lose your job. Without the 8 hour day law bosses will inevitably fire workers who aren\'t willing to work as much as others, so everyone would have to work 14 hour days assuming action is not taken by the working class, i.e. us. [/b]
Matt, The state is completely wasting our dollars. We earn them, and what happens? We lose 50% to the state. This is, as you well know, mismanaged in the most efficient way it can be mismanaged. States with less tax do not necessarily have fewer poor, but I guarantee their poor are richer than the poor of countries in which there is big government.

I really cant imagine a regression to a 14 hour day, but I consider that many people would be willing to work much harder than they would otherwise with the government keeping its pickpocketting grubbies to itself.

Do you know that before the eight hour day, small shops stayed open to 10 O Clock or even midnight in London. This would have been wonderful to experience. Compare this to 1950s/1960s socialist Britain.

And I cant believe you need a TV licence in your country. Its an abomination.

Monty Cantsin

13th July 2006, 17:20

This really annoys me when Americans declares themselves the most free in the world. They seem to forget that there are heaps of social democratic and liberal democracies out there that haven’t curved civil liberties to the extent the yanks have.

Si Pinto

13th July 2006, 17:21

Matt, The state is completely wasting our dollars. We earn them, and what happens? We lose 50% to the state. This is, as you well know, mismanaged in the most efficient way it can be mismanaged.

Because, as you well know, even the capitalists in charge of your state realise that they must do something to provide for the people who have fallen out of the bottom :lol: (sorry) of your 'system'.

You call it mismanagment, I call it a gesture of responsiblity (allbeit a token one).

Do you know that before the eight hour day, small shops stayed open to 10 O Clock or even midnight in London. This would have been wonderful to experience. Compare this to 1950s/1960s socialist Britain.

Experience? or work in?

What 50's/60's socialist Britain? I think you'd better re-read your history books there dude.

I assume your referring to the election of the Labour Party, unless you believe that Churchill and McMillan were socialists :lol: .

Wilson was elected in the mid 60's before that you have to go back to Atlee's government of 45.

Speaking of Atlee's government (which was the only one which could loosely be described as socialist) take a look at the achievements of that government in only 5 years, remarkable, then what happens? Your capitalist media machine does it's job and they get replaced by Churchill.

Dean

13th July 2006, 19:02

Sweden has been rated the freest nation in the world by the UN. In fact, the US didn't even make it in the top 10. Among industrial societies, the US has the least social mobility.

But I guess it's still the freest?

Anti-Red

13th July 2006, 21:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:03 PM
Sweden has been rated the freest nation in the world by the UN. In fact, the US didn't even make it in the top 10. Among industrial societies, the US has the least social mobility.

But I guess it's still the freest?
As far as the government's power is concerned I suppose you are right, but Sweden still have mandatory service for young men, it has stringent hate speech laws, and strict gun control, which the US does not have.

Dean

13th July 2006, 23:26

Those are only 2 examples, my point remains that more freedoms are afforded in Sweden by far than in the US.

Zero

14th July 2006, 09:25

Originally posted by "spanishinquisition"
He speaks the truth actually. Under a true capitalist society there is no need for welfare as there is excess abundance being remourselessly generated which filters down to the poor.

$> cd ..
$> cd REAL_WORLD

If the Capitalist system really gave a shit about the starving, then we wouldn't be paying farmers not to produce food.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

14th July 2006, 10:03

Originally posted by Zero+Jul 14 2006, 06:26 AM--> (Zero @ Jul 14 2006, 06:26 AM)
\"spanishinquisition\"
He speaks the truth actually. Under a true capitalist society there is no need for welfare as there is excess abundance being remourselessly generated which filters down to the poor.

$> cd ..
$> cd REAL_WORLD

If the Capitalist system really gave a shit about the starving, then we wouldn\'t be paying farmers not to produce food. [/b]
It is a pity we produce so much more than we need to survive. Thanks to the incentive capitalism delivers we produce much more food than we need, indeed more than the world needs. The problem is we have way too much. We need people to farm less and look to other careers so the farmers can make more money.

Those are only 2 examples, my point remains that more freedoms are afforded in Sweden by far than in the US.
Why do you people only look at Sweden? The wholse of Euopoe has now become a welfare state. In the US you are more free to run a business without harassament from teh government, but you still get harassed. Sweden must be a nightmare. I feel sorry for anyone trying to run a business there.

Janus

14th July 2006, 10:25

We need people to farm less and look to other careers so the farmers can make more money.
There aren't that many farmers left. Most of the small time farmers have been replaced by the large farming corporations.

Do you agree with capitalism?

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

14th July 2006, 10:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:26 AM

We need people to farm less and look to other careers so the farmers can make more money.
There aren\'t that many farmers left. Most of the small time farmers have been replaced by the large farming corporations.

Do you agree with capitalism?
Yes. Kill me. I like farmers too.

kingbee

14th July 2006, 13:43

Why do you people only look at Sweden? The wholse of Euopoe has now become a welfare state. In the US you are more free to run a business without harassament from teh government, but you still get harassed. Sweden must be a nightmare. I feel sorry for anyone trying to run a business there.

HAng on: just because you have welfare doesn't mean you can't run a business can it?

And anyway, if Sweden is "the freest nation in the world", with welfare meaning that you are cared from cradle to the grave, who gives a shit about running a business?

Anti-Red

15th July 2006, 06:11

I don't get people that like the welfare state. It is as if they do not actually want to WORK ON THEIR OWN to better themselves.

LSD

15th July 2006, 07:26

I don't get people that like the welfare state.

I'm assuming that's because you've never been poor.

You might want to try it out some time... <_<

15th July 2006, 09:39

It is a pity we produce so much more than we need to survive. Thanks to the incentive capitalism delivers we produce much more food than we need, indeed more than the world needs. The problem is we have way too much. We need people to farm less and look to other careers so the farmers can make more money.

Are you kidding me? I didn't know whether or not to laugh at this.

Capitalism produces more than enough food that we need to survive, yet there's still mass starvation. Care to explain yourself?

Yes. Kill me. I like farmers too.

They're a dying breed. Their dwindling numbers is due to the development of capitalism and factory farming.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 12:06

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 15 2006, 06:40 AM

It is a pity we produce so much more than we need to survive. Thanks to the incentive capitalism delivers we produce much more food than we need, indeed more than the world needs. The problem is we have way too much. We need people to farm less and look to other careers so the farmers can make more money.

Are you kidding me? I didnt know whether or not to laugh at this.

Capitalism produces more than enough food that we need to survive, yet there\\\'s still mass starvation. Care to explain yourself?

Yes. Kill me. I like farmers too.

Theyre a dying breed. Their dwindling numbers is due to the development of capitalism and factory farming.
yo communique
Huh? I think We have enough food. Dont you notice the number of fat slobs walking around? Or are you not in a rich country? I assume you must be with internet?

To your second point, there are many many farmers in debt up to thier eyeballs. Farming is a low return business and doesnt cover interest payments, so yes there are too many farmers. As soon as food gets tossed away out of the supermarket you know there is a problem. There is too much competition in the farming.

kingbee

15th July 2006, 14:48

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 15 2006, 03:12 AM
I don't get people that like the welfare state. It is as if they do not actually want to WORK ON THEIR OWN to better themselves.

I don't get people that like the welfare state. It is as if they do not actually want to WORK ON THEIR OWN to better themselves.

Of course. Because everybody who gets welfare just sits on their arse, saying "Great, I got more free money! I don't need to work now!".

15th July 2006, 21:53

Huh? I think We have enough food. Dont you notice the number of fat slobs walking around? Or are you not in a rich country? I assume you must be with internet?

Are you actually denying that there's mass starvation?

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

16th July 2006, 09:43

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 15 2006, 06:54 PM

Huh? I think We have enough food. Dont you notice the number of fat slobs walking around? Or are you not in a rich country? I assume you must be with internet?

Are you actually denying that there\'s mass starvation?
There is starvation in warzones and socialist countries. There is no starvation where there is property rights.

Jazzratt

16th July 2006, 12:32

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!+Jul 16 2006, 06:44 AM--> (power... UNLIMITED POWER! @ Jul 16 2006, 06:44 AM)
Khayembii [email protected] 15 2006, 06:54 PM

Huh? I think We have enough food. Dont you notice the number of fat slobs walking around? Or are you not in a rich country? I assume you must be with internet?

Are you actually denying that there\'s mass starvation?
There is starvation in warzones and socialist countries. There is no starvation where there is property rights. [/b]
:lol: Do you genuinley believe this? Are you really that fucking stupid? You're like that other wanker who came on here and said domething like "No one is starving in the US". You're really, really stupid and sharing a species with you makes me thourghly ashamed.

kingbee

16th July 2006, 16:20

There is no starvation where there is property rights

Lol. What a load of bollocks!

From America to Third World countries which have property rights, people starve. Why would that make a difference anyway?

Ragnar

19th July 2006, 01:48

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 11 2006, 11:50 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 11 2006, 11:50 PM)
Abolish [email protected] 11 2006, 11:45 PM

By that defenition it would be Somalia you're thinking of.

Not a chance. If you try and take a piss in Somalia without permission from Your Friendly Neighborhood Warlord (see Spiderman comics if you don't understand that one), you get a bullet in your back and your daughter gets raped and your house gets burned to the gound.

Somalia: Free to die.
You're talking out of your arse. People are perfectly free in somalia it is the very epitome of capitalism. YOu can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and become a warlord.

Also if you don't accept that consider how much more freedom there is in the ROI, Germany, France, Italy and England. America is free pretty much only by America's defenition of freedom. [/b]
No, you can't, Capitalism is based on the princeiples of non agression.

Janus

19th July 2006, 07:59

No, you can't, Capitalism is based on the princeiples of non agression.
:lol: :lol:
Yeah, imperialism was and is really non-aggressive.

Capitalist Lawyer

19th July 2006, 21:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:27 AM

I'm assuming that's because you've never been poor.

You might want to try it out some time... <_<
And whose fault is that? If you fail out of school, drop out, or a just generally apathetic towards society, odds are you are going to be poor for a LONG TIME. Of course, certain circumstances arrive and an educated person could be unemployed and in poverty, but that is only temporary...unless they don't give a crap, but that's rarely the case.

I've been debating the value of the public school system on these boards for years now. I've come to agree with supporters on one particular point that I feel is significant. The public school system can and in fact does deliver high quality education... TO THOSE THAT WANT a high quality education.

I'm sure there's no shortage of public school graduates attending and competing well in our elite of post high school academics. As I said, I fully agree that they can compete with the best of them.

HOWEVER, that is not the problem with the public school system. The problem lies in the same problems that came from the welfare system.

You see it used to be that blacks and other poor people so valued an education that they'd risk death from slave owners and cops attempting to get it. This is simply an example of how valued education used to be. People strove for it. Not the case anymore. Education is not an entitlement... a given. An expectation. It's simply not valued. Those that DO value it and DO strive, quite simply do well. They want that solid education, and their parents want it for them as well. Those that don't, well... don't.

School choice might not be enough to be able to turn around the apathy. People have now lost the skills it takes to choose a school or STRIVE for an education.

It would seem to me the poorest would have much better motivation than richer kids. But it does not work out that way.

Janus

19th July 2006, 21:53

The public school system can and in fact does deliver high quality education... TO THOSE THAT WANT a high quality education.
That's funny 'cause a lot of businesses are complaining that schools are not teaching kids the practical skills that they need.

You see it used to be that blacks and other poor people so valued an education that they'd risk death from slave owners and cops attempting to get it.
Some did but a lot of others could and did not.

People have now lost the skills it takes to choose a school or STRIVE for an education.
Striving and committment requires what skills, exactly?

It would seem to me the poorest would have much better motivation than richer kids. But it does not work out that way.
They certainly have more to gain but they do not have nearly the same privileges and attention that the richer kids have.

PRC-UTE

20th July 2006, 00:27

Originally posted by Ragnar+Jul 18 2006, 10:49 PM--> (Ragnar @ Jul 18 2006, 10:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:50 PM

Abolish [email protected] 11 2006, 11:45 PM

By that defenition it would be Somalia you're thinking of.

Not a chance. If you try and take a piss in Somalia without permission from Your Friendly Neighborhood Warlord (see Spiderman comics if you don't understand that one), you get a bullet in your back and your daughter gets raped and your house gets burned to the gound.

Somalia: Free to die.
You're talking out of your arse. People are perfectly free in somalia it is the very epitome of capitalism. YOu can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and become a warlord.

Also if you don't accept that consider how much more freedom there is in the ROI, Germany, France, Italy and England. America is free pretty much only by America's defenition of freedom.
No, you can't, Capitalism is based on the princeiples of non agression. [/b]
What do you call WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc.??

"freest nation on earth"?

It's really shocking anyone could believe the USA is the freest country. How do people actually believe that? Is it ignorance, or are the right truly as stupid as we always believed? seriously, what's the explanation?

You've got a truly massive amount of government resources and depts devoted to repression. You have an enormous prison population and concentration camps devoted to torturing innocent people. The US regularly throws children in concentration camps for possession of hash. :o The rest of the world thinks you're insane puritanical hillbillies.

Sure, you can ineptly attempt to justify it... but the fact that you deny the obvious is shocking. :wacko:

The us isn't the very worst - the UK has more surveillence of its own people than any other country on earth and has had its version of the patriot act since the the 70s (prevention of terrorism act). Spain is pretty bad as well, where people are regularly kidnapped by secretive security forces.

but don't worry, yanks, you'll soon be #1 the way you're going.

PRC-UTE

20th July 2006, 00:33

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2006, 06:15 PM
I've been debating the value of the public school system on these boards for years now. I've come to agree with supporters on one particular point that I feel is significant. The public school system can and in fact does deliver high quality education... TO THOSE THAT WANT a high quality education.

I'm sure there's no shortage of public school graduates attending and competing well in our elite of post high school academics. As I said, I fully agree that they can compete with the best of them.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You are so clueless, yuppie. You must be takin the piss.

1/3 of your population believe a man in the sky created human life, and you have the audacity to proclaim how superior your education system is. :D This is ingenuis satire.

I've seen US schools up close, and witnessed the violence there; I've seen teachers openly preaching. If you think that's "high quality", you're very welcome to it.

You see it used to be that blacks and other poor people so valued an education that they'd risk death from slave owners and cops attempting to get it. This is simply an example of how valued education used to be. People strove for it. Not the case anymore. Education is not an entitlement... a given. An expectation. It's simply not valued. Those that DO value it and DO strive, quite simply do well. They want that solid education, and their parents want it for them as well. Those that don't, well... don't.

Like a true yank, you blame the blacks. brillaint.

Capitalist Lawyer

20th July 2006, 20:51

That's funny 'cause a lot of businesses are complaining that schools are teaching kids the practical skills that they need.

I'm going to assume you made a typo here by claiming that businesses are complaining that schools ARE teaching kids the skills they need. Assuming that you did, here's my reply.

Again, there has to be demand... from the students/parents.

Striving and committment requires what skills, exactly?

Knowing what the possibilities are and how to go about obtaining them.

Seriously... beyond nice looking classrooms, do people know what to look for in a school?

They certainly have more to gain but they do not have nearly the same privileges and attention that the richer kids have.

Exactly my point. People don't know how to take advantage of what's available to them because they are dependent on the gov't to simply give it to them.

Janus

21st July 2006, 07:39

Again, there has to be demand... from the students/parents.
I edited my original post.

Anyways, students wouldn't know what they need to learn and few parents are that involved.

Knowing what the possibilities are and how to go about obtaining them.

Seriously... beyond nice looking classrooms, do people know what to look for in a school?
They generally have no choice because school zones are assigned. Furthermore, some schools are just worse than others due to insufficient funds,etc.

People don't know how to take advantage of what's available to them because they are dependent on the gov't to simply give it to them.
Students are?

Dean

21st July 2006, 11:01

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 19 2006, 09:34 PM
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You are so clueless, yuppie. You must be takin the piss.

1/3 of your population believe a man in the sky created human life, and you have the audacity to proclaim how superior your education system is. :D This is ingenuis satire.

I've seen US schools up close, and witnessed the violence there; I've seen teachers openly preaching. If you think that's "high quality", you're very welcome to it.
Sadly, this indoctrination works very well. I have been a communist since I was 13, and while I had little knowledge of much history and was quite dogmatic in my early years as a communist, I held basic morals which heald each person as a moral equal, economically and socially.

My history teacher when I was a sophomore led me to believe very conservative things about the hstory of our nation's foreign policy, openly lied about Israel, communism, Hiroshima and the USSR and expressed his views on workers rights regularly as if they were facts.

Granted, I was able to recognize the ideological bias, but his implications toward historical fact left my knowledge skewed for a long time.

Rollo

21st July 2006, 11:04

Australia is pretty free, educated no. My generation has been swarmed with a plague that is internet speak. liek d utha dai i was on d pc n sum gy is liek hai fag. Etc and so forth.

Capitalist Lawyer

27th July 2006, 06:12

Anyways, students wouldn't know what they need to learn and few parents are that involved.

So how are schools supposed to know what to teach? Again, this comes down to demand and students/parents don't know how to demand or even what to demand any more because they've been lulled into complacency/dependence by gov't provided education.

They generally have no choice because school zones are assigned. Furthermore, some schools are just worse than others due to insufficient funds,etc.

Sounds like an argument for school choice.

Students are?

I'm talking about people not even having the fundamental skills to know what they want out of an education. Before/during the civil war, blacks risked their lives to learn how to read. They knew exactly what they wanted and pursued it. Now, when gov't provided education falls short, people not only don't know it's falling short, but they don't know how to go get what they need without the gov't spoon feeding it to them.

Janus

27th July 2006, 19:48

So how are schools supposed to know what to teach?
They know what to teach. It's just that some of them have no money for workshops and teaching practical job skills.

Before/during the civil war, blacks risked their lives to learn how to read.
A few did, many did not. And it was generally taught to them by their masters.

but they don't know how to go get what they need without the gov't spoon feeding it to them.
Spoon feeding? The gov. is now cutting down on education.

Orange Juche

28th July 2006, 00:33

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 11 2006, 07:24 PM

Well he does think the USA is the freest nation on earth

That's obvious that the USA is the freest nation on Earth. Duh. Name a freer one.
The Netherlands

bezdomni

28th July 2006, 00:53

I've seen US schools up close, and witnessed the violence there; I've seen teachers openly preaching. If you think that's "high quality", you're very welcome to it.
I can second that. Myself and about two other kids in my geometry class a few years ago had to help everybody else in the class who had no idea what was going on because our teacher would prattle on about god all class.

Well, if she wasn't talking about god, she would talk about her children and how they are being good little fascists. One goes to a super religious school and the other is in the air force.