Gospel of Intolerance - american evangelicals in Uganda has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

@renatojj making a distinction between bad and no choice is a very fine line to walk on. It will always be arbitrary, as what for one is only bad, for another is no choice. An example: our Spanish friends have the option to work for a shitty fee (the bad choice) or not work at all (and possibly starve, arguably no choice). As there is only 1 choice (work for a shitty fee) is that a choice? Even if that choice was good, 1 choice means there is no choice. And in most cases, due to the same principles as apply to free markets, if there is only 1 choice (or less) that choice will be bad. Is this a case of free markets or should we have done something about the lack of choice? You can argue that policy makers did not do anything in Spain, and you are right. But again, they had their chance (and have a chance every day) to do the right thing. Having an opportunity to make things better is better than knowing 100% that things will go wrong in the end (total free market) even if in some cases human stupidity still F$^&& up the chances.

BTW, in your examples on Uganda and the homeless man, both are not situations of power. As in the giver has no power (or relation) over the receiver or vice versa. It is charity. There is no real economic reason to do it. An employer however does have power over a worker in various ways. You cant compare those examples. Coercion only happens in cases where there is an imbalance of power. Student to teacher, employee to employer, citizen to police. Those are exactly the moments when you need to make sure the ones with more power are scrutinized and can be stopped.

I agree that a free market wants to reduce "the choice remover" aka rules. The rules are however making sure there is balance and that the ones in power cannot remove all the choice from the ones without power. Creating good options for one side in free markets, can lead to bad options in the other, again, no choice. Rules can do the same, however the entire idea of the rules is to balance it and make sure the amount of good options for everyone is maximized.

I just read a great parable. Ill copy it in the next post as it says a lot about free market policies.

@rbar in your examples, force is used to remove a person's choices, but then you equate that with bad choices. Bad choices which, in a free market, would not involve the use of force. So, are bad choices just the same as no choice or do we need to make a more refined distinction?

- No choice => Coercion, someone is denying you something you have a right to (like your life).

- Bad choice => No coercion, the choice is just shitty.

The classic example of "exploitation" is a terribly low paying job, is there any coercion going on? We can always concoct a moral dilemma where a man must feed his malnourished family, thus the employer ends up with the terrifying power of life and death over the poor worker and his family. Holy Coercion, Batman!

Would it make sense if I accused an American citizen of coercing children in Uganda for not donating to a charity that saves lives over there? Blame a homeless man's hunger on someone denying him a handout? Accuse an employer of stealing money from a worker if they paid exactly what was agreed upon beforehand, but paid less than what we think the worker "deserved"?

In a free market, you want to reduce the "choice remover" that is coercion. Whatever's left, nobody is being denied what is theirs by right, so they're all choices. It's up to the person doing the choosing to label them good or bad.

So...heaven is a small patch of land in Uganda wear monkeys play with kittens. Heaven is always in the last place you look...>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^rottenseed:
where the fuck are they, heaven???
This is actually in Uganda. I wouldn't call "heaven"..

>> ^rottenseed:

where the fuck are they, heaven???
This is actually in Uganda. I wouldn't call "heaven"..

My friend who grew up in Nigeria just posted this in the comments when I posted this to facebook:

"I posted it last night also. Then it had just about 10k views. Now, it has 11M !! Wow the power of social media. Which brings me to a sobering thought. Whether we like it or not this video is a propaganda tool. Before yesterday, I knew very little about Kony. Today, I find myself hating him. I don't even know enough to hold an objective position. And I'm sure I'm not alone on this. Of course kidnapping and slaughtering children is awful!!! But having lived the first half of my life in Nigeria, a political environment closer to Uganda's than the US', I know the evil is often committed by both rebel guerillas and government troops. But, it's usually the govts that have the luxury of relationship with the west to encourage development of videos like this. So I'm not saying Kony is a saint. I hope he gets caught and prosecuted. I'm just catching myself from the gullibility of falling for a propaganda video. However well intentioned. Hopefully others will do the same."

And here's my response:

"I couldn't agree with you more. Well said and, even more importantly, we considered. Gives you a sense of the power of the medium -- especially when it's combined with social networking! I couldn't get through my first attempt to sit through this, but got to the point that he introduces Kony to his son. There is definitely some extreme bias here (isn't that the case with all documentaries, if not all cinema or media for that matter?) Your point is a good one and it just further underscores my deep belief that there needs to be some form of widespread campaign to teach people how to "read" and "interpret media -- that is, see it and read between the lines (as you have). Otherwise, we (audiences) are mere chattel to the modern day propagandists armed with nothing than a handi-cam and a youtube account."

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?


You use words you don't understand the meaning of. You argue extensively for the benefits of socialism. You point repeatedly to Libya as a great example of it. You close by arguing for this as acceptable because the alternative is western based fascism.

Mussolini described fascism as something that "should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power". In the west, the struggle continues between the power of the state and the power of corporations. The fight as separate entities each trying to influence one another. In Libya this was done away with, and corporations powers were nationalized into part of the state's power. You call that socialism, but Mussolini literally wrote the book on fascism and called it that instead.

>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.

You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.

Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?
And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.


From you that's a compliment.

The evidence of Gaddafi's pending genocide is undeniable, from his own public declarations of it, to his deputy minister to the UN, do Gaddafi's forces deliberate actions to attempt and implement it. What evidence do you have of the rebels genocide? So far, the only source claiming that was Gaddafi's own media, which got really silent on the matter now...

Oh, and before you show any dead bodies remember there is a distinct difference between war crimes like massacres that likely did occur on both sides in the fighting in Libya, and a genocide. A genocide is a concerted effort to track down and exterminate a specific group of people. There is zero evidence the rebels have or ever did have any such plans, while Gaddafi announced his publicly from his own mouth. The fact you can't accept this says something very sinister about what ever glasses taint your vision.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.


You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?

And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kiva, uganda, small loans, yunus' to 'kiva, uganda, small loans, yunus, microloans, microlending' - edited by marinara

Tags for this video have been changed from 'return of uncle benton, uganda, action movie' to 'return of uncle benton, uganda, action movie, uncle benon' - edited by lucky760

nice post my friend.
i just went to the discussion you were talking about with the sam harris video.
i agree with so many of your points here concerning criticism and discussion concerning religion but when it comes to islam many westerners are unaware of the current schism in regards to islam.
there are many,a majority actually,of moderate muslims who read the quran much like a modern day catholic may read the bible.
one of the reasons you can chastise and criticize christianity with impunity is due to the reformation hundreds of years ago.this was not the case hundreds of years ago when the church ruled with an iron and unforgiving fist.we are no longer compelled to obey the edicts of the church.
if you dared to criticize the church in those days you risked being labeled an apostate,a heretic and subject to the most severe punishments and possible torture..even death in some instances.
now let us place you in indonesia or uganda.where the ruling class consists of a modern day theocracy.would you be as quick to criticize knowing that you may be executed? your family punished along side you?

so when i defend islam,i do so with these things in mind.
because what we are talking about is wholesale exploitation of the uneducated and the extremely poor dominated by those who would pervert a system of belief for their own gains.the EXACT same thing the christian church did so many years ago.

for those who would like to understand the current state of islam and the internal struggles concerning islamic theosophy might i suggest rerza aslan's "no god but god".a fantastic book that addresses the very thing that we are talking about here.