*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by marinara.

Eloquent and intelligent. And that in a language clearly not their own.

United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

I love this, but I find that mentality "Thank god there is man X out there taking care of things" to be that underlying laziness that can justify all sorts of evils. It isn't, by any means, unique to communism, rather, all people in all forms of government and societies that rely "out sourcing" things that should be your daily concern. Justice isn't just a branch of government, for example.

>> ^renatojj:

United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.


Yeah, Go Foxconn, the employees are reaping some really good suicide benefits there! Or how 'bout all those miners killed every year in China. Those guys really reaped some benefits.

Melamine in your milk = Benefit of a freer economy
School collapses and kills your children because contractor cheaped out on concrete = Benefit of freer economy
People make unhealthy fake eggs through chemistry and sell them at the market = Benefit of a freer economy

Sign me up, sounds GREAT!

Yes, they actually do make fake eggs and sell them to unsuspecting customers in China, it's a big business.

Thank you, but no. I'd like some restrictions on the economy. China is a perfect example of why Libertarians are so damn wrong.

http://videosift.com/video/Fake-Eggs-and-Grapes-Being-Sold-In-China

This is a cool video. I wish every country in the world would create something like this, and force every American to watch them all.

That said, they are still pretty young, and have a bit of a naive mindset. US Soldiers saving Iraqi's from the Hell that is Iraq, and the US's foreign interests being to topple dictatorships and export it's 'democracy' are only what the lowest common denominator believe, if even they believe it. It's been pretty clear going back as far as the Korean war (or some might even say the first World War, as I have heard multiple vets from that era explain), that US motivations have always been primarily conquer, control and capitalization.

http://videosift.com/video/Ha-Ha-Ha-America

The world needs more of this. Our youth need to be sharing views with each other from across different nations.

Brings to mind a seemingly weird thing. Ask this group about Taiwan. I've been surprised to discover that most anti-war, anti-intervention Chinese people who have very 'western' ideas, still adamantly believe China should go to war if Taiwan ever declared independence.

It's just very jarring. After saying as a matter of course imposing things on people through war is wrong, it is also just assumed as obvious that between Taiwan and China it's an entirely different matter and war is of course the right decision.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

Yeah, Go Foxconn, ...

Terrible things indeed, but blaming that on economic freedom is like blaming free speech for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and our terribly biased mainstream media.

You have it backwards. Fox "News" is a product of two things.

1) Corporate control of the government.

2) Runaway corporate payoffs for the top 1%.

Fox "News" is all about maintaining and growing the income gap. The speech of Bill O, Rush etc. is not free. It is very expensive, but in America if a half-billion spent in the right places can save you tens of billions in taxes while allowing you to cut workers wages, bust unions and send work overseas it's considered a bargain.

Chinese media is just as bad, and even more one-sided than American media. They will always support Foxconn for instance, and I doubt the problem of suicides etc. at the plant have even had the slightest mention in Chinese media.

Make no mistake, this is not about free speech. If anything Fox and the billionaires behind it would like to destroy free speech, not protect it.

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

Yeah, Go Foxconn, ...

Terrible things indeed, but blaming that on economic freedom is like blaming free speech for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and our terribly biased mainstream media.

I don't think I've ever thought of a soldier saving Iraqi's from hell. I don't think a majority of US citizens think that. How come all the citizens get generalized because of Fox News? I don't know what news other countries get to see of ours, I really hope that isn't the only one.

@Drachen_Jager, why you making excuses for free speech being a failure bro? Don't you agree that Bill O'Reilly is only possible because of free speech? I mean, imagine if there were laws banning Bill O'Reilly or his ideas, society would be better off. Who cares if it undermines or sets a bad precedent against free speech?
</ sarcarm>

But seriously, I'm sure no one would ever say, "Free speech doesn't work, because we have stuff like Bill O'Reilly, etc", I mean, yeah, free speech ALLOWS Bill O'Reilly's speech, but would it make sense to condemn free speech because not everyone is using it to say wonderful and truthful things?

@renatojj I'm not talking about free speech AT ALL. You're the one who keeps bringing it up.

You're arguing with yourself man.

Sad thing is I'm not sure who's winning.

@Drachen_Jager I know, right? Doesn't it sound dumb to argue against free speech?

Yet people have such double standards and argue the same things against free markets.

That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Free speech and free markets are not even close to comparable. You might as well have said:

"Doesn't it sound dumb to argue against free speech?

Yet people have such double standards and argue the same things against free sex with whoever you want, whenever you want."

Can't you see that free speech and free markets are about as similar as free speech and rape/pedophilia?

And, last of all, prior to this posting. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT FREE SPEECH!

So, that brings me to a conclusion. You are either too dumb to be worth talking to, or you are a troll. In either case I am done here.

@Drachen_Jager I assure you I'm not trolling, I just used sarcasm and analogy, I'm terribly sorry if they went over your head!

Why is it that some people always think that if someone disagrees with them they must not understand them properly.

I understand the analogy. It is a stupid analogy. Have you even heard the expression "comparing apples to oranges"? Can't you understand why free sex = free speech is as accurate as free enterprise = free speech?

"Might Makes Right" should be on our money.

Were these kids even born when that happened? Not a fair question.>> ^njjh201:

Cool let's now see the sequel, "Chinese Youth Discuss what is Wrong with what happened at Tiannenmen Square in June 1989"
No?
Oh OK then.

Yeah, that's a good point. But I think the issues these kids are discussing are current issues and policy. In that context MLK, slavery, and Tiannamen would be out of bounds. The China of 1989 is not the China of today. >> ^njjh201:

So (jokes about dumb American kids aside) American kids of a similar age wouldn't have some ideas about slavery and who MLK was? American kids of similar intelligence to these certainly would.
And if they didn't they could Google him.
I guess these girls can just Google Tiannenmen if they don't know about it.

How do you know that people don't know about Tianamen? Of course they do; it was a nationwide protest! But I think for some kids to have an in depth opinion of something that happened so long ago is like asking me (born in the early 70s) about Kent State. Yeah, I know something happened; but I wouldn't be able to really expound upon it.

There are many current issues that have prompted Chinese citizens to protest against their government, with results. Twoexamples. People in China protest against the government all the time. Of course the state run media suppresses things. But with the internet and cell phone technology, it's like trying to plug up the ocean. When the Chinese gov't starts to hire Fox News consultants, then I will really worry.

China vetoing a Security Council proclamation is not the same as China oppressing Syrians. C'mon.

Lastly, these students are not arrogantly giving a lesson. They are giving their opinions and insights in the spirit of dialogue.

>> ^njjh201:

I'm not American, but as long as China's government forbids its children from learning about a massacre that took place in the centre of their own capital city little more than 20 years ago, in the midst of a pro-democracy protest of the sort that China is now suppressing in Syria, I'll take no lessons from their teenagers.
I'm astounded by how irrelevant you think such recent history is. Let's see one of these kids have the ambition to make China a country where people get to choose their own destiny and government. Let's see how long they're still free to talk to journalists then. The USA has a Nobel peace prize winner in the Oval Office. China threw theirs in jail.

@Drachen_Jager, maybe the reason you deny the analogy is because one is a freedom you currently blame for a lot of things, and the other is a freedom you cherish?

One is about not legislating over what people can or can't say, but have laws against libel, inciting violence, etc. The other is about not legislating over what people can or can't trade with each other, but have laws against fraud, breaking contracts, etc.

Help me understand, why are these really apples and oranges again?

>> ^longde:

How do you know that people don't know about Tianamen? Of course they do; it was a nationwide protest! But I think for some kids to have an in depth opinion of something that happened so long ago is like asking me (born in the early 70s) about Kent State. Yeah, I know something happened; but I wouldn't be able to really expound upon it.
There are many current issues that have prompted Chinese citizens to protest against their government, with results. Twoexamples. People in China protest against the government all the time. Of course the state run media suppresses things. But with the internet and cell phone technology, it's like trying to plug up the ocean. When the Chinese gov't starts to hire Fox News consultants, then I will really worry.
China vetoing a Security Council proclamation is not the same as China oppressing Syrians. C'mon.
Lastly, these students are arrogantly giving a lesson. They are giving their opinions and insights in the spirit of dialogue.
>> ^njjh201:
I'm not American, but as long as China's government forbids its children from learning about a massacre that took place in the centre of their own capital city little more than 20 years ago, in the midst of a pro-democracy protest of the sort that China is now suppressing in Syria, I'll take no lessons from their teenagers.
I'm astounded by how irrelevant you think such recent history is. Let's see one of these kids have the ambition to make China a country where people get to choose their own destiny and government. Let's see how long they're still free to talk to journalists then. The USA has a Nobel peace prize winner in the Oval Office. China threw theirs in jail.



I think you are missing the point behind asking about Tiananmen. It's not their lack of knowledge, but rather the lack of freedom to speak about it. If you plan to continue living in China and climbing the ladder, appearing on camera speaking against the Tiananmen massacre is risky and not a particularly wise move.

If you want a current example ask about Taiwanese independence and you'll find most of the sympathy and support for non-intervention suddenly evaporating.

Don't dismiss the veto of the Syrian motion so lightly either. There is no question that unarmed civilians in Syria are being killed by the Syrian military. The Arab league itself was the one asking for the UN motion that China and Russia vetoed. Complaining about the damage FOX does is great, but at least be even handed enough to recognize the direct damage also done by vetoing the Syrian motion...

@bcglorf

I agree that Chinese have less freedom to discuss hot political topics in the open, especially in a broadcast to a western audience. But at the same time, there is alot of protest and speech against the government in China, alot more than westerners acknowledge.

And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.


What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?

>> ^renatojj:

United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.


You do know that in China, the government is an equal partner in every business right? I mean, you do know it right?
That's your idea of a free economy?

>> ^longde:

And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government.


A certain sector of Americans will tell anyone who will listen about how they hate their government. Most foreign journalists don't cover it anymore because it's boring.

Speaking of "google-ing Tienanmen Square", isn't there a giant, nationwide block against those keywords, as well as a billion others? I thought I read something to that effect a while ago, wherein the average Chinese internet user had extremely limited access to anything that might possibly be deemed anti-government or pro-free speech.

If that's the case, it wouldn't be so simple to Google Tienanmen Square. I imagine the story gets passed on, but probably in hushed voices and hidden books, as it's certainly not a publicly welcome topic of discussion.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This is fascinating.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

Yeah, Go Foxconn, the employees are reaping some really good suicide benefits there! Or how 'bout all those miners killed every year in China. Those guys really reaped some benefits.
Melamine in your milk = Benefit of a freer economy
School collapses and kills your children because contractor cheaped out on concrete = Benefit of freer economy
People make unhealthy fake eggs through chemistry and sell them at the market = Benefit of a freer economy
Sign me up, sounds GREAT!
Yes, they actually do make fake eggs and sell them to unsuspecting customers in China, it's a big business.
Thank you, but no. I'd like some restrictions on the economy. China is a perfect example of why Libertarians are so damn wrong.


Get off your soapbox Snoopy, there wouldn't be a powerful China without American capitalists offshoring everything to take advantage of cheap labour/costs and then importing the products back. Or do Apple (a US company last time I checked) get off scott free because somehow they didn't know their products were being produced by near slavery..?

>> ^njjh201:

Cool let's now see the sequel, "Chinese Youth Discuss what is Wrong with what happened at Tiannenmen Square in June 1989"
No?
Oh OK then.


And there's American arrogance, assuming that everything is exactly how you believe it is... The chinese government certainly represses knowledge of Tiannenmen, but you'd have to be a moron to believe people don't remember and word doesn't spread, and people are told to not get caught talking about it...

ps. Funny how the greatest assistant to the repression of knowledge re: Tiannenmen square is *drumroll* the US company Google and their willingness to allow regions to dictate what appears on their localised Google.

I'm not American, I'm no fan of the American government and frankly your society scares the hell outta me at times.

But when it comes down to it, I look at what America wants to be (or used to want to be, who the fuck knows anymore?) and I look at what China wants to be, and for all it's faults, I'd much rather have the US in charge than the Chinese.

Oh and just for the record, this is not in any way a slight on the Chinese people. It's their government I have a problem with.

That is not true. While there are many state owned companies, there are many companies that are entirely private.>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

You do know that in China, the government is an equal partner in every business right? I mean, you do know it right?
That's your idea of a free economy?

I'll have to check when I get back to Beijing, but I don't think it would be too hard to "baidu" (the chinese equivalent of google; hardly anyone uses google in china) tianamen square. After all, it is a major tourist destination, maybe the most visited place in the country! While many foriegners get a VPN to view content like youtube and facebook, I don't use them, so I'm guessing I see what everyone else sees on the internet (not that chinese couldn't get a VPN).

I can access the NYT, and wikipedia, linkedin, and other popular sites. I have never looked up democracy, or liberty or Tianamen square, though. I can access videosift, but I can only see liveleak or comedy central videos.

However, even if the internet isn't blocked, to really buy access to the internet (via a SIM card or cable access) one has to register with the government. It's part of the service application process, but it's still there. So, you know even if you have access, someone is watching. Even internet cafe monitoring has been enhanced recently.

I talked to a friend about knowledge of TS. She pointed out that even US history books don't chronicle recent history (the last 40 or 50 years) that thoroughly. I'm in my late 30s, and mine certainly didn't. She also said, even if it came up, older people would be reluctant to discuss such a topic.>> ^shoany:

Speaking of "google-ing Tienanmen Square", isn't there a giant, nationwide block against those keywords, as well as a billion others? I thought I read something to that effect a while ago, wherein the average Chinese internet user had extremely limited access to anything that might possibly be deemed anti-government or pro-free speech.
If that's the case, it wouldn't be so simple to Google Tienanmen Square. I imagine the story gets passed on, but probably in hushed voices and hidden books, as it's certainly not a publicly welcome topic of discussion.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

You do know that in China, the government is an equal partner in every business right? I mean, you do know it right?
That's your idea of a free economy?
Nope, notice I said freer, not free.

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.

You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.


On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.

The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.

What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?

First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.

As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.

"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

>> ^longde:

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:
@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."



I'll quite readily agree that virtually everything the UN does is toothless and in that sense, completely worthless and meaningless. I would however argue that the Russian and Chinese vetoes absolutely do have a material affect on what is going on in Syria. The vetoes are sign of the depth of Russian and Chinese commitment to Assad's regime. That support is absolutely vital and essential to Assad's continued military campaign against his own people. Without that support, the combined efforts of the Arab League and the Syrian opposition would be seeing Assad forced to back down.

I understand your confusion. I'm used to the conversations I have with my Chinese-American friends on the subject. Please let me explain:

While China has many "private" businesses along with the state-run organizations, the relatively new practice of allowing private business is something the Chinese government uses to promote their reputation. At the end of the day, China has a central bank. Not the way Americans have the Federal Reserve (which pisses me off sometimes too), but one bank with a few branches and absolutely no competitors. When I say that Chinese businesses are not private, it's because they all have to enter an agreement with the government in order to get the money to operate or even use the banking system at all.

So let's forget for a moment that China is a communist country with the express right to seize any-and-all assets of any corporation run by its citizens. Can you imagine how you would feel if you went to apply for a small loan for your business or family and had to apply directly to the government? Would that feel like freedom to you? And if you got rejected, there's no Chase down the street to apply at. There's no small credit union offering you a deal to try and lower your rates; just the government, the same one that will decide the terms of how you will run your business according to the law.

Now, that's all well and good if you're Apple or Oreo, and making a return for that same government banking system is practically guaranteed. But the Chinese government and it's people all have a vested interest in the business you do, and allowing your business to fail is not an option they're going to take lightly. Which means that everything your business will do is subject to that opinion, along with the final approval before they'll issue you so much as a debit card.

I think that's what my friends mean when they say that the government is an equal partner.

And I'm not necessarily saying that the American system is better. But less free?

>> ^longde:

That is not true. While there are many state owned companies, there are many companies that are entirely private.


>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

You do know that in China, the government is an equal partner in every business right? I mean, you do know it right?
That's your idea of a free economy?
Nope, notice I said freer, not free.

Why should I heed a lecture by slaves with no freedom of speech, who can be executed without trial and are barred from having more than one kid in their homeland about freedom?

Lucky for them, their American kollij professor is likely a communist who spews the exact same rubbish.

I mean, have you ever considered that some people may LIKE living under a murderous dictatorship? (It's true, the dictators sure are happy)! What an easy "A".

The girl says (after 2:25) "We have to face critisizms about our government.....I think it's so unfair because I'm an individual, how can you judge me by my government?"

And then they talk about American's beliefs in general terms. Wow. They're so enlightened and we need more of this kind of talk.


Pshh.

@Ryjkyj, terrible as things are in China, our economy is sadly more oppressed then theirs.

You know where they have a truly free economy? Almost zero in the way of restrictions?

Somalia. Why don't you go live there?

>> ^ToastyBuffoon:

These girls have no idea what they are saying...


and then you lost me

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.

You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?

>> ^renatojj:

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?


His point stands, there is no central government doing the repressing. Somalia IS the utopia that the extremist libertarian/anarchistic minded folk are lobbying for. If you want to eliminate ALL taxation and ALL government rule, Somalia IS what results.

>> ^renatojj:

@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?


You want someone to enforce contracts! But that's a restriction on business. So you DO think businesses should not be completely free to do as they please.

Those 'criminal gangs' as you call them are the paragons of free-market corporations. Give the same freedom to American corporations and they'll behave the same way.

I never promoted blanket freedom of speech either, even though you keep bringing it up. There is no total freedom of speech in any country, including the US.

All things in moderation. Extremism is the real danger, and believe me, you are as extremist as an Al Quaeda Imam in your own way.

Somalia is as @renatojj describes it. There are no private property rights and no rule of law.

Libertarians are not anarchists.

But seeing how @Drachen may believe that American corporations are the same as warlord-driven Somalian gangs, I hereby swear allegiance to the McDonald's' McMillitia.

'Egg McMuffin' is just a beautiful name for a boy. Or a girl.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^renatojj:
@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?

His point stands, there is no central government doing the repressing. Somalia IS the utopia that the extremist libertarian/anarchistic minded folk are lobbying for. If you want to eliminate ALL taxation and ALL government rule, Somalia IS what results.

@bcglorf, @Drachen_Jager, economic freedom doesn't mean you're free to use force, how could you think that? That would be the opposite of freedom.

It's like saying freedom of expression allows you to shoot people in the face to express yourself!

Well, I guess it's real easy to hate libertarianism when you don't understand what it stands for.

>> ^renatojj:

@bcglorf, @Drachen_Jager, economic freedom doesn't mean you're free to use force, how could you think that? That would be the opposite of freedom.
It's like saying freedom of expression allows you to shoot people in the face to express yourself!
Well, I guess it's real easy to hate libertarianism when you don't understand what it stands for.


Taxation restricts economic freedom.
Please explain how you intend to prevent people from using force without some level of taxation for a police force.

This isn't some idea anti-libertarians have come out with to smear it. The idea of eliminating spending on police and military forces is an idea frequently championed by self proclaimed Libertarians. Don't pretend you haven't heard the lament of how many puppies could be saved if we redirected the billions spent on national defense. The logical conclusion of eliminating all that spending though is millions of saved puppies, but no defense against Somalia like warlords ravaging what's left.

@renatojj

Corporations already use force. They are more subtle about it than the Somolis, sure, that's an extreme example, but why do you think Foxconn employees commit suicide in such high numbers? They are forced to work long hours, the company forces them to live on-site, the company forces them to develop no social contact.

Companies in the States even use force on the government. They threaten to pull up stakes if a state won't change the laws to their liking. They pay billions of dollars to force their message down the throats of gullible people (such as yourself).

You want companies to have more freedom, to what end? Perhaps it would mean an increase in GDP, but a larger share of that GDP would go to a smaller number of people. If 95% of the people are worse off, 4% are the same and 1% do better, is that good policy? Look at Sweden, which has high taxes and strict laws governing how corporations must act. Are they suffering? Nope, the people are doing way better than America. Same for Japan. In spite of all their economic troubles, the PEOPLE of Japan are doing quite well. Americans? Not so much. One of the highest crime rates in developed countries, one of the highest infant mortality rates, near the lowest education and literacy levels, near the highest in poverty rates, near the lowest life expectancy. Is that the place where you want to live? More freedom for corporations means more gulf oil spills, more union busting, lower wages, lower employee benefits, more offshoring of American jobs.

Finally, China is not doing as well as most people suppose. Much of their economic boom has been real-estate driven and it is in a bubble which will make the US look like a joke by comparison. There are whole cities in China with space for two million people that are completely empty. All of it was driven by government legislation (ie. not free). In fact China has a much more restrictive business environment than America in many ways, they just have rock-bottom wages, a near endless supply of people and moderate education levels. That is why they're doing well (for now, we'll see what happens when their bubble pops).

>> ^renatojj:

@Ryjkyj, terrible as things are in China, our economy is sadly more oppressed then theirs.


That's your rebuttal? Well OK then stinky-poopoo-face, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I sincerely hope that one day you attain the dream of your government-issued credit card.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why should I heed a lecture by slaves with no freedom of speech, who can be executed without trial and are barred from having more than one kid in their homeland about freedom?
Lucky for them, their American kollij professor is likely a communist who spews the exact same rubbish.
I mean, have you ever considered that some people may LIKE living under a murderous dictatorship? (It's true, the dictators sure are happy)! What an easy "A".


QM, sometimes you have a truly fascinating way of agreeing with everyone on a thread, and then calling them stupid.

Am I wrong, or is renatojj the only person here who's saying that China is "freer" than the United States? (cause he seems like the exact opposite of a kollij professor)

@bcglorf, yes, taxation does restrict economic freedom, which is why less taxes are preferable in a free market. We need taxes for government, and that's one good reason why libertarians keep talking about limited government, to maximize economic freedom. How much out of the time of your life that you waste working are you willing to give up to government? I'd personally like it to be as little as necessary.

Those who don't want government or force-based services (military, police, courts, etc.) being done by government are anarchists, period. Bark at them on your own time, because I'm not one.

@Drachen_Jager, those are mostly not examples of force, I guess your problem is that you don't quite understand what force is. If Foxconn practices slavery, yeah that's force, and that's not allowed in a free market. Besides, I never said China has a free market, they are just enjoying more economic freedom and prosperity than we do.

I can't address every misconception you have about economic freedom, but I like how you started your rant with the question, "You want companies to have more freedom, to what end?". It's not just companies, YOU are being economically oppressed right now! The money you use is being inflated, so any money you bothered to save is losing its value as we speak, fast. You can thank the Fed and your government for that. You pay a lot more for things than they actually cost because your state and federal governments are charging taxes upon taxes on those companies you hate so dearly (you know, the ones you want to tax to death?), and they pass on many of these taxes to you. All the while, that money of yours that mostly went to taxes is being poorly allocated by a big government that tries to do many things it shouldn't, losing most of that money along the way while doing a crappy job. So a big percent of the precious time of your life that you spend working, goes to feeding a fat government that is mostly weighing on the economy, and also on your shoulders.



@Ryjkyj, you crossed the line there with stinky-poopoo-face, pal. I'll be waiting for an apology. Btw, I meant in terms of economic freedom, I personally know a few people who have already gone to China for work, one in my family even, and they have no plans of coming back anytime soon. I guess @Drachen_Jager would say they're being held hostage by all the money they're making!

@renatojj

If paying taxes = oppression then how come the Swedes, with much higher tax rates than Americans are so fit, happy, well educated, productive and financially well-off?

You see, you have a theory, which you think sounds good. You fight tooth and nail for your theory, but you never bother to look at the real world and see if your theory fits what actually happens. There is a spectrum of economic freedom, taxation etc. in the developed world, and consistently those countries with higher taxes and less corporate freedom do better than those places like the US. I notice you completely ignored that part of my previous post. You skimmed past the meat and potatoes of the argument and tried to pick holes in the garnish (even there you failed, but you tried). How about addressing the actual gaping hole in your side of the argument? The hole that says it simply doesn't work when it's been tried, in fact the opposite proves to be far better policy.

@Drachen_Jager, like I said, I don't have the time to address your every misconception, I could say a quite few things to shake your view of Sweden as the socialist paradise you think it is, but would that make any difference at this point? Really? You don't seem very open-minded about political discourse to me, or respect my opinion that much anyway.

@renatojj

Very nice. You can't come up with a decent argument so you just give up and pretend it's because of my lack of understanding.

I came up with a variety of cogent points during this little debate, you went off on wild vectors about freedom of speech and other fallacious angles. Now you just give up when I keep pressing a very solid point to which you have no rebuttal. Why not just admit it? You lose. Your side is wrong.

Freedom suits every born human. (And cloned humans too.) When one has been hearing lies from day one, one may start to believe some of them. Liberty scares those in power.

Boo! "Sour grapes" is not an argument!

Being Finnish, I love to hear people denigrate Sweden. So in the interest of further discourse, I apologize for calling you a stinky-poopoo-face.
>> ^renatojj:

I could say a quite few things to shake your view of Sweden as the socialist paradise you think it is, but would that make any difference at this point?

@Drachen_Jager, ah you have been the perfect intellectual gentleman indeed, while I've been all over with my crazy analogies. Hey, I'm just glad you narrowed it down to Sweden.

It's never enough that history is littered with examples of socialist countries just plain failing, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries (including Finland, sorry Ryjkyj!) have to be touted as examples of socialism's success, when they're mostly cases of countries that achieve moderate success *despite* socialism because they just happen to not be as socialist as liberals claim they are. They were the worst in their history when they were the most socialist, and Sweden has since moved away gradually towards capitalism and experienced growth as a result.
http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/education/2011/07/sweden-is-not-marilyn-munroe.php

@renatojj

I never claimed Sweden was a socialist paradise. Merely that it is on the left of most developed nations and the US is to the right. The US is doing terribly in almost every measurable category of public success, Sweden is one of the best in nearly every category of success.

This trend goes across the board. Countries where corporations are kept in check and wage disparity (after taxes) is lowest do the best, the middle of the road countries fare moderately well and those countries (like the US) that fall to the far right of the spectrum fare worst.

Whether Sweden has swung to the right or the left relative to themselves in recent years is totally irrelevant. But thanks for trying to avoid the real issue again. Why don't you try addressing it instead?

The real problem is extremism. Did Sweden swing too far one way and bring themselves back? Probably. Is that a good reason to take the extreme opposite view and claim that any tax is a bad tax, any government intervention is bad intervention and corporations will do what's right without all that red tape getting in their way? Absolutely not.

Oh, no offense taken. I'm Finnish by ancestry. I don't actually have any connection with Finland besides some old pictures, my Nokia cell-phone and the fact that I think they're awesome.

@Drachen_Jager, that's quite a straw man you've bludgeoned there, not me. Extremism is relative. Free speech in the Middle Ages could be dismissed as extremist too.

I'm sorry for talking about freedom of speech yet again, but bear with me.

The reason I often make the analogy between freedom of speech and freedom of economy is that neither of them are supposed to be extreme, they both require minimal government participation, but the more the government gets in on them past this minimum threshold, the freedom itself is threatened.

None of us in the US would ever put up with government censorship like they have in China, because we know it hinders freedom of speech in general and establishes a bad precedent. If we have people using free speech to say terribly stupid things and deceiving millions with bad ideologies, it would suck, we could do something about it, raise awareness, expose and argue incessantly against those lies, etc. but we'd never blame freedom of speech itself for it, because, even though it's the freedom that allows such lies, we know that freedom of speech can take care of it. Censoring opinions would be the worst thing to do. We all believe that an environment where people have free speech is healthy, no matter what people say, because we are optimistic about freedom of speech in that, hopefully and eventually, society's opinions will evolve and lead most people closer to the truth, whatever that truth may be. That is why people debate all the time, they are seeking the truth, and it's in a free speech environment where people have the most access to information.

Truth isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to the truth", and have government control the media, TV, newspapers, and the internet, to provide truth to society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with providing the truth, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, we know that no one has authority over truth, it would be too presumptuous for anyone to say they do!

Now what happens if we apply the same thinking to another kind of freedom?

If we had a free market, not everyone would be well behaved, not at all, and whenever someone would cross the line and commit fraud, break contracts or disrespect private property, we'd need government to step in. Other than that, well, it would suck, but we'd just have to let the free market take the hit, let people learn the lesson and evolve. As harsh as that seems, people would use their economic freedom to handle the problem, they would *have* to watch their own backs if they know they can't cry to government to "censor" every bad economic behavior. It wouldn't make any sense for them to blame this bad behavior on the free market itself, even though that's what liberals do in a heartbeat, and they want laws banning everything they perceive as abuses they portray as unsolvable by the economy, not understanding that these laws end up screwing over a healthy environment, making people complacent and irresponsible. These restrictions have hard to predict and usually counterproductive consequences that distort the market and lead it to misbehave even more. I am optimistic about freedom of economy in that, whatever people do, hopefully and eventually, society's business practices will evolve and lead most people to prosperity. That's why people trade all the time, they are seeking prosperity, and it's in a free market environment where people, poor or rich, have the most access to resources.

Education, healthcare, affordable houses, things an economy provides, isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to free education, free healthcare and affordable houses", and have government control the economy to provide these things for society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with that, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, politicians and bureaucrats might consider themselves authorities over how to employ society's resources, but it's the same kind of presumptuouness of thinking one owns the truth: that they have better judgement than a whole lot of people coordinating their own resources in a complex economy.

People can always argue some contrived examples where socialism apparently worked, but to me it's like someone arguing in favor of censorship. Does it have any use in society? Well, it can be helpful to maintain a dictator in power. You can weed out bad ideologies or criticisms. Propaganda to help exterminate the jews. That sort of thing. I personally think it's something a supposedly evolved society like ours can do without.