PossiblyParanoid Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 I don't disagree with this, only with your earlier statement that “If the government is ‘by the people and for the people’, and you're one of the people, then calling this government the enemy makes you your own enemy, not to mention the rest of the people.” This notion makes the victims of an oppressive government morally responsible for the aggressions of the government against them. Sorry, but the government does not rule on my behalf any more than a rapist operates on my behalf. So are you saying then that the government acts absolutely independently from you ? What happens if you get elected to an office, or take a government job ? I don't hold all government officials and employees morally responsible for government oppression. Nor do I hold myself responsible for this. I am not my own enemy. The morally responsible parties are those who hold, support, and contribute to implementing the wrong ideas. (I think I should have said "of the people and by the people".) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 So are you saying then that the government acts absolutely independently from you ? Precisely. The government did not solicit my consent when it sent me a bill (backed by threat of jail sentence) for nearly half of my income in 2003. What happens if you get elected to an office, or take a government job ? I eschew government jobs or any other positions that make me the recipient of unearned, undeserved and coerced wealth. I don't hold all government officials and employees morally responsible for government oppression. I suppose I would be able to say the same if I knew of anyone on the “gummint” payroll that had withdrawn his/her support for oppression by refusing to accept wages generated by means of coercion (i.e. taxes). Nor do I hold myself responsible for this. I am not my own enemy. The morally responsible parties are those who hold, support, and contribute to implementing the wrong ideas. On this statement, we agree 100%. Therefore when the government does coerce me, I am clearly not responsible for the coercion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 "So tell us exactly what have trade restrictions done toward instilling “proper republican principles in the populace”?" Thats not the point. The point is not to arm your enemy willingly. Not to trade with known murderers and thieves. You don't try to convert your sworn enemy after they steal all of your stuff. You defend yourself, you seem to be missing that entirely. Actually, to the extent there is a private sector, any revenues going to it are separate from those going to the government. Now, how does your point on instilling “proper republican principles in the populace” apply here? It is perfectly all right if you don't want to trade with "murderers and thieves"; I , for one, would suggest a complete overhaul of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, where the chief recipients of U.S. aid are notorious warlords and brigands. But, most importantly, what exactly have trade restrictions against Cuba done to bring down the regime there? What has the embargo done to reverse their stealing of “all of your stuff”? Hong Kong was basically English until very recently but you know that. You just seem to continually ignore facts and context to make your point. Great. Taiwan and Singapore are not “basically English” and still have managed to produce relatively free market economies. Just what facts are being ignored? If you'll read one of my earlier posts I'm for the individual deciding who to trade with. Hopefully individuals will make the choice to not trade with people who want to kill them. In your case thats not happening though, obviously. Outstanding! Let the individual decide. I’ve decided not to voluntarily trade with the government which committed the murders on Ruby Ridge that killed Randy Weaver's dog, son and wife. Glad you support my right not to trade with the murderers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 I will not be conversing with you any longer Charlotte. I think you are a lost cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Just because are not trading with China is not going to bring about a revolution over there does not mean that it is morally right to trade with China. China is run by criminals. Saying that not trading with China is not going to destroy communism in China so it doesn't matter if we trade with it is similar to saying that if not dealing with a criminal or terrorist gang does not affect it, then it is not wrong to deal with the criminal or terrorist gang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Just because are not trading with China is not going to bring about a revolution over there does not mean that it is morally right to trade with China. China is run by criminals. Saying that not trading with China is not going to destroy communism in China so it doesn't matter if we trade with it is similar to saying that if not dealing with a criminal or terrorist gang does not affect it, then it is not wrong to deal with the criminal or terrorist gang. I agree that one should not trade with government thugs. That is why I have always refused to sell any products to state, local or federal governments. The National Park Service once offered me a handsome price for an antique set of surveyor's tools and I turned them down flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Many of the state-owned companies are buying up large Canadian companies related to natural resources. Some are eyeing the oil sands in Alberta now too. Does the government have any right to step in when a butcher-government is buying here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Theoretically we all agree a market based economy is the only system that can prosper in the long run. However... Whereas America's economy is based on somewhat abstract figures in wall-street, which are as fragile as the collective mind. China's is based on large scale forced labor; it is growing; it will continue to grow. It now appears to have learnt how to utliize the globalized economy whilst maintaining control over its people. In the short term then, its system is allowing it to outgrow the US. How could this happen? How can the two following facts be true; that as Objectivists we maintain that a Capitalist nation is more productive than a Collectivist - yet we observe that China is going to outgrow the US. --- I am a student; I live with three Chinese people (m28, m34 & f34) - they have saved money in China, having been born into what are seen as relatively prosperous families, and they have got out. They return periodically - because they are trying to make a business work, but they want to stay outside. They are incredibly motivated and each has worked the lowest paid jobs available here in the UK. They describe China as being a nation (1 billion people) where less than 10% are interested in politics/the state - and most of those join China's huge army - the rest simply do not talk about it - you cannot freely express opinions and ideas there. This is now accepted as taboo; however - most people still have opinions and ambitions and the only way they can express freedom is by achieving these - putting them in action - they are hence an incredibly motivated people. Compare this to western civilization, notice my quote below - do we not have more freedom and opportunity than anyone has ever had before - do we use it? My nation is apathetic - its not using its freedom - its sitting at home watching the tele. When it thinks it has an idea it gets together into as mass to have a big shout - usually thru the media, but does nothing substantial. The Chinese people live under force; though this gives them the contrast and knowledge of what they must to do live for themselves. The presence of a force gives them a reality from which they must view life; here in the west there is no force, thankfully, but there is no common ground either, no common value system - people born into our socities have no idea where they stand. Here, thanks to our friendly welfare state - people can be born, live and die without ever experiencing the reality of the human condition. How could things improve? I think it might have something to do with communcation. When I walk past a woman who is covered is black cloth - her eyes peering through a letterbox, the product of islam; I am compelled to ask 'why?' why is she doing that? The problem is I dont ask why, I just think it - my society doesnt permit me to - it is not PC (politically correct). I dont want to tell her how to live, I just want to know the REASON why she lives like that; I want her to try and explain it - I know we here in the objectivist forum would assume she is completely irrational - but how is one suppost to spread rational thinking if one does not demand rational explanations??? This PC culture - where explanations only come through the media and not each other is allowing us to all live in completely different worlds...which cannot all depict the way things actually are - someones delusional - is it the Islamic woman? the bulider who regularly lights up as he walks past the 'smoking kills' sign, the children who believe its acceptable to scream abuse at each other on the buses, the jehovahs witnesses who knock on my door?!? If we just asked each 'why?', wouldn't we all start using whats going on around us as bearings? This has been a rant; I hope some observations/thoughts are of interest - I would interested in any feedback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Is this board full of pragmatist ot is it just me? Well, if china launches a nuclear missles at the US or wages a "dirty war"(like it has said it would) against the US it would also affect "middle to low income households". That reminds me of a mock NY Times headline I saw once: "World Ends: Poor and Minorities Hardest Hit" To answer your question, no the board is not full of pragmatists. Charlotte specifically seems to have a hard time arguing based on principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 China's GDP is growing faster than the USA's by a little but they have a much larger population base. Over 1 Billion to 280 million roughly. So they could have a much higher GDP by being much poorer per capita and have a lower standard of living. The thing people forget is that once the Chinese population starts becoming more productive and accumulating wealth ( I should say if the Chinese gov't lets this happen ) they will then have money with which to buy things from other countries. The USA leadership knows this and they want to be a trading partner from the start with the thinking that once they have the money they will favor American products. I have my doubts of this approach as it could be a way for the Communist regime to get a bunch of free investment and money from the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socionomer Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 One thing China is buying from the US in significant amounts today is U.S. Treasury Bonds and Notes. Future administrations are likely to continue to "play nice" with any country that can have such a significant impact (good or bad) in our treasury markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 What did the US get for all the grain it "sold" to the USSR? Good point about the Laogai. The above, however, seems like too much of a conspiracy theory to me. I do think that Russia is not really a democracy, though, and that a nationalization program could easily happen. The government takeover of Yukos at a bargain price and its founder in jail is certainly very suggestive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.