Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Arab Port-ownership Controversy

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Is it your opinion, then, that the UAE protects individual rights? If so, I don't see how you can reach such a conclusion in light of the links I provided. In the UAE, one may be jailed for speaking out publicly for any religion other than Islam, for kissing one's girlfriend in public, for eating during the fasting hours of Ramadan, for running a red light, for being gay or for having sex outside of marriage, just to name a few things. Such a government deserves to be officially ostracized, not given the moral sanction of being considered an acceptable ally.
(Bold Italics mine)

How is being prosecuted for running a red light a breach of individual rights? It certainly doesn't come into the prohibitions set under the Sharia, so it seems a little out of place with the rest of your examples.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why a port is more of a security issue than say your local hawk shop. It is a business and should be ran as one which means all American laws must be followed.

If DP World wants to gain the trust of Americans I suggest they make public their security policies and assign an independent security firm to attest to their compliance. They have already proven to be able port managers. But these are all just extras. I read a great article that touches the issue of what a port should be responsible for. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022406I

The author makes the point that out ports should not be the first line of defense, but the last. Let the Coast Guard do their job and let DP World do theirs. We should not be scared into second guessing our free-trade ideal. If anything, we are all going to enjoy cheaper shipping by allowing an able port managing company do what they do best And we as america will do what we do better than most--protect individual rights and ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Bold Italics mine)

How is being prosecuted for running a red light a breach of individual rights? It certainly doesn't come into the prohibitions set under the Sharia, so it seems a little out of place with the rest of your examples.

I think an automatic 30 day jail sentence for running a red light violates the principle that the punishment should fit the crime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine that they would warn, for instance, that drinking or possessing alcohol in one of the emirates is punishable by flogging if, in fact, people there drink and the authorities ignore it.

You should do some research before making claims about the UAE: "Most of the emirates permit the buying and drinking of alcohol"

(http://guide.theemiratesnetwork.com/living/differences.php)

It is true that an Islamic country has some laws are harsh or unjust. But there are certain freedoms that we do not have - there is no income or corporate tax, for example, and no welfare state. I don't drink, run red lights, act homosexual, or kiss in public, but even if I wanted to, I would much rather do that illegaly than have the government steal 40-50% of my income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should do some research before making claims about the UAE: "Most of the emirates permit the buying and drinking of alcohol"

(http://guide.theemiratesnetwork.com/living/differences.php)

I did research it. I said drinking in one of the emirates -- not all of the emirates, but one of them -- is punishable by flogging. In fact, I got that information from the very web site you mention, and I provided a link to it in post 17.

And this is from my first post in this thread:

It (the UAE) is slightly freer than some other theocracies. For instance, alcohol is not forbidden everywhere and cable television is permitted.
As far as I can tell, I have not made any inaccurate claims about the UAE.

It is true that an Islamic country has some laws are harsh or unjust. But there are certain freedoms that we do not have - there is no income or corporate tax, for example, and no welfare state. I don't drink, run red lights, act homosexual, or kiss in public, but even if I wanted to, I would much rather do that illegaly than have the government steal 40-50% of my income.
Well, we each have our preferences, but personally I would not trade freedoms such as freedom of speech for lower taxes. For one more example of the UAE's oppressive nature, see this article: LINK

In this case, the government came into a private school and confiscated all copies of a particular textbook because it dared to say something positive about Israel and something negative about Islam. And just listen to this insult to Islam:

"Israel is one of a few democracies in North Africa and the Middle East today. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco are all kingdoms; the country of Syria has sponsored terrorism by giving aid to radicals in the Palestine Liberation Organisation, known as the PLO," read excerpts from page 610 of the book, copies of which Khaleej Times possess.
Note that the government officials responsible for screening, i.e. censoring, educational texts are promising to do a more thorough job in the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t want to get into a debate over which country is freer, though it is worth mentioning that public textbooks in America are probably more heavily censored than anywhere in the world. Let me just make my point and leave it at that:

The U.A.E has some significant freedoms compared to the U.S., especially in some areas that I find personally important. Whether economic or political freedom is more important to you personally is not the issue.

The issue is that the UAE has an economy that is mostly free, and further trade with the West will encourage the growth of productive values instead of the destructive values prevalent in the Arab world. Isolating a progressive country like the U.A.E will be a racist statement that will discourage the rest of the Islamic world from economic liberalization, and instead encourage their anti-Western sentiment – and in this case, with good reason.

This is not about the safety of our ports, as Binswanger explained, or the totally irrelevant fact that the UAE is not a democracy. The issue is whether we will recognize the virtue of a society that has chosen civilization, or engage in collectivist thinking and refuse to distinguish a potential ally our from enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t want to get into a debate over which country is freer, though it is worth mentioning that public textbooks in America are probably more heavily censored than anywhere in the world.
You honestly think American public school textbooks are more heavily censored than those in Cuba or North Korea or Iran? In any event, there is no censorship of private textbooks in America; in the UAE, all textbooks are controlled and subject to seizure by the government.

In my view, freedom of speech, freedom of advocacy and the right to peacefully change the lawmakers and the laws are the most important freedoms. With them, there is always the possibility that one can move toward greater freedom. Without them, one is totally at the mercy of the rulers.

The issue is that the UAE has an economy that is mostly free, and further trade with the West will encourage the growth of productive values instead of the destructive values prevalent in the Arab world.
I've heard this argument for years and have grown skeptical of it. Where do you see any evidence that trade with Islamic nations leads them toward "productive values" or moderates their views at all? We traded with the UAE for many years prior to 9/11, but they still supported terrorists. We've been trading with Saudi Arabia for more than half a century; what productive values have they moved toward and what destructive values have they abandoned, purely as a result of trade? None that I can see.

Isolating a progressive country like the U.A.E will be a racist statement that will discourage the rest of the Islamic world from economic liberalization, and instead encourage their anti-Western sentiment – and in this case, with good reason.
Why is it racist to refuse to grant a moral sanction to nations that deny individual rights, govern from religious authority, and refuse to recognize the right of the only free nation in their area to exist? And as far as encouraging their "anti-Western sentiment", at this point it should be obvious that the only thing that will not encourage their "anti-Western sentiment" is for us to convert to Islam or die.

This is not about the safety of our ports, as Binswanger explained, or the totally irrelevant fact that the UAE is not a democracy. The issue is whether we will recognize the virtue of a society that has chosen civilization, or engage in collectivist thinking and refuse to distinguish a potential ally our from enemies.
Well, that sounds like a false alternative to me. It sounds like you are saying that I must either agree with you or be guilty of collectivist thinking.

As far as I am concerned, the existence of low taxes and skyscrapers (paid for by oil revenues to which, in all probability, they have no right) means very liitle since they are simultaneously indoctrinating their children with Islam and its perverted view of man while tolerating no criticism or deviation from its myriad rules. They only tolerate economic freedom because Mohummad didn't foresee a modern economy and therefore didn't lay out any rules to govern it.

The central premise of Islam is that man exists solely to follow the vast array of rules laid down by Allah and communicated to Mohummad 1400 years ago, rules that cannot be challenged in any manner whatsoever; this is an inherently anti-mind, anti-thinking, anti-rational, anti-life premise. As such, Islam is utterly incompatible with freedom and with the concept of man as an end in himself with the right to exist for his own sake here on this earth. We have nothing to gain from those who believe and promote Islam, and everything to lose. To borrow a famous phrase: We do not need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard this argument for years and have grown skeptical of it. Where do you see any evidence that trade with Islamic nations leads them toward "productive values" or moderates their views at all? We traded with the UAE for many years prior to 9/11, but they still supported terrorists. We've been trading with Saudi Arabia for more than half a century; what productive values have they moved toward and what destructive values have they abandoned, purely as a result of trade? None that I can see.

Not to mention that trade with China has only strengthened the censorship laws there. And trade with Germany in the 30s provided money to Hitler to fund WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that trade with China has only strengthened the censorship laws there. And trade with Germany in the 30s provided money to Hitler to fund WWII.

I see a debate for isolationism in the near future.

Our first priority as a country isn't to support productive values outside of our country, our job is to protect our selfish interests abroad. Interests such as able port management and oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our first priority as a country isn't to support productive values outside of our country, our job is to protect our selfish interests abroad. Interests such as able port management and oil.

True enough. And our interests aren't served if we increase the strength of our enemies. China is a massive threat militarily. The Arabs have already attacked us. I see no good in pumping money into their pockets.

As for protecting oil interests, our govt. has spectacularly failed to do that. It did nothing when our oil fields were nationalized. The only proper solution is to invade the oil countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We probably give more strength to our enemies by buying oil than by allowing the ports deal, unfortunately. We gave them that strength a long time ago when our oil wells were nationalized, just as tommy said. That was a costly mistake and becomes more costly every day. Ideally, by defending free trade our government will start to identity, through elimination, what the real threat is to our country.

If there is a threat to our ports we will be encouraged on the homefront to eliminate that threat. The mass panic will trigger more defense spending on the homefront (coasts) which if anything is a good use of our stolen tax money.

If we accept the port deal we will avoid the poisonous ideas of protectionism and encourage efficient defense, as well as broadcasting to the world that we are not afraid of them and will not lower ourselves by becoming a fear driven mullah. Our enemies will find that it is to their benefit to deal with America as traders not parasites. Remember, the UAE has a lot to lose in terms of wealth and security if their reputation is compromised. They are one of the middle-eastern nations that "get it" when it comes to money, happiness, security and productiveness. Our country also "gets it" and still remains an overtly religious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You honestly think American public school textbooks are more heavily censored than those in Cuba or North Korea or Iran? In any event, there is no censorship of private textbooks in America; in the UAE, all textbooks are controlled and subject to seizure by the government.
I didn’t mean to say that speech is freer in Cuba, but that the bureaucratic process for censoring public textbooks in America is more interventionist here that anywhere else. That is, the process of choosing the content of public textbooks (and derivatively, those for private schools) is entirely a political one. Now it so happens that our textbooks are more truthful than, say, Islamic ones, but this is not my point.

By the way, my own alumni, Texas A&M University, opened a UAE branch several years ago, and a number of my professors took a semester or more off to go teach there. Censorship can’t be so bad if the UAE is dependent on foreign professors for their youth's educations.

As far as I am concerned, the existence of low taxes and skyscrapers (paid for by oil revenues to which, in all probability, they have no right) means very liitle since they are simultaneously indoctrinating their children with Islam and its perverted view of man while tolerating no criticism or deviation from its myriad rules.
Actually, only 30% of the GDP comes from oil becuase the UAE has been working hard on economic liberalization recently- which is my point.

Why is it racist to refuse to grant a moral sanction to nations that deny individual rights, govern from religious authority, and refuse to recognize the right of the only free nation in their area to exist?

No, the racist thing is to refuse to distinguish between the evil aspects and groups of Islamic societies and the good ones, simply because they are all Muslim (or Arab).

As long as you refuse to recognize that the Middle East is not a homogenous pot of freedom-hating fundamentalists, this debate is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t mean to say that speech is freer in Cuba, but that the bureaucratic process for censoring public textbooks in America is more interventionist here that anywhere else.

And your proof? Intervensionism is definitely greater in the majority of the other countries of the world, even countries like India, etc. than the United States.

By the way, my own alumni, Texas A&M University, opened a UAE branch several years ago, and a number of my professors took a semester or more off to go teach there. Censorship can’t be so bad if the UAE is dependent on foreign professors for their youth's educations.

If the professors were shilling for the UAE, I don't see why UAE would have a problem with them.

No, the racist thing is to refuse to distinguish between the evil aspects and groups of Islamic societies and the good ones, simply because they are all Muslim (or Arab).

Do you want a measure of the Islamic fundamentalism in UAE? Aside from the obvious massive human rights abuses and the sharia, just take a look at this poll. (Link)

As for the UAE being economically better than the US, from the links you provided, if the UAE economy is really better, why is it placed 65th in ranking in the index of economic freedom (despite such low taxes), while USA is placed 9th? Zero taxes doesn't always mean a free for all economy.

Regardless of the port deal, my point is that UAE is not a friend of the US, just like China isn't and Saudi Arabia isn't. Pumping their economies might be fatal. UAE or China or Saudi Arabia, no matter how much they liberalized their economies, would never survive with the poor human rights they have in place.

Given the kind of mentality of their people (incase of Mideast and perhaps China) and leaders (incase of Mideast and China), I don't think it's wise to support them in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/por...rity/index.html

DP World withdraws its plan to take over the ports, and deferrs to an American owned company.

-Q

They "withdrew" in the same sense Harriet Miers "withdrew" from Supreme Court consideration: Bush told them the deal's off to avoid having to back down in the face of intense criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, my own alumni, Texas A&M University, opened a UAE branch several years ago, and a number of my professors took a semester or more off to go teach there. Censorship can’t be so bad if the UAE is dependent on foreign professors for their youth's educations.

You're thinking of Qatar. I know that because I was in the band and we went to Kyle Field to form a "TAMU-Q" formation and had a live video feed going to the official opening of the new branch. So, unless there was another one in the UAE, I think you've got your countries confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/por...rity/index.html

DP World withdraws its plan to take over the ports, and deferrs to an American owned company.

-Q

Whoopie!!! Score another one for the protectionists! (w00t);)

I would like to state for the record that I think everyone handled this badly. Bush had the opportunity to expose the congress for the morons that they are by appealing to reason while everyone else was rallying for the emotionalist republic, but instead he chose to throw down the gauntlet and threaten a veto before a vote was even called for. The congressional democrats have exposed the 100% racist soul that they have been hiding behind their "multi-culturalist" vaneer. And the congressional republicans and governers have gone the way of the pragmatist (per usual) and voted on the polls of an ignorant and ill-informed public. If this keeps up, I may be moving to the Emirates. God Bless America. :fool:

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...