Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

Ron Paul to Congress: Stop Worshipping Israel

156 posts in this topic

People can get married and have it defined and recognized by whoever they want; that's the point!

I know it's the point. But Ron Paul, despite stating this clearly, doesn't want this to happen. He wants the federal government out of it so that states can decide because he knows that states will conform with what he considers marriage to be.

It should be a free, voluntary decision made by the individual or a loving couple, not by their government.

But what happens if there are laws already in place that either prevents them from doing so, or prevents married gay couples from having the same equality as married heterosexual couples. Inequalities like adoption for example.

According to Ron Paul, it's not government to decide who marriage doesn't apply to.

It's the idiots that run the state governments that have the same opinions as him. How is it he can state that he supports this kind of thing and then vote in a way so that allows conservative states to prevent gay couples from getting married?

Relying on government to make our personal decisions for us with force is where our rights get infringed.

And where I live, the government has to grant equality. That's why the Marriage Equality Bill is before Parliament. Because gay couples don't have the same rights.

Government can't bestow rights on us.

Says you.

Palestinian rights are being violated on the most basic human level.

So why is it you think this only happens in the Occupied Territories?

Palestinians don't need a perpetual and indefinite hand to mouth existence.

So letting them continue to live in squalor and remain oppressed is a much better idea? Yam, you can't apply what your personal Jesus Ron Paul thinks to every government and every situation you come across. Not every situation is the same and not everything can be fixed with a one size fits all "solution".

That's what I meant about educating yourself. You've shown here with all this "anti-statist" rhetoric that you don't understand what happens elsewhere and that it isn't about statists and anti-statists or whatever it is crazy people who like Ron Paul claim to champion. The Palestinians don't need to be free of their government. They need it because it is the only thing that separates them from being what they were 30 years ago. Their government is what got them international recognition as a state.

I have never entertained the idea that here in America we treat different groups of people differently because of their characteristics, or something in history that happened to one group and not another.

So is that the reason why Indians live on reservations and not as respected and productive members of society? Why did the Civil Rights Movement happen, Yam? You tell me. You seem to be educated enough to make these assumptions on what the US is and what it isn't so clearly you must be able to tell me why the Civil Rights Movement occurred in the first place.

(I already know as I studied it in what Americans call "high school" but I want Yam's ideas of why it happened.)

Governments don't have rights and they can't give what they don't have.
Israel just needs to take their boot off Palestine's throat and let it live free.

You've contradicted yourself here. How do you expect the Palestinians to live free if the Israeli government doesn't have rights and therefore can't grant them to Palestinians?

And if the Palestinians already have rights, how are they oppressed? The reason why they are oppressed is because they

don't have any rights.

That's the rule of law and that's how one group of people aren't treated differently than another group.

If only that were true, historically or today for that matter.

We get our rights as individuals regardless of our characteristics or what group we identify with.

If only that was true. And it's this kind of viewpoint is the reason why many people in the US are being discriminated against and mistreated. They don't have rights and idiots like you won't accept that any government attempt to give them rights will make their lives any easier.

All individuals across the world deserve every right that I enjoy as an American at a minimum; that position only becomes controversial when I include groups that aren't politically popular in certain venues, like Palestinians.

It's not your inclusion of Palestinians that makes what your say controversial: it's your silly idea that every single problem in the world can be solved with one single solution. It's your unawareness of what's really happening in the world, your treatment of everything as black and white and your stubbornness to believe that everything you say is prophetic and gospel.

What you need to realise Yam, is that the world isn't black and white, but many, many shades of grey.

Edited by MichaelW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the way the US government works. The states decide. That's why they're called states. They have theoretically infinite powers to legislate whatever they want however they want. Just like other states. The federal government does not. Its powers are enumerated by the US Constitution. States followed that pattern and wrote their own Constitutions. Decentralization and locality (closeness to the people) of power is conducive to liberty. The wonderful thing about the US is we have 50 different places as an American to choose from.

Defending individual rights first is precisely how to end racism, bigotry, discrimination of all kinds. Because everyone is an individual. I see beauty in everyone. Not just this skin color, or that religion, or the other ethnic group. And I sure as hell don't tolerate government force control micromanaging different laws for different groups of people. People who think that our rights come from our skin color or our sexuality or age or gender or shoe size are discriminatory by definition. Special treatment of any group just for characteristics they're born with means that the excluded groups get treated unfairly. When mankind evolves in the future to put an end to this groupthink mentality, then we will all be free from oppression and needless conflicts like Israel-Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Defending individual rights first is precisely how to end racism, bigotry, discrimination of all kinds.

But the thing is Yam, you have failed to answer my question. The reason why they are oppressed is because they don't have rights Yam. Otherwise, they would be free if they had rights. But they don't, so they are oppressed.

It's not difficult to work out Yam. And can you answer this question? Who can give the Palestinians their rights?

I see beauty in everyone.

Then you are either eternally optimistic or naive.

When mankind evolves in the future to put an end to this groupthink mentality, then we will all be free from oppression and needless conflicts like Israel-Palestine.

So, you've essentially done exactly what I expected to you to do and not actually answer questions and then pretend what the teachings of your personal Jesus Ron Paul can be applied to the problems faced by the Palestinians. Why can't you read anything I post and let it actually sink in? There's a lot of bone to go through to get to that teeny brain of yours Yam so it might take a while. But trust me, you will see the light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the thing is Yam, you have failed to answer my question. The reason why they are oppressed is because they don't have rights Yam. Otherwise, they would be free if they had rights. But they don't, so they are oppressed.

It's not difficult to work out Yam. And can you answer this question? Who can give the Palestinians their rights?

Then you are either eternally optimistic or naive.

So, you've essentially done exactly what I expected to you to do and not actually answer questions and then pretend what the teachings of your personal Jesus Ron Paul can be applied to the problems faced by the Palestinians. Why can't you read anything I post and let it actually sink in? There's a lot of bone to go through to get to that teeny brain of yours Yam so it might take a while. But trust me, you will see the light.

They don't have rights so they're oppressed. Brilliant! You've answered your own question if that's the answer you were looking for. I disagree, and we can agree to that.

I believe as the Founders believed. Rights are inherently and self-evidently bestowed upon us. Everyone has rights in the United States of America. That is the beautiful standard that's good enough for everyone else in the world too. I don't take my rights for granted and I walk a mile in the shoes of others before I pass blanket judgments about politics and oppressive regimes

This value of inherent human rights is fundamental to all people of all races, religions and creeds, and universally seen in all countries and all governments. That is, if rights aren't being forcibly taken away from people, they are free to exercise those rights at will, if they choose. And that's how it should be. In the US. In New Zealand. In Israel. In Palestine. In Tibet. In Somalia. In Sri Lanka. In China. North Korea. Iran. Canada, the UK and Australia. Japan and Korea. Pakistan and India. Rwanda and Sudan. Egypt and Syria. That is good enough for the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't have rights so they're oppressed. Brilliant! You've answered your own question if that's the answer you were looking for.

I already knew the right answer to that question. I wanted your answer so I could see whether or not you were capable of putting two and two together.

I disagree, and we can agree to that.

Why? You can't disagree on something that's one or the other. If a people don't have rights, they are oppressed. If they do have rights, they are free.

That is the beautiful standard that's good enough for everyone else in the world too. I don't take my rights for granted and I walk a mile in the shoes of others before I pass blanket judgments about politics and oppressive regimes.

Interesting how you made two sentences that aren't mutually exclusive. No one can walk in, or even attempt to walk in, the shoes of someone who has no rights and you can't simply sit there, wave a magic wand and pretend that your ideas are the best and greatest and will automatically solve everyone's problems. That's the point I'm trying to make and you're failing to understand. Not everyone thinks like you do.

This value of inherent human rights is fundamental to all people of all races, religions and creeds, and universally seen in all countries and all governments. That is, if rights aren't being forcibly taken away from people, they are free to exercise those rights at will, if they choose. And that's how it should be. In the US. In New Zealand. In Israel. In Palestine. In Tibet. In Somalia. In Sri Lanka. In China. North Korea. Iran. Canada, the UK and Australia. Japan and Korea. Pakistan and India. Rwanda and Sudan. Egypt and Syria. That is good enough for the entire world.

Why can't you just look at my post and actually read what I have posted? *snip*

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, me, me, me. It's always a personal attack about me isn't it?

Not every Palestinian thinks the way I do and not every Israeli thinks the way you do. What you're assigning to me in my chair is also applicable to you. So this talk about me every time you think isn't rising up to the standard that other people have met in actually discussing the subject of this thread.

If rights aren't forcibly taken away from people they are free to exercise those rights at will, if they wish. That is a philosophy that I take seriously, handed down to me by my country's founding fathers. Whether you agree or not, is meaningless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me, me, me, me. It's always a personal attack about me isn't it?

*snip*

Not every Palestinian thinks the way I do and not every Israeli thinks the way you do.

No Palestinians think the way you do Yam. Most of them probably haven't heard of Ron Paul anyway. And what makes you think I represent what Israelis think? In saying that, you'd be surprised at the similarities.

What you're assigning to me in my chair is also applicable to you

This is going to simply degenerate into another "yo mama" thread so I can't really see how what I'm telling you what you are applies to me but whatever. It's not like anyone can understand you anyway, Yam.

If rights aren't forcibly taken away from people they are free to exercise those rights at will, if they wish. That is a philosophy that I take seriously, handed down to me by my country's founding fathers. Whether you agree or not, is meaningless.

It's not whether or not I agree with it, it's whether or not you think the Palestinians have rights and the role of the Israeli government in granting them those rights.

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who name drops Mitt Romney as the guy he thinks is more consistent than Ron Paul already dug his own credibility's grave for me. What else is there for me to accomplish when total annihilation was already achieved?

We are done here, michaelw. The moderators would appreciate civility, respect and friendliness from posters on this forum especially and I am mature enough to understand that being friendly and debating a topic aren't mutually exclusive.

If anyone else wants to participate on this thread I'll be happy to see your contributions. Otherwise I will consider my points complete, widely agreed with, and this thread closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

Edited by Saru
More personal insults

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He's the most consistent politician we've had in 100 years.

Now if the Congress could only stop worshipping Israel, the US would open up incredible new opportunities for trade and friendship in the world instead of perpetual war and perpetual threat of terrorist attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He's the most consistent politician we've had in 100 years.

Now if the Congress could only stop worshipping Israel, the US would open up incredible new opportunities for trade and friendship in the world instead of perpetual war and perpetual threat of terrorist attacks.

Do you really believe this, Yam? Do you think that walking away from the only country in the region not actively working against our interests as a matter of policy is the way to create better relations with the rest of the world? And if that is true then why should we even WANT relations with such countries? The Muslims have a saying: After Saturday comes Sunday.... And they aren't teaching their children the days of the week. It means first the Jews, then the Christians. Refusing to acknowledge this may make you feel warm and fuzzy but it will have repercussions if it's ever accepted policy in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now if the Congress could only stop worshipping Israel, the US would open up incredible new opportunities for trade and friendship in the world instead of perpetual war and perpetual threat of terrorist attacks.

With who? Congress claimed "worship" of Israel hasn't held back the US from working with over a dozen Asia-Pacific countries towards a multi-billion dollar free trade agreement. And anyway, the vast majority of the states in the Middle East currently have good relations with the US.

So, who do you have in mind for "incredible new opportunities for trade and friendship"? Syria? Iran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really believe this, Yam? Do you think that walking away from the only country in the region not actively working against our interests as a matter of policy is the way to create better relations with the rest of the world? And if that is true then why should we even WANT relations with such countries? The Muslims have a saying: After Saturday comes Sunday.... And they aren't teaching their children the days of the week. It means first the Jews, then the Christians. Refusing to acknowledge this may make you feel warm and fuzzy but it will have repercussions if it's ever accepted policy in this country.

Blah blah blah "the Arabs!", and blah blah blah "the Jooz!", and blah blah blah "the Moooozlims!".

"Our interests"? Our interests are peace, freedom and prosperity or like Max Igan said, perhaps I'm just old fashioned? Trade with all, alliance with none should be our motto. If someone doesn't want to trade with the US, then we can accommodate, and even the most state-sponsored or GDP-entitled individual in this country won't lose any food on their fork.

The world is dying to be friends with the US, sometimes literally.

Our bureaucrats want enemies. It keeps their racket going.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really believe this, Yam? Do you think that walking away from the only country in the region not actively working against our interests as a matter of policy is the way to create better relations with the rest of the world? And if that is true then why should we even WANT relations with such countries? The Muslims have a saying: After Saturday comes Sunday.... And they aren't teaching their children the days of the week. It means first the Jews, then the Christians. Refusing to acknowledge this may make you feel warm and fuzzy but it will have repercussions if it's ever accepted policy in this country.

The Muslims have a saying....? Which muslims? The arab muslims? The African muslims? The asian muslims? Western muslims?

They aren't teaching their children the days of the week?

Talk like that is insulting arrogant and makes absolutely no logical sense.... unless of course the individual who believes such nonsense is a religious extremist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if a few countries on a very short list were all of one mind, they are that way because of the actions of our bureaucrats, not our people. Nothing I've done in my life has affected an Iranian's either positively or negatively although trade would be nice and would affect us both to the positive.

Bureaucrats have one thing in common; they don't want friendship with people without their governments . It doesn't serve their interests. Manufacturing threats keeps the bureaucrats in business. Iranians are beautiful people as we already highlighted in the discussion 'Humanizing Iran'. It's a matter of getting through their bureaucratic red tape just to be able to travel there and see the place, but once there, we've already documented they have no animosity towards the American people. I don't give any credence to bureaucrats who aren't smart enough to get along and choose to squabble instead about whose will should be imposed on the other. I don't let myself become enslaved to these kinds of characters or their interests, and certainly not adopt their interests as my own and call them "US interests". It's up to the people of America to decide what our real interests are. I'm interested in a Persian rug for the dining room floor. Market demand should be as low or high as it wants to be. If Connecticut can't find anything better to do with itself than ban Iranian goods, that's fine for Connecticut but don't tread on me.

I have no interest in pretending along with my illustrious bureaucrats that any country is all of one mind and deserving to be treated like we can't tell the difference between a people and their regime. It's easy to fall into that habit, whether talking about Israel, Iran, North Korea or any other country but the universal truth in all cases is that the people are eminently differentiable from their governments. If history was rife with people dragging their unwilling governments kicking and screaming to war instead of the reverse, I might actually think like my bureaucrats want me to. The best way to conquer North Koreans is by trading with them as heavily as the global marketplace will allow. We're just ensuring their starvation continues, people living under a backwards regime held up by all that propaganda and nationalistic pride and our policies and rhetoric empower that regime by giving it a reason for existing. But when people get a taste of freedom and the beauty of being able to choose for themselves and live free, they're not going to let go of that. That's the way to encourage permanent political reform and it's a process that only people can accomplish, not governments.

People don't change just because we cross the magic line on the map drawn by government. People everywhere just want to be free, they want peace, prosperity, and love in their lives. Appealing to humanity is far more useful to my interests than supporting political tomfoolery vilifying and demonizing entire groups of people within bureaucratic lines just to keep their leaders' racket going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Muslims have a saying....? Which muslims? The arab muslims? The African muslims? The asian muslims? Western muslims?

They aren't teaching their children the days of the week?

Talk like that is insulting arrogant and makes absolutely no logical sense.... unless of course the individual who believes such nonsense is a religious extremist.

Would you prefer that I called them adherents of Islam? And the fact that you refuse to accept the truth of a statement that I make doesn't invalidate it. I have seen this expression in Islamic leader's speeches and heard it from podiums on news. Do you think I just fabricated it from thin air? I'm not going to get into a heated discussion here about the goals of Islam. Been there, done that, had to take a break because of it. But Acidhead if you cannot admit the basic conflict between Islam and the REST OF THE WORLD... then you are being willfully political about the issue and there is no point trying to discuss it with you further. Believe as you like and rest easy. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me over my opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you prefer that I called them adherents of Islam? And the fact that you refuse to accept the truth of a statement that I make doesn't invalidate it. I have seen this expression in Islamic leader's speeches and heard it from podiums on news. Do you think I just fabricated it from thin air? I'm not going to get into a heated discussion here about the goals of Islam. Been there, done that, had to take a break because of it. But Acidhead if you cannot admit the basic conflict between Islam and the REST OF THE WORLD... then you are being willfully political about the issue and there is no point trying to discuss it with you further. Believe as you like and rest easy. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me over my opinions.

And every time the rebels score on Assad, it's "Allahu Akbar". Is Assad the rest of the world? These lines aren't as black and white or as simple one-track minded as you think they are. I think we believe that there isn't this grand religious conspiracy or clash of civilizations that the war racketeers keep assuring us there is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's easy to fall into that habit, whether talking about Israel, Iran, North Korea or any other country but the universal truth in all cases is that the people are eminently differentiable from their governments.

You mentioned North Koreans and not associated with their government in the same sentence? That just shows how blissfully unaware you are of the outside world. North Koreans believe what their government tells them to. They are spoon fed propaganda from birth. They believe the US is evil, just like their government. And no one disagrees with their government like in places in Israel or Iran, because to do so would mean a lifetime sentence in a labour camp for you and your immediate family.

It's naive to think there is one universal truth which can be applied anywhere and everywhere.

The best way to conquer North Koreans is by trading with them as heavily as the global marketplace will allow.

So many questions and so little answers. I doubt in its current state, the North Koreans are anything but unfriendly towards America and Americans in general. It would be ignorant to assume that the North Koreans would want American goods when they've been told all their lives that all the Americans want is to rape their women and eat their babies or some other incredibly fictitious belief.

And why does North Korea need "conquering"? North Korea needs help, I'll grant you that, but not conquering. And anyway, with China and Russia right next door, what makes you think the North Koreans would even want to trade with the US?

But when people get a taste of freedom and the beauty of being able to choose for themselves and live free, they're not going to let go of that.

And you think trade alone is going to solve this? The US trades a lot with countries such as China and Saudi Arabia and I wouldn't dream of considering them "free" nations.

That's the way to encourage permanent political reform and it's a process that only people can accomplish, not governments.

This is so wrong it isn't even funny. Trade and by extension, capitalism itself isn't going to free people. Anyone that is currently "employed" in a sweatshop in Indonesia or a electronics factory in the Philippines isn't free at all.

Your ideas of how freedom can be achieved are incredibly simplistic Yam. Trade alone isn't the answer.

Appealing to humanity is far more useful to my interests than supporting political tomfoolery vilifying and demonizing entire groups of people within bureaucratic lines just to keep their leaders' racket going.

That's a bit hypocritical isn't it Yam, given the fact that what you support only replaces the political racket with its corporate equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corporations pay for their misdeeds every day in the marketplace unless the government shows up with another rescue plan.

Government gets away with mass murder and answers to nobody.

Trade is just another way of exercising freedom. What good is freedom if you don't use it? There are a million ways to do that, but each and every way is symptomatic of freedom. If you're not even allowed to trade freely, that's all the evidence I need to determine someone is anything but free. How vast a capacity to take freedom this much for granted can someone get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will take 50-100 years to repair the oppression in the Middle East due to the Israel-Palestine conflict. North Korea will join the world marketplace in far less time than that. The Koreas will unite, North Korea's economy will explode. Myanmar's is getting ready to explode now. Trade is inseparable with freedom. If you can't even choose what to buy with your own money, you don't live a life of freedom, you're a prisoner of the Man.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trade is just another way of exercising freedom.

Market forces and freedom aren't exactly mutual Yam. Anyone that lives in a country with corporate monopolies controlling vital services will tell you this.

What good is freedom if you don't use it?

Because "freedom" as an entity encompasses more than just trade. If we purely used trade as a definition of freedom, that would label every single country in the world bar North Korea as "free" when quite clearly, a lot of those countries aren't.

Freedom is as much about the right to choose as it is about the right to free speech, freedom of thought and association etc. Trade doesn't facilitate freedom. Otherwise places like China and Saudi Arabia would be considered free countries and they are not.

If you're not even allowed to trade freely, that's all the evidence I need to determine someone is anything but free. How vast a capacity to take freedom this much for granted can someone get?

Answer me this then. Would you consider the average person living in China free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will take 50-100 years to repair the oppression in the Middle East due to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Considering most of Palestine is light years ahead of where North Korea is, I doubt it. But, entertain my curiosity. Explain why it will take a century for apparently backwards Palestine to catch up with Israel, or even other countries around it.

North Korea will join the world marketplace in far less time than that.

Again, explain.

The Koreas will unite, North Korea's economy will explode.

And South Korea's economy will implode. Assuming of course, the two Koreas will unite or the North Korean economy catches up to become equal of that of South Korea. But I doubt it. North Korea is firmly entrenched in its current state and it shows no signs whatsoever of changing.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions I posed in my last post.

Trade is inseparable with freedom.

No it isn't. Otherwise Iran, China, Belarus, Singapore and Saudi Arabia would be considered free countries and they aren't.

If you can't even choose what to buy with your own money, you don't live a life of freedom, you're a prisoner of the Man.

Being anti-establishment doesn't mean you know what "freedom" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Market forces and freedom aren't exactly mutual Yam. Anyone that lives in a country with corporate monopolies controlling vital services will tell you this.

Because "freedom" as an entity encompasses more than just trade. If we purely used trade as a definition of freedom, that would label every single country in the world bar North Korea as "free" when quite clearly, a lot of those countries aren't.

Freedom is as much about the right to choose as it is about the right to free speech, freedom of thought and association etc. Trade doesn't facilitate freedom. Otherwise places like China and Saudi Arabia would be considered free countries and they are not.

Answer me this then. Would you consider the average person living in China free?

With freedom comes risk management and responsibility, not risk protection and guarantees like we get from the gubmint. The free market punishes people every day for screwing up. The government rescues the irresponsible and punishes the successful.

China, free by my standards? Of course not. I think my standards of freedom are good enough for everyone, and if anyone in the world is freer than me, then that standard replaces mine and I'll support initiatives for getting mine up to theirs. This is a spectrum as most things are. It's not even a one-dimensional line, but a two dimensional field. We can plot a point on it as to how free we really are and the ideal is to be as free as humanly possible.

Freedom encompasses a million times more than trade, as I said. Trade is just a bare minimum and just a symptom of freedom, as I said. And I can't even get that far with some people. Even trade makes some people hostile and want to argue.

A corporation that becomes a monopoly because it serves the market more efficiently than a dozen smaller competitors isn't antithetical to freedom. But it shouldn't be protected by government as "too big to fail" either. Small entrants to the marketplace who are able to competitively advantage themselves with their strengths and take market share from that monopoly on the products and services they specialize in would always be an inevitability provided we don't have ridiculous legislature from the gubmint protecting those large corporations from their would-be competitors.

Freedom also means free to succeed. You're free to compete, and you're free to dominate too if you do a good enough job. This Statist mindset that's scared of success and must punish it with force control came from places in history I wouldn't wish to live in for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering most of Palestine is light years ahead of where North Korea is, I doubt it. But, entertain my curiosity. Explain why it will take a century for apparently backwards Palestine to catch up with Israel, or even other countries around it.

Again, explain.

And South Korea's economy will implode. Assuming of course, the two Koreas will unite or the North Korean economy catches up to become equal of that of South Korea. But I doubt it. North Korea is firmly entrenched in its current state and it shows no signs whatsoever of changing.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions I posed in my last post.

No it isn't. Otherwise Iran, China, Belarus, Singapore and Saudi Arabia would be considered free countries and they aren't.

Being anti-establishment doesn't mean you know what "freedom" is.

It will take generations to cure the hatred and resentment that Israel's policies have exacted on these people. They will have to die, their children will have to grow up, memories will have to fade into the history books. Vanish from the pages of time, if you will. There's too much hate and too many reasons to hate to expect this to tidy up in less than a generation.

North Koreans are suffering under a dictatorship they've been culled to love. There isn't hate there even amidst the epidemic of starvation and oppression they live under. They love who's starving them to death, which isn't so unlike my own country the way these Keynesians think.

Someone will have to explain how the South Korean economy will implode. I don't have any reason to believe that will happen. If they unite they just doubled their capacity to grow. They will have new access to cheap labor, cheap manufacturing, cheap real estate, room to expand domestically, so long as world gobmints don't interfere with trade contracts and punish the Koreans for uniting. But it's inevitable and all this fear mongering about North Korea is laughable. If any American is actually scared of North Korea they really need to live a little and find some things actually worth being scared of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The free market punishes people every day for screwing up.

The free market isn't a be-all-end-all one-size-fits-all solution to every single problem on the entire planet Yam. I've told you this many, many times and yet you fail to take notice. A free market doesn't guarantee total freedom. That is my point and you have failed to see it.

China, free by my standards? Of course not.

Then why try to claim free trade and market forces are the great liberators? They are not. I used China as an example because of that very fact that it is an important economy globally and is an important trading partner to many countries in the world. Hell, NZ has a free trade agreement with the country which has so far produced mixed results but has not changed the fact that China is still an autocratic state.

I think my standards of freedom are good enough for everyone.

That's a bit high and mighty isn't it, considering your standards of freedom are the freedom to, not the freedom from. And even then, this is only limited to trade and "the free market" genie.

Freedom encompasses a million times more than trade, as I said.

That looks a lot like what I've been trying to get through to you Yam so at least some of my pestering is sinking in.

Trade is just a bare minimum and just a symptom of freedom, as I said.

And yet this seems to be the only thing we're discussing here. And even then, it still requires the government's involvement.

And I can't even get that far with some people.

Don't look at me. I've been the one trying to get across to you for the past two pages that trade isn't the be all and end all of what freedom is.

A corporation that becomes a monopoly because it serves the market more efficiently than a dozen smaller competitors isn't antithetical to freedom.

Yes it is. If it becomes a monopoly, then there is no room for competition and therefore it makes that specific market unfree, if you get what I mean (which you won't). A free market is one where businesses compete directly and fairly with other businesses selling specific products and services and competitive prices and rates. Competition is what makes a free economy breathe. And what makes us, the consumer, more valuable.

Freedom also means free to succeed.

But does it also mean free to express, associate etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.