> Imagine me going to
>BET.com and trying to spur
>up political debate? How
>long you think that would
>last?

LOL

>Because national soverignty and accept our
>system has two different meanings.
> National soverignty refers to
>government jurisdiction. When I
>say accept our system, that
>means you need to accept
>that WE are going to
>keep our system alive.
>That doesn't mean we are
>going to force you to
>implement our system into your
>government or even your way
>of life.

Actually, it does. Ever heard of "structural adjustment"? The WTO?

>Therefore it
>wasn't a contradiction.

Yes it was. Simply because the capitalist system is inherently expansionist (the need to capture new markets). Which means forcing to varying degrees other countries (markets) to accept your ways.

>can you name a
>country that has had more
>economic, technological, and a bigger
>influence in world issues than
>the United States, without the
>hopes of world domination?

Like k. orr, this statement shows utter ignorance of the world. I believe it was the Monroe Act (can't remember date, 1850's maybe) in which the US virtually laid claim to South America. The US today runs an empire (along with it's European and Japanese dukes) far more efficient than anything ever seen previously. No hopes of world domination? Just because there hasn't been territorial expansion for a long time, doesn't mean there isn't expansion.

>When you ask about the environment
>and labor, do you actually
>mean the US or do
>you mean international companies working
>in soverign countries?

I mean both. Public and private are not two discrete spheres. They work together at all levels, from international law-making (ever heard of the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investment?) on down.

>can you
>actually direct that into their
>own individual desires that override
>political interests because people like
>you tell them that they
>have no power or influence
>in government, and thus should
>not be concerned with it?

You're the one who says that masses should be ignored, now I'm the one who's telling people they have no power? I want to bring power to the people, you have no coherent plan other than "let me live my life". Try a bit of honesty.

> Is this "no voice"
>idea different in other countries?

This is a "most succesful" debate. No-one said it's not happening anywhere else.

> If there was another
>government, would it differ?

As in a different president or a different type of government?
>>The most succesful
>>in creating maintaining the world
>>in an unprecedented state of
>>insecurity?
>
>Really now? I guess we
>started both World Wars, and
>was the aggressor of the
>Cuban Missle Crisis, which almost
>started WW III.

I speak of the Cold War. Remember that? 40-odd years of nuclear arms race? Of proxy wars (Korea, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan...)? Of financed dictatorships (Mobutu in Zaire to name one)? And some people call that period "The Long Peace"...

If
>you are talking about the
>development of nuclear weaponry, believe
>me when I tell you
>that if we hadn't, someone
>else had, and you probably
>wouldn't like the person it
>was.

Einstein deeply regretted that his discoveries had led to the creation of nuclear weapons. I think he even said he would rather not of made them.
Plus, you act like the US is the good guy. Why? Because US hegemony has made you (and I) rich and comfortable. Unfortunately, for 80% of the world's population that is not the case. And as I said before, our wealth is directly linked to their poverty.

>If the US
>hadn't developed nuclear weapons first,
>then this world could/would have
>been in control of the
>3rd Reich.

Nuclear weapons had no role in deciding the outcome of WWII. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes committed to test the efficiency of new weapons against a country that was already on its knees.

>But I
>guess you will blame us
>for allowing them into power
>too, instead of the fickleness
>and easy going appeasement of
>western European countries, most notably
>Britain and France.

So the US was taking decisive steps to stop Hitler's rise? And was clearly an anti-Fascist and non-anti-semite country? Please.

>>Making money for
>>Bill Gates?
>
>Ha. Actually Gates doesn't even
>have the grip on the
>economy as everyone thinks.
>In actual dollars he might
>be the richest man ever,
>but in comparison to the
>economy, he doesn't have the
>riches that the Rockefellers, Carnegie,
>and others had. Not
>to mention most of his
>money is invested in shares
>of Microsoft, which is being
>broke up. So therefore
>we are not making money
>for him. Considering he
>broke out into a new
>industry, he's made new money.
> We aren't making money
>for him.

That was a joke.


>>Bringing me an
>>amazing amount of pointless material
>>goods?
>
>If the goods are pointless then
>why are you buying them?
> That doesn't make sense.

I don't mean just me (although I have bought my fair share of pointless goods). Actually, that's a good question. Look around you. Tell me that the vast majority of things that are on sale aren't pointless. I don't know why people by them. It might have something to do with the constant creation of desire fueled by advertisement, government incitement and ever-increasing production.

> Providing millions of people
>>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?
>
>Like what? Tell me what
>jobs are there now that
>didn't exist back in history
>that didn't demean people?
>Sweatshops? I guess working
>in cotton, tobacco, rice, and
>other fields with manual tools
>are not considered demeaning and
>at times inhumane. I
>guess working in the tech
>world making a high 5-6
>figure salary is considered uninteresting.
> I guess the fact
>that more people than ever
>have control over their futures
>and a chance to fight
>a vitural caste system than
>ever in order to make
>something of themselves is considered
>uninspiring.

Working in a field and selling or eating what you grow is great. Working in a field for a pittance in miserable conditions is demeaning. Have you ever worked on a chain-line? Doing the same movements over and over for years? That is demeaning.
I worked in a super-market for a month, stacking shelves. That is demeaning, and infuriating (to me, at least). And add to that the fact that the super-market system is exploitative of both producers and consumers, while destroying competition...
Read my reply to k. orr to see what I think about jobs.

>In other words, there is alot
>that needs to be done
>in this world, but that
>doesn't mean you have to
>dismiss the advances and the
>contributions that we have made.

I'm using one right now.

>Just because there is a society
>doesn't mean you're codependent on
>each other.

Actually, it does. Division of labour means the tailors, carpenters, farmers, secretaries and mayors are co-dependent.

>Nor do
>you have the right to
>tell someone how to live.

But to a certain extent you have to. In fact, you do it yourself. Your ideal is: if you're not knowledgeable, you have no say about any laws, etc. Denying rights is one means of determining how people live.

>That's not the point. Just
>because we have things in
>common doesn't mean we don't
>disagree on certain things either.
> The point was that
>we all have different experiences.
> And, even if two
>people have simular experiences that
>doesn't mean they are going
>to view experiences the same.
> You might see a
>glass as half-empty, but I
>might see it as half-full.

Actually, the real point is that you see only differences between people. I try to see both differences and commonalities, because your approach is what leads to racism, war, castes, etc.

>>Who just said that everyone is
>>an individual? Why are you
>>clumping everyone in one big
>>group?
>
>Read the sentence again. I
>asked why would you try
>to. I never said
>we should.

Read thr sentence again. I said you clumped everyone under a narrowly defined group labeled "individuals". My group is much more broadly defined and makes more sense.

>Since when does saying I don't
>care to put trust in
>everyone I see to make
>decisions on my welfare constitute
>as hate? Do/Can you
>trust everyone in your country
>to make correct decisions on
>your welfare?

You don't need to trust everyone to make decisions on your welfare. Only the person/group/body that has the power to make those decisions. Since that body should be answerable to the people, namely you, you should be able to contest/support/replace that p/g/b.
However, you do need to trust (to a certain degree) the people around you. You have no trust in anyone (or at least you don't think you do). If everyone were like you, society would disintegrate into small warring factions. It happens in many places around the globe (including the US, cf. gated communities).

>Not true,

What, men are not the product of their times? They are that, plus whatever personal thought and experiences they bring to it. Some bring more than others, that's why there is progress.

>because if that was
>the case then America's Founding
>Fathers would have made a
>government based on the existing
>governments of that time, which
>were monarchies. They developed
>new ideas and new principles
>by examining the mistakes of
>those governments and learning from
>them.

Which is what I stated above. They are the product of their times and brought their own thoughts and experiences, which had taught them that monarchy was not the way to go. But notice how many things showed how much in their times they were: women were by no means equal to men, and despite grand statements, all men were not treated equal.

>If they were
>products of their times, then
>territorial independence itself would not
>have come to pass because
>it hadn't happened before.

You're talking non-sense again. Are you saying that no territory had ever become independent from another in the history of man before the US? Do you know how many empires had risen and fallen before 1778/9 (I can't remember the exact date, please refresh my memory)?

>>>Laws are not flexible; they shouldn't be scrapped
>>>or overridden because of public opinion. Law >should be constant
>
>>More evidence of your people-hating. And
>>massive silliness to boot. If
>>the law were constant, Krewcial
>>(sorry Krew) would own the
>>both of us, and his
>>girl-friend wouldn't be able to
>>vote.
>
>But that wasn't because of public
>opinion that's because it was
>necessary for the future of
>the nation.

It was because of part of the public's opinion. Namely the oppressed part (women, Blacks...). See, democracy doesn't only mean that the majority's opinion is taken into account (especially as, as I said before, whether one is in the majority or minority varies from issue to issue. e.g. I am in an ethnic minority in France, yet I am in an economic majority (middle-class))

>In fact
>I believe that if it
>would have come down to
>a national democratic referendum on
>slavery in the United States
>in the early 1800's the
>abolitionists would lose.

Probably, luckily democracies don't *only* listen to the majority. Large enough groups focussed on a single issue can make a difference (Blacks in America, Greens in Europe, Reds in Imperial Russia, Blues in Atlantis...)

>Not to mention the principles of
>the law, aka the Constitution
>didn't change. Amendment 5
>of the Bill of Rights
>says that no person shall
>be deprived of life, liberty,
>or property without due
>process of law, therefore the
>slaveholders were in the wrong
>ALREADY, and were already contradicting
>the Constitution.

Did the makers of the Constitution think of Black people as equal men? I doubt it. Do people today consider starving Africans and exploited Asian female workers their equals? I doubt it.

>No. A dictatorship changes with
>the will of the dictator.
> There is no constant
>law; it changes when he
>wants to change it.

And your law never changes, no matter who wants it. Both are equally stupid.

>Well, it IS their government's responsibility
>to look out for the
>interests of their own people.
> It's not that I
>don't care, I think you
>should simply hold the right
>people responsible for the fate
>of others.

That's what I'm doing. Ever heard of "structural adjustment"? Of the WTO? Of ideological hegemony? The US and other countries play a great hand in deciding the fate of other, weaker, countries. There isn't all that much the countries can do about it, except play the game by rules they didn't establish. Once they get used to that, the US doesn't have to do much, as the country's "leaders" are eager to take over the means of their own exploitation. It's called "structural power" (Steven Lukes "On power", it's a small book).

>Laws can't
>enforce themselves.

Especially if other countries or bodies (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU...) decide your laws and actions for you, and you have no recourse against them.

>Wrong. I never said they
>shouldn't have a voice.
>I simply said that laws
>should not be based simply
>on a majority's wishes.

They're not. In a democracy, laws reflect all of society, as minorities will strive to obtain changes in issues where they are disadvantaged.

>That doesn't mean they don't
>have the right to voice
>their concerns like I do.
> That's why I added
>the conjunction "as well as
>the majority".

What's the point if the people (in your system) are ignored in favour of the opinions of the "experts"?

>Foreign aid is charity.

See my response to k. orr. It's no charity.

>Wealth
>redistribution is charity.

The point of wealth redistribution is that the people you help will be able to produce more wealth down the line (through having access to better living conditions, better education...). Current systems might not do that (it's a complex thing to do right), but I don't see it as charity, rather an investment.

>I do
>believe, however, that money in
>a certain district should be
>used inside that district first
>to ease the needs of
>the public, before it is
>used in other districts.

So you are arguing for poor areas to remain poor and rich areas to remain rich.

>The point is who are you
>to make decisions for another
>adult? That's the question.

According to you, the "experts" should make decisions for all of us "uninformed" masses.

>The point of that was to
>say that whatever government does,
>it does by force.

Well, the state does possess the monopoly of legitimate violence. But does it build a road by force? Does it fund schools by force? Did it force you to accept a college grant? It will, however, "force" you to jail if you burn anything public to the ground .

>There is no deciding whether
>you are going to abide
>by a law. If
>caught, you go to jail.
> Period.

Well, you have to be proven guilty first. And the legal system is a little more complex than that.

>Therefore, laws
>should not be based merely
>on the beliefs of the
>majority because their beliefs aren't
>everyone's beliefs.

So they should be based on what? The beliefs of the ruling minority? The beliefs of the Taliban? The beliefs of your priest? Or the beliefs the mass of people (or their representatives) can agree to compromise on?

>>If you have freedom of speech
>>and access to political power
>>(i.e. democracy), then you can
>>fight the masses. I think
>>that is within the bounds
>>of your own motto: "Get
>>off your lazy butt and
>>get to work". Failing that,
>>with all these cheap plane
>>tickets, you can just leave.
>
>How are you to do that
>if the laws are based
>on majority opinion?

The majority never stopped you from buying a plane ticket. And you get your opinions heard the same ways all minorities have gotten their opinions heard: either you kick up a ruckus, or you talk to a minister while smoking a cigar with him in the Parliament's rec room.

>No that is not it, nor
>is that realistic. The
>reason we pay taxes, or
>at least it should be,
>is to compensate for public
>services, such as fire, police,
>rescue, and utilities, as well
>as compensation of government officals
>and employees. Not for
>the numerous government programs in
>existence.

So all government programmes are bad? I notice education wasn't on your list. Would you prefer to be educated by Coca-Cola?

>Is that better than having an
>even more unimformed majority decide
>the fate of the nation,
>or possibly in the US's
>case, the world? That's
>ridiculous.

If you realised how little the "experts" knew about the state of the world and how international decisions are made, you would find that ridiculous too.

>>I like you, I really do,
>>it's just that I think
>>you're a lazy, stupid, uniformed,
>>irrational thief. But I gots
>>love for ya.
>
>Bingo.

Damn, if that's how you view other people, then you are very, very sad. It's thanks to people like you that ever-increasing parts of the world's population will starve to death and live in poverty (and not because they are stupid and can't control how many kids they have, although that sometimes plays a role).


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")