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

That's not force. Force is when you attempt to physically make someone do something they don't want to do. Countries have a choice whether or not to allow foreign companies within our borders.

>>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.

Government is force. Businesses can't force you to do anything you don't want to do. Maybe they might persuade you, but persuasion is not force.

>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.

Do we hold soverignty in South America? No. Like I said before, international businesses get away with things because of the weak foreign governments in those respective countries. Blame them, not the US.

>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.

They might conjoin at different times but they are very discreet. To think the size of one or the other won't have a considerable effect on the nation is naive. To think you can put the two in the same genre is unrealistic also. There are things the private sector can do that governemt can't, and vice versa. Especially when you put international issues in perspective.

>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.

That isn't power to the people, that's power to the majority. You can't say the people because the people collectively will never unaminously agree on issues. Therefore, the public has a voice, but influence wise a collective group should not have power over others' private lives.

>> Is this "no voice"
>>idea different in other countries?
>
>This is a "most succesful" debate.
>No-one said it's not happening
>anywhere else.

What you're trying to do is blame negatives solely on the US, therefore it is necessary to see if it is just happening in the US or happening everywhere. It's also necessary to see if it is just happening now, or was it a trait of the past. You can't just point a finger and say "this is all your fault!" without taking the other points in retrospect also.

>> If there was another
>>government, would it differ?
>
>As in a different president or
>a different type of government?

Different type.
>>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"...

Oh, I guess the Cold War was started by us and not by communist aggression and isolationism. Sure.

>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.

If Einstein didn't, someone else would! It was something that was inevitable. I don't like nuclear weapons either, but if the US isn't the front runner of weapons technology, then someone will be, and might not be as cautious in using 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.

I thought you just said less than half? Did poverty simply appear with the birth of the United States? You're even going to make the argument that during these times there isn't less poverty than back in the other time periods in world history? Everyone lived prosperous?

>>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.

Maybe not the outcome, but defintely the number of casualities. It was either the a bomb or invade Japan, which would have doubled American causalties. Some historians and analysts say as many as $6 million, not to mention a year or so longer in the war. What was done was absolutely necessary, and if I was given that decision, I would have pressed the button myself. People had families that served and/or died in that war.

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

It wasn't the US's place, it was the so-called League of Nations's place to do so, and took responsibility for Germany's punishment and control, or lack thereof.

>>>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.

It's simple: what seems pointless to you is not pointless to others. What you may see as pointless they may see as an asset. Therefore, they buy what they desire.

>> 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.

Once again, that is your opinion. Some people willingly work in miserable conditions because they know the output can be favorable. Does that qualify as demeaning? Not to them. They are doing what they have to do to get ahead. Everything is not easy, nor should it be.

Have
>you ever worked on a
>chain-line? Doing the same movements
>over and over for years?
>That is demeaning.

I've worked at a factory where I did the same job over and over. However I liked it, and was proud of it because of I felt I was the hardest worker there. I'd put in 70-80 hrs a week, and I'd get a nice paycheck the next week. Once again, what is considered demeaning to you, is not necessarily demeaning to others.

>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.

Geez. If you can't stand stacking boxes and food I wonder how you'd feel working in 100+ degree heat mowing yards, cutting down trees, mending fences, and trimming bushes. That's what I did this summer (and will do again this weekend). Not because I had to, but because I was helping my cousin out with his business to catch up on tasks that needed to be done. I used to stack 50 llb boxes of cucumbers onto crates and packed them in big rigs.
I didn't consider any of that demeaning. Even if I did, it's irrrelevant. It has to be done by somebody, whether you're stacking groceries or in the field or whatever. Therefore, get used to it. Not everyone can live a luxurious life. Some people are going to go without, and some people will have "hard" jobs. That's the way life goes. You have to decide which side of the fence you want to be on: the work harder side, or the work smarter side.
An you know what, there is nowhere else in the world that I, alot of citizens, and alot of the immigrants that come to the United States, would rather work. After all, why you think they come here? Because they know this is well the opportunity lies.

>>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.

Conducting a service in exchange for money or another service is not dependency.

>>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 a right. You have no right to tell other people how to live their lives. It doesn't matter if you're knowledgable or not, you still don't have the life experiences necessary to tell me what to do with my private life. If it's an issue that effects someone else directly, that's different, but even then that shouldn't be decided by majority opinion.

>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.

Well that's better than to be naive and think everyone is going to look out for your best interests, or even that they have enough knowledge to.
Racism, war, castes, etc are lead by ideals of superiority. I never said that I was superior to anyone, you only assumed that. On the contratry, when a person or group of people think they should be given authority over your life, that's authoritarian, and what leads to those things. I also never said that people can't live together despite differences. I simply said they don't have a right to invade in my life. People can't get along without someone having superiority over them?

>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.

If I had did that, then that would have been an oxymoron, in which I surely didn't do. The problem is that you think too collectively. You can't simply put individuals as a group of people, or they aren't considered individuals in reference to that group. When I say individuals, I mean one person, with one voice, and one mind in contrast with another person, with another voice and another mind. Not as a collective group.

>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.

But I thought you were in favor of direct democracy, and not just representation? That's what you just described.

>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).

There's a difference in trust and cooperation. Just because I may do business with a person does not mean I trust him to do simply anything, which includes making proper decisions for me in my intersts.

>>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.

Not necessarily. They can be exactly the opposite of their environment and times, and against the wishes of other people. They can be antisocial, isolationist, and want to have nothing to do with the outside world. Therefore, just because they are from that environment doesn't mean they are going to necessarily act like the environment they are from/in.

>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.

Semantics. That's not a product. A product is when you have two things that come together in a specific fashion. In order for them to be products they would have to be like everyone else, or even the majority of the people in their environment. I think it is safe to say that these men were each one of a kind.

>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)?

Not a territory that declared independence from it's own ruling country, no. When you find one, then show me.

>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

You're playing with words again. Democracy represents public opinion, or majority rule. Therefore are you talking about democracy as the word means or are you actually talking about democracy as you want it to mean? And for future purposes can't you distinguish between the two?

Because if you are heeding the wishes of the minority also then that isn't full democracy. If anything you are agreeing with me that minority interests should be heard and protected. So if you are agreeing with me that direct democracy cannot be obtainable because minority interests must be protected, then simply say so. Until then, you're only playing semantics.

>Did the makers of the Constitution
>think of Black people as
>equal men? I doubt it.

It doesn't matter what they thought, only what they wrote as law. The letter of the law is what is to be interpreted, not the spirit. Sure they might have owned slaves, but that went against the principles they wrote.

>Do people today consider starving
>Africans and exploited Asian female
>workers their equals? I doubt
>it.

Probably not. You're right. However, the law treats them as equals.

>>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.

You're right. I don't believe in world soverignty. As I've said plenty of times.

>>Foreign aid is charity.

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

It is too charity, whether it actually goes to the foreign land or it goes into someone else's pocket. It's all charity. Even if 2 dollars goes to them, that 2 dollars is still 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.

It's a very poor investment then. I don't know of any wealth redistribution scheme that ever helped out the nation as a whole. Not to mention it still is charity by force, which means you're taking away someone else's freedom of possession.

>>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.

I'm arguing that you should sweep around your own front door before you attempt to sweep around someone elses.

>>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.

If you are referring to representatives, then yes. If you are talking about authoritarian government, then no.

>>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 .

All those you mention are to serve the public and it's best interests. Those are things we all use everyday, therefore it is considered a "debt", not forceable charity.

>>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?

I've already told you this a million times...BASED ON THE WRITTEN LAW AND PRINCIPLES.

>>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?

No, not all programs are bad, and some actually are effective. However, at least in the US, and I'm sure in most countries, the majority of them are, and they should be scrapped in order to reduce the size of governmental influence.

>>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 still would put my trust in people that study topics than people who havent. Call me anti-social if you want, but I do tend to care about experience and knowledge. That's how it goes.

>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).

People have been starving to death since the world has been created, and people will continue to starve. You aren't Superman, where you can simply save everyone from poverty. And yes, that is what I think about people. Some people are lazy, some people are uninformed, and some people do not have my best interests in mind. That's reality. They can change, but it's doubtful. And notice I did not say all people. There are some that I share the same frame of mind with. But even then, that alone should not give them an authorian right to direct my life.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee