Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[MisterD]

see the atrocities capitalism has heaped upon the world and the effects it has had on our fellow human beings.

If it wasn't for capitalism, you'd still be a serf working free for the lord of the manor for the right to plough a couple of acres of land...

[idleidolidyll]

If it wasn't for capitalism, you'd still be a serf working free for the lord of the manor for the right to plough a couple of acres of land...

no mate, you have it ass backward: capitalism is the epitome of the servant master relationship and extreme capitalists lust for the kinds of power kings traditionally had (look up Laissez faire; their idealoperating environment): virtually all the freedoms and rights I have come from the left and liberalism

[MisterD]

no mate, you have it ass backward: capitalism is the epitome of the servant master relationship and extreme capitalists lust for the kinds of power kings traditionally had (look up Laissez faire; their idealoperating environment): virtually all the freedoms and rights I have come from the left and liberalism

Sorry, III, but if you look at the history it was very capitalist priciples at work in Britain as the Black Death altered the balance of supply and demand for labour, and ripped some holes for former peasants to aspire to fill.

[terbang]

you're not so in my humble opinion, you're a world traveler with his eyes closed

I reckon there is a huge difference between the eyes of a tourist (whether it be business or pleasure) and the eyes of an ex-patriot. Tourists only see what they expect or want to see and it is generally only skin deep. An ex-patriot, often learning the dialect, cannot help but get much closer to the warts and all reality. For example, I toured Switzerland in the 80's, ate some swiss cheese and toblerone, loved the place. Ten years later I lived there as an ex-patriot and for many reasons the cheese and chocolate had a different taste.

[idleidolidyll]

Sorry, III, but if you look at the history it was very capitalist priciples at work in Britain as the Black Death altered the balance of supply and demand for labour, and ripped some holes for former peasants to aspire to fill.

No, if you look at history, lassiez faire capitalism existed under kings and absolute rulers; those who profited were friends of the crown

it took 'socialist' revolution to overthrow the power of kings and in the history of mankind, almost all worthwhile social advances including democracy have come from the will of the poor and middle classes to have more rights and more say in the way their lives are run.

indeed it has been liberalism and socialism under a variety of names that has given us the rights that are being destroyed by capitalism in the US today.

[idleidolidyll]

I reckon there is a huge difference between the eyes of a tourist (whether it be business or pleasure) and the eyes of an ex-patriot. Tourists only see what they expect or want to see and it is generally only skin deep. An ex-patriot, often learning the dialect, cannot help but get much closer to the warts and all reality. For example, I toured Switzerland in the 80's, ate some swiss cheese and toblerone, loved the place. Ten years later I lived there as an ex-patriot and for many reasons the cheese and chocolate had a different taste.

spoken from the lips of the wise

i laugh at tourists who think they understand, the only way to really know is to live and work overseas

as chinese people get to know me they call me "Zhonguo Tong": liberally translated, that means someone who REALLY understands the reality of life in China.

No, I'm NOT an expert on all countries but I've LIVED in enough of them to have a pretty good picture.

[idleidolidyll]

Question:

If capitalism is so damn successful, why does the USA subsidise so many of it's major industries............and why are so many of you right wingers opposed to our government doing the same.

it seems there's a cognitive dissonance issue here

[Robert Taylor]

No Robert, you will be treated as a leper because you're a 'foreigner': Yanks are incredibly ethnocentric and paranoid. It has fuck all to do with Clark and as you stand in line for three hours holding your shoes in your hand, think about NZ becoming a clone of that ugly nation feeding off the blood of the poor and powerless as their wealthy lord it over their ordinary citizens. BTW: Don't argue with anyone, they might just shoot you.

I've been to Amerika (I lived in Canada after all) and I was totally underwhelmed.

I've been out in the real world most of my life, not closetted behind NZ's walls and it's western propaganda. I speak Chinese and have lived around a third of my life in other countries. Having worked in an industry beholden to the capitalist world and having had to work inside the capitalist behemouth in order to succeed in international trade, I am very aware of what goes on behind the scnes from a first hand basis......unlike an awful lot of Kiwis who see through really cloudy glasses.

Tell ya what, after YOU'VE had face to face meetings with the likes of Tommy Suharto, Chinese bureaucracy etc etc, you phone me and tell me I don't have a realistic perspective of how capitalism operates around the world. Until then I suggest it's YOU who doesn't have a grip on the reality of the way the world is manipulated.

Sweden?, No, not for a long time but I have a Swedish friend and his wife who come to NZ every year; is that enough?

I think North Korea beckons for you! I also have a book on Erich Honecker (spelling? ) if you would care to borrow it, its an intersesting study into the minds of these people.

And very soon I and the many like minded will not be able to argue in this way with you because of a bill before the ruling politburo that is going to restrict freedom of speech.

[Robert Taylor]

Question:

If capitalism is so damn successful, why does the USA subsidise so many of it's major industries............and why are so many of you right wingers opposed to our government doing the same.

it seems there's a cognitive dissonance issue here

Within limits I agree with you on that one, we are too unprotective of our own.

[Finn]

tell me finn, what makes you so ignorant?

Probably the same thing that makes you so stupid... NZ education?

[Dilligaf]

Careful there. You often find that the more traveled people are, the more left they tend to be.

I reckon there is a huge difference between the eyes of a tourist (whether it be business or pleasure) and the eyes of an ex-patriot. .

Careful, you might be wrong in those generalisations. I'm on my third country (living, not tourist) and I have not become more left as a result.
Many expats I know have COMPASSION, yes, but trust me when I hear beneficiaries cry poor, I can only roll my eyes and wish to give them a taste of what poor really is.

The only possible exceptions I can think of running through my expat friends / acquaintances are the missionaries.

[davereid]

... capitalism is the epitome of the servant master relationship and extreme capitalists lust for the kinds of power kings traditionally had..

What absolute rubbish !

Firstly, your comment that your wages have dropped in real terms is true. But capitalisim is not to blame, socialisim is.

The ONLY way you get a higher income is by producing more. And there is no doubt that capitalist systems are better at producing that communist or socialist systems.

2. You are confused about capitalisim and tyranny. Capitalists, socialists, communists, just anyone is capable of tyranny.

The Kings of old liked their wealth - but they were not capitalists.

They took land using force and made the inhabitants of that land their subjects.

They made themselves and their supporters rich by imposing taxes, on wine, on barley etc etc. This sounds like what exactly ? Willing buyer - willing seller, negotiated price?

Nope it sounds like communisim and socalisim!

[BIGBOSSMAN]

The Socialist Myth:

What is Socialism? Many will tell you that socialism is a moderate form of Communism. Others claim them to be two distinctly different and opposite theories, communism being a cruel and harsh failure and socialism being an enlightened and successful theory. Both of these notions are false though. A recent popular distinction defines one as government controlling the means of production and the other as "the people" controlling the means of production. This too is false considering that the pursuit of either such definition is prone to developing government management of human activity. Though theory may claim distinctions between the two, in practice they become one in the same. The idea of the sharing of incomes and government management of resources exists with little distinction from communism and its euphemistic partner socialism. In practice though the same problems plague both as freedom becomes necessarily usurped and trampled on due to abuse of power, economic impossibility, and unforeseen and unintended variables among other things. Because of socialism's inherent failures, it tends to resort to extreme measures. Communism is essentially Marx's name for socialist like systems. The only reason communism is equated with more extreme is mostly due to its acquaintance to the Soviet Union.
What is Communism? Again to many this definition is often a matter of great confusion. Some think it means socialism with force, others think it is socialism gone bad. A better definition is a utopian plan to enforce complete economic equality and achieve this by means of forced income redistribution and economic management. In short it is the same idea of socialism operating most often under a smaller branch of the socialist following known strictly as the communists. The ideas are practically the same only the name "communists" tend to attract more ideologues due mostly to a desire among them for alienation from a dissenting opposition, the capitalists, and for a hope of haste in implementing their utopian schemes. As displayed below, communism is in essence and in practice the same thing as its euphemized sister socialism.

The Differences Between the Two: The Six Shared Truths: It is hard to fully explain the idea of communism compared to socialism (due much to the fact that communists and socialists have never been able to agree upon and solidly establish exactly what distinguishes one from the other) but a few truths are undeniable:

(1) Both communism and socialism have an end utopian goal of complete equality in their ideal state.

(2) Both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward this so called "equality."

(3) Both communism and socialism experience the same types of problems in accomplishing this economic managing - the unintended side effect.

(4) Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance. Such compliance must be mandated in a socialist system due to the fact that human nature creates skepticism, opposition to the control of others, and a desire for free will.

(5) In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify. This naturally attracts individuals seeking widespread power, or it corrupts individuals already in power with the lure of the same widespread power.

(6) As a result of the government structures found in both systems, the intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily translates into the usurpation of remaining personal freedoms during its expansion.

Source: http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapita...html#socialism

[SPman]

And very soon I and the many like minded will not be able to argue in this way with you because of a bill before the ruling politburo that is going to restrict freedom of speech.

What bill is this?
More worrying is the new immigration bill, which gives powers of abritary arrest and indefinite detention,with the possibility of it being on the whim of a policeman or official, just like King Georges USA!

Immigration Bill: arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention

So far, New Zealand has avoided much of the madness of George Bush's "war on terror". Other countries have significantly restricted freedoms and violated human rights, subjecting suspected terrorists to control orders and indefinite detention, and even torture. We haven't. But the government's new Immigration Bill will change that, at least as far as visitors and immigrants are concerned. Buried in there among the arrest powers (most of which are aimed at enforcing deportations) is a clause which allows the arrest of anyone who is

on reasonable grounds, suspected by an immigration officer or a member of the police to constitute a threat or risk to security.

Once arrested, they can then be detained indefinitely under a warrant of commitment, or deported without any proper judicial process, all on the basis of secret evidence they are forbidden from effectively challenging. The breadth of this clause is astounding. This is not about new arrivals and people who turn up at the airport with a bad security record. It applies to anyone. Tourists, visitors, students, even permanent residents. People who have lived here for years, who can work, receive superannuation, and vote, will be subject to arbitrary arrest and detention. All those Australian and British citizens who came here years ago but never bothered to apply for citizenship (because as de facto citizens it would make no difference to their lives) - people who are New Zealanders in every sense of the world, despite their lack of paperwork - will likewise be subject to arbitrary arrest and detention.
The potential for abuse here is astounding. While current law allows police to arrest on suspicion, it must be suspicion of having committed a particular offence. Removing that and replacing it with a vaguely-defined criteria of being a "risk to security" is simply asking for police and immigration officers to enforce their prejudices rather than the law. We've also seen in recent years several cases of people being victimised by unfounded allegations of terrorism made through MPs or bottom-feeding media outlets - the latest apparently being the result of some sort of employment dispute. Under this law, those people could very well have ended up being arbitrarily deported or in prison.
The clause is also likely to fall foul of the BORA's affirmation of freedom from discrimination, as it clearly discriminates on the basis of national origin (prohibited by s21 (g) of the Human Rights Act). Now, in a sense immigration law is all about discriminating on the basis of national origin - but it's supposed to be about who is allowed into the country, not whether they are equal before the law and enjoy basic human rights while they are here. It was on that basis that the UK House of Lords found a system allowing for the indefinite detention of foreigners - but not British citizens - suspected of terrorism to be unlawful back in 2004. In New Zealand, our Bill of Rights Act affirms that the right to liberty, the freedom not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained, applies to everyone, not just citizens. And from a moral perspective, if we wouldn't tolerate this sort of treatment for New Zealand citizens, we should not tolerate it for permanent residents or visitors either.
The proper way of dealing with threats to security is prosecution. This allows the evidence to be fully tested before a jury, and ensures that the government actually has to prove its case. The proposed changes in the Immigration Bill would remove that vital safeguard, and allow the government to inflict significant punishment having convinced only itself. And that is not something any of us should be happy with.

[Finn]

Question:

If capitalism is so damn successful, why does the USA subsidise so many of it's major industries............and why are so many of you right wingers opposed to our government doing the same.

In its most pure form, it may have some minor flaws, however please name 1 country where socialism works on all levels... This outta be good.