Originally posted by The Vagabond
Were we justified in refraining from mutually beneficial trade and consequently bringing harm to innocent Cuban civilians as well as perpetuating an
unnecessary conflict with our neighbor, just because that neighbor was different from us?
No, it's because neighbor is a communist dictator who is oppressing its population. Instead of seeing the real oppressor here, you claim that role
belongs to US.
You state that it is a death-worthy trespass to deny people's ability to profit. Where exactly is this written? Should one man be allowed to dam up
the flow of water to another man's property if it will turn a profit for him?
Depends to whom water belongs. If I bought it, it's mine.
Societies which don't allow free enterprise, market-oriented economy and ownership of property are destined to failure, without those rights it is
impossible to feed the population. Socialism doesn't work, it is an inefficient way of producing since when there is no competition, producers have
no incentives to improve themselves or even work in many cases. It has been proven on all places from China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia to poor Latin
I do not believe that an enlightened society can allow necessities to become profitable industries. They should be public works performed at cost for
the benefit of all.
Benefit to all? As in, you take goods I produce and give it to some lazy bum? This sounds nice, but it is sad you haven't noticed that socialism
failed everywhere, it is inherently inferior to free market-oriented economy in every possible aspect, it is worse for poor, rich, old, young. North
Korea is about 15 more poor than South Korea, this is a clear indication of superiority of capitalism. Ratio is similar for any other 2 countries you
wish to compare.
Pure capitalism dictates that a man can't eat, can't keep his children warm, can't have a roof over his head or clothes on his back unless he can
scrounge up sufficient tribute for his landlord. The common man in a capitalist nation is not a citizen in the ideal sense of the word. He is a serf
to corporate feudal lords.
This is some heavy brainwashing straight from communist party textbooks. Fortunately, it has been disproved in reality.
So I ask you, what exactly is common worker in communist country? He is a slave of state, forever destined to same job, frozen in time, without any
hope and choice of improving his life. Do you know what is the environment in which workers in such countries are working compared to those in
developed countries? Let me give you a hint: in communism buildings are old and rarely renewed or maintained both interior and exterior.
Further, what you call Feudal Lords are productive companies which produce superior high-quality goods, which are made by well-payed
who ALWAYS have the choice to choose a different jobs, invest, create their own company and do whatever they want from their life.
Wherever capitalism lived, there came enormous wealth for all segments of society and smaller amounts of poverty than in any other system. This is a
fact, you can check it from any sources you like. Even your Chinese comrades have adopted capitalism.
Countries like Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore (and there are many more examples) are one of the most capitalist countries in the world and places where
living standard is extremely high and poverty is low, for all classes of people. As I said, you and every other socialist have been disproved. It is
sad people like you value ideological intentions more than its results in reality.
We have weaknesses just as socialist economies do. Nobody has got a perfect system. Here in America you have to be afraid that your land lord will put
you out in the streets, or that your sick child will not be treated. In a socialist nation centralized management makes mistakes disasterous and you
give up hopes of ever becoming wealthy. A lot of people would gladly make this trade. I'd work harder for fewer luxuries if it meant the necessities
would always be there.
This is cowardly attitude, I suggest you come to some former communist country, like Poland or ex. Yugoslavia, or Vietnam. You would be terrified what
buildings look like in those countries, and how pleasant is childhood of children which are not able to get basic necessities widely used in developed
world. Socialism provides you with what some people in government think you need, capitalism provides you with what you want.
What you call "luxuries" is wealth necessary to sustain huge populations, it is freedom which belongs to every man on Earth. Not irrational
"right" to get something for nothing, but individual responsibility to take control of your destiny and achieve your potential without being slowed
down by anyone else with enormous taxes. Remember, people who scream "free housing" and "free healthcare" want to have money taken from pocket of
somebody else's hard earned money, this is called theft, but government's have the ability to take it legally.
3. Peace with hostile nations is really easy to understand actually. Suppose that you had a gun, and you were walking around in a place where
everybody else had a gun too. You and somebody else get into an arguement over something stupid that is not worth a gunfight. Do you A. shoot him. B.
Threaten him and hope he backs down instead of shooting you. C. Find common ground and compromise, even if it means not getting your way 100%.
D. Call USA to shoot him and free his oppressed underlings. Afterwards, his oppressed underlings are individuals who prosper and live a life where
they are free to pursue happiness. In your scenario, they still remain oppressed while man with whom you got into argument is continuing to support
other oppressors near him.
[edit on 7-2-2005 by Megaquad]