It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thirty years ago, the United States finally ended its long and costly war with Vietnam. That war pitted two fundamentally different views of the rights of men versus the power of the state against each other.
One side believed men owned themselves and are born with religious, social and political freedom. The other believed the state owns men and was obliged to claim not only the product of a man's labor, but also to dictate his thoughts, his ambition and his beliefs.
The necessity and wisdom of the Vietnam War will continue to be debated for decades (I happen to think it was neither necessary nor wise). What's not debatable is the morality and sustainability of the respective ideologies. Ours was moral and prevailed. Communism wasn't, and failed.
Today, however, when it comes to one market, it's the government of Vietnam that's fighting for the economic freedom of its people. And, sadly, it is the United States that's using the power of the state to deprive the Vietnamese of the right to earn a living. The market is catfish. And the behavior of American politicians in the so-called "catfish wars" has been consistently appalling.
Is this the whole story, though? Will allowing the Asian catfish into american waters upset the balance of nature, as has the introduction of many other forms of animals?
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Farming in America is entirely too subsidized, and entirely too disconnected from the daily lives of the people.
I'm sure there would much less crime if more people had to work the fields or the stalls day after day. That sort of life is exhausting, but it's very rewarding. Unlike most jobs in America, it's the sort that can support you in the absence of this nonsense paper economy (soon to be rid of it I hope).