It's not Bush's fault

[can't sit still]

Now that I've got your attention, let me explain. Our political system attracts people who are attracted to POWER. We can't win if our choices are different flavors of power mongers. Thomas Jefferson said that we should have a revolution every 75 years to throw the complacent bastards out.
We don't have true democracy. The Greeks tried our system for a long time and then discovered the flaws that we are discovering for ourselves. They threw out the whole system.
Bush is doing what Bush does. It's like the story of the scorpion and the frog.
Go here to look at a completely different approach. http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-c ... y-cook.htm

Take a good look at the accomplishments of the Greeks.
They were spectacularly successsful. It's interesting to note that the intelluctuals of the time were against the form of government that brought them these successes. Doesn't say much for intellectuals, does it?
Please take the time to read the whole page.
I would hope that we all "love" our country in the "extended clan" manner of thinking.
We are currently going down the road to fascism,,,as defined by Mussolini. The Greeks had the same experience when they tried our form of government.
There are several countries that are , as we speak, going down the road to destruction.
I would hope that the US will prosper for longer than the "blip" in time that we have to our credit.
Dan

[Eric]

We don't have true democracy. The Greeks tried our system for a long time and then discovered the flaws that we are discovering for ourselves.

The "Greeks" didn't try democracy. The Athenians did. The majority of the "Greek" city-states had an aristocracy of some sort. They were also independent of Athens, except as they joined "leagues" with it. They also went to war with Athens a lot, as the Athenians were trying to impose their control over other city-states.

Take a good look at the accomplishments of the Greeks.
They were spectacularly successsful. It's interesting to note that the intelluctuals of the time were against the form of government that brought them these successes. Doesn't say much for intellectuals, does it?

Their experiment in "true" democracy (which was a whole lot less pure than your link would lead one to believe) lasted about 100 years, before in devolved into control by professional "Orators" who would sway the assemblies, and then to control by Tyrants.

We are currently going down the road to fascism,,,as defined by Mussolini. The Greeks had the same experience when they tried our form of government.

They had that experience when they tried the type of government you seem to be in favor of as well.

I would hope that the US will prosper for longer than the "blip" in time that we have to our credit.

Our form of government, for all it's flaws, has already lasted longer than classical Athenian democracy did.

Please understand, I think our current situation sucks, and I lean way more towards a form of Socialism (not communism) than people in this country tend to favor. However, I also study history, and crappily drawn analogies based on false premises are not going to solve any problems.

The Athenians were slave-holding, imperialistic, expansionist, controlling war-mongers, who spent most of their time as a "democracy" fighting both enemies like Sparta and one-time allies (like Mytilene, which one day was ordered razed to the ground, but the next a new fleet was sent to recind that order- just destroy their defenses and take their land).

The Athenian ideals are nice, and what those ideals gave to us a huge part of our history, but their reality was quite different from those ideals (sort of like our government and our Constitution)

okay, off my historian high-horse.

[can't sit still]

Thank's Eric, Your horse seems to be pretty well informed.
I love both discourse and history. You're correct , I generalised when I said Greeks instead of Athenians.
There are 2 points I'm dancing around.

1.Our politicians only seem to survive if they're strident idealogues.
Unfortunately, their ideology is centered on the party,,not the good of the people. Newt comes to mind
2.the marriage of "big government" and "big capital" [fascism] seems to be the inevitable result of representativa democracy. Haliburton or Standard Oil come to mind. Power draws money--money draws power.

We need more moderation and less polarization in government. I don't know where it could come from considering the road we're on. I was trying to interject "new" ideas.

Socialism and direct democracy both depend on very high participation of all the people.
Sweden is finding out that the cost of socialism is very high if too many people drag their feet.
Direct democracy needs complete participation also to survive. I think that this country has too many people that would opt out of either system for it to be successful.
Russian Communism proved that if you take away incentive, you get no performance.
I lean towards "Benevolent Dictatorship" It certainly avoids paralysis.
I'm really impressed with what Castro has done. I went there 3 times to find out for myself. Now I'm up on federal charges for going there. I wrote an article that pissed of my dear Uncle Sam.
I compared Castro to Diocletian. Now I'm looking at 10 years and / or 300,000$.
Cuba is journalistic"Terra Incognito" in this country. I don't consider rebuttals from people who haven't been there.
As far as imperialism, slave-holding and conquest, ancient times were brutal. You can't paint Athens with a modern paintbrush.
If it wasn't Persia, it was the Mongol Hordes, if not them, it was Pax Romani or Peter or someone else.
You were either engaged in conquest or someone else was coveting your back yard. Don't ding me on my timelines.
Dan

[theCryptofishist]

The Athenians were slave-holding, imperialistic, expansionist, controlling war-mongers, who spent most of their time as a "democracy" fighting <snip>

And the damn Spartens were better to thier women. Although I'm not sure I'd have fit in there either. But was in Athenians or Greeks in general who kept women inside for their entire lives. (depending on class of course.)

[theCryptofishist]

\I'm really impressed with what Castro has done.

Castro really gets points from me for the literacy rate. But it seems like six of one half a dozen of hte other Castro/Bautista to be queer in Cuba.

[Ugly Dougly]

We don't have true democracy. The Greeks tried our system for a long time and then discovered the flaws that we are discovering for ourselves. They threw out the whole system.
...Dan

You're not with the John Birch Society are you?

[can't sit still]

Doug, I fail on that one. I'm not aligned with anyone. I only have a vague idea what all those groups stand for or what their agenda is.
Heres a group that's at one extreme. http://www.vhemt.org/
There are groups at all points of the compass. I try to be reasonable and aim for a middle ground. I follow NO drummer.

There are a couple of old cliches that I subscribe to.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. also A dollars pay for a dollars work.
We all know that we've been losing ground on real wages for the last 30 years
Mz Crypto, I beg to differ with you. Castro is an ultra patriot. He sees black and white. There is no gray. Under Bautista, foreigners owned 52% of the country. Bautista was a despot, Castro is an ultra patriot who has used draconian means to pull his country together.
There is NO info on Cuba in this country that isn't painted with Jesse Helms hatred.
I can post the Cuba article or E-mail it if you are interested.
I don't know how Athenian women were treated,,,but if they launched 1,000 ships just to retrieve one of them, they must have held them in high regard.
Dan

[Eric]

Thank's Eric, Your horse seems to be pretty well informed.

And your discourse is well reasoned. I like having a conversation.

1.Our politicians only seem to survive if they're strident idealogues.
Unfortunately, their ideology is centered on the party,,not the good of the people. Newt comes to mind

I mostly agree. While I hate to paint with a generalization brush, this does seem to fit our current situation. Though I think the ideology is a bit more centered on the good of their donors.....

2.the marriage of "big government" and "big capital" [fascism] seems to be the inevitable result of representativa democracy. Haliburton or Standard Oil come to mind. Power draws money--money draws power.

Agree with the marriage bit- strongly disagree with the equalization of "big capital" to fascism. The money did tend to support fascism, but it was more because fascism let "big capital" do what it wanted- as long as it followed the governments rules. Big Capital will do this with any form of government.

Socialism and direct democracy both depend on very high participation of all the people.
Sweden is finding out that the cost of socialism is very high if too many people drag their feet.

Swedish socialism survived for decades. A bit stiffling in many aspects, but the people have great medical etc. They also have a high suicide rate- but how much is due to hatred of the government and how much is due to having to live with winter that many months of the year?
As you quoted Jefferson earlier- maybe the people just wanted their revolution from that form of government. I wouldn't count the Socialists out yet.

I lean towards "Benevolent Dictatorship" It certainly avoids paralysis.

It also requires a dictator who stays benevolent. Castro has certainly done better than most with his authority- but what happens when he dies?

Personally, I'm all for proportional representation (i.e- your party gets the same percentage of seats as voted- get 15% of the vote, get 15% of the seats. It helps keep any one party from locking in power, and gives smaller parties a real voice. It also makes the governing party responsible to the smaller parties- if they bolt the coalition, the government can fall. Besides- more people would (hopefully) vote if they knew their party and views would actually get some representaion in the halls of power.

Good luck on your case with our government. Too bad they don't like the First Amendment as much as the Second.
*sigh*[/i]

[Eric]

The Athenians were slave-holding, imperialistic, expansionist, controlling war-mongers, who spent most of their time as a "democracy" fighting <snip>

And the damn Spartens were better to thier women. Although I'm not sure I'd have fit in there either. But was in Athenians or Greeks in general who kept women inside for their entire lives. (depending on class of course.)

It was pretty typical of most mediterranean societies. Most women didn't even get their own name- in Julius Caesers family tree you get things like Julia major and Julia minor, Antonia major and Antonia minor. *blech*

Though "Helen of Troy" was a Spartan, for what it's worth...

wow. I've posted more in this thread than any other.
I am a geek.

[can't sit still]

It also requires a dictator who stays benevolent. Castro has certainly done better than most with his authority- but what happens when he dies?"

The US tried to kill Castro a few times and then came to the conclusion that things might get a lot worse. Raul Castro is the designated heir but nobody likes or trusts him. He's getting pretty old too.
Brothers to the Rescue plans to go in and take over,,,good luck.
Castro believes in his vision and no other. There isn't anyone of prominence. Fidel's mother lived to be 102? and he's hoping to get close. Thanks to his efforts, the Cubans are well educated and won't decide their future based on ignorance.

As far as sequestering women behind walls,,, there are other things to keep in mind. The world was far more dangerous mellineum ago. I travelled overland in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Turkey.
When males are brought up to value males only,,,women come up pretty short on the totem. In countries where women are required to wear the burkah, it's partly for their safety. They often send a guard also when the woman goes out. The men in some places aren't taught any kind of self-control.
I sailed down the Nile in a felucca. One woman in the group went nude. She was a gorgeous strawberry blonde. We sailed down-current but up-wind. We had to tack and jibe all the way. Every time we got close to the shore, the local youth would vigorously engage in onanism. At times, going so far as to grab our rudder with their other hand and stare transfixed while they were being dragged to the middle of the river.
It was beyond wierd. Dan

[The Bass]

The Athenians were slave-holding, imperialistic, expansionist, controlling war-mongers, who spent most of their time as a "democracy" fighting <snip>

And the damn Spartens were better to thier women. Although I'm not sure I'd have fit in there either. But was in Athenians or Greeks in general who kept women inside for their entire lives. (depending on class of course.)

um...spartan women had independent rights, but most of the women in sparta were enslaved helots, and they weren't treated so well...IIRC

[Driveway]

As someone who has been to Cuba, not the Cuba that exists in the sixteen square kilometers of Varadero (though I did visit there, staying illegally in at some strange woman's house I found with the help of a dude on a bike) I can tell you that, denied the market of the US, Cuban Communism will fail with the death of Castro.

Yes, Cuba has incredibly health care, yes it has cradle to grave education, however, no one has a job, no one even has socks. They beg for your socks in the street. They litterally beg for the shirt off your back.

In homes in Havana Viejo there is no running water, the toilets have no tanks, or seats, the "shower" is a concrete trough in which you stand whilst you ladle water upon yourself.

No one takes ownership of their workplace. No one takes pride in their work. No one cares if a gringo is stealing hundreds of dollars worth of booze and food from the all-inclusive hotel they work at because they make more money, from tips, than any freakin' doctor in the country.


don't get me wrong...I lean left....WAY left politically.

Communism WILL NEVER WORK on a scale larger than a few hundred or thousand individuals...EVER.

I propose a middle path with right-wing economic policy and left-wing social policy where social policy is considered significantly more important than economics.

Taxes and regulation balancing a [relatively] free-market economy. A welfare state and social safety net in existance while those who "rise above" economically are rewarded for their luck/efforts. Then, those lucky few, get the SHIT taxed out of them in return for their custom OCC choppers.

But then, I'm nuts, so ignore my ramblings.

[Kinetic IV]

But then, I'm nuts, so ignore my ramblings.

You've been there and directly observed the conditions where I have to rely on the media to spoonfeed me regarding the situation down there. Your opinion and observations carry more weight with me. So keep rambling.

[can't sit still]

Let me start out by saying,,,It is Bush's fault. He won't open Cuba because he's afraid that brother Jeb will lose votes. Congress wants to open Cuba.
I've never been to Varadero. I walked Havana for weeks and talked to everyone that I met. I'm fluent in Spanish and very curious. I talked to government people too.
Cuba has no jobs because they have very limited resources, capital and markets. The blockade is killing them.
The last 5 US presidents have all continued the blockade to strangle Cuba.
The UGLIEST of truths at the bottom of everything is; The US government can't allow a different "model" of government to exist.
A successful "communist" state in our very backyard is ANATHEMA to the US claim of having the only worthwhile system.
Cuba has poverty but,,,, they have equality of poverty. There is "no" corruption. That's why the Cubans aren't rebellious.
We spend zillions of $ on information gathering and yet the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has doesn't have a clue as far as Cuba Goes.
Dan

[joel the ornery]

Cuba has poverty but,,,, they have equality of poverty. There is "no" corruption.

equality of poverty.... sort of like misery loves company?

fuck, i hope i die soon.

[can't sit still]

Equality of poverty= no one feels like they're being screwed by the rich. There are no rich.
Dan

[joel the ornery]

Equality of poverty= no one feels like they're being screwed by the rich. There are no rich.
Dan

hmmmm... equality. some folks didn't get the memo.

"Gender and Class in Cuba"

A Nation for All

When change came through revolution in 1959, Fidel Castro insisted that this time "it was for real."[50] Real enough it was, but what the revolution would mean for blacks remained open to different interpretations. Some signs were ominous. Race barely figured in the political agenda of the 26th of July Movement (M-26-7), despite the fact that some of their programmatic documents read like a catalog of all the economic, social, and political ills of the republic. The leadership of the movement itself was predominantly white. As in 1933, rumors circulated presenting blacks as the main beneficiaries and supporters of the fallen dictator--in this case, Fulgencio Batista (1952-58 ), himself a mestizo, according to the white elite. Again, these rumors sought to legitimize the exclusion of blacks from the new order. At the same time, however, the unprecedented commitment of the revolutionary government to benefit the humblest sectors of Cuban society would benefit blacks, for they comprised a significant portion of the clases populares. Recognizing that race could be turned into a formidable ideological weapon against the United States and into a source of domestic and international political support, Fidel Castro publicly attacked racial discrimination in jobs and public spaces, linking racism to a past that was about to be transformed and to social groups that were about to be destroyed. Reinforcing previous ideological trends, racial inequality was presented as a by-product of "class privileges." Once these privileges were eliminated, the revolutionary government could triumphantly proclaim the elimination of racial discrimination from the island.

Analyzing the impact of socialism on race relations in Cuba defies any simple formulation. First, the revolutionary government dismantled the old structures of segregation and discrimination (private clubs, recreation facilities, and schools). The socialization of the previously segregated spaces was not achieved without resistance, and eventually black clubs and societies were dismantled as well. It could not be otherwise: the very existence of these clubs defied the revolution's vision of a color-blind society and symbolized the survival of the past. Not only were Afro-Cuban organizations eliminated, however; some Afro-Cuban religious ceremonies were temporarily banned, and race itself was erased from public discourse. By the early 1960s authorities referred to racial discrimination in the past tense, so any attempt to incorporate race into the political agenda was deemed to be counterrevolutionary--a divisionist act. Race surfaced only in the relatively safe area of culture, or as a political issue in the international arena.

Meanwhile, the class-based program of redistribution of wealth and social services had a significant impact on objective indicators of inequality, including life expectancy, education, and jobs. Contrary to what is frequently believed, by the mid-1980s blacks and mulattoes were well represented in managerial positions. This may have been the end point of a process of social ascent, or it may have been the result of the Communist Party's effort to promote blacks to positions of leadership. As an African American scholar who visited the island in 1993 proclaimed with optimism, Cuba, "while not a racial Utopia, is as close to a racial democracy as we have on this earth."[51]

But it takes more than structural change to build a racial democracy. It requires a transformation of what one of my collaborators in the island referred to as "people's heads." Indeed, heads have been remarkably resilient to change. Although the government's educational and cultural programs were explicitly antiracist, the official silence on race allowed the survival and reproduction of racial ideologies that found a fertile breeding ground in the remaining private spaces. As Holt contends, it is at the level of "everydayness," through daily "acts of name calling and petty exclusions," that race is reproduced and constantly made.[52] Indeed, the Cuban case strongly suggests that this reproduction occurs even in the midst of an institutional environment committed to racial integration and equality. Recent anthropological research suggests that the acute housing shortage, in turn, facilitated the transmission of racial prejudice in multigenerational households.[53] Through their ancestors, Cuba's youth remained tied to a past that refused to simply vanish.

The link between revolution and racial justice is itself problematic. It implies that racial equality depends on a particular set of structural conditions and on the state's capacity to deliver them. As in the second republic, racial justice is thus linked to government "performance." But the capacity to "perform" is what the government lacked in the 1990s due to the crisis officially labeled as the "special period." The slow but growing privatization of the economy has eroded the very bases that undergirded racial and other forms of partial social equality in the past. This erosion has opened new spaces for racist ideologies to operate more freely--racist ideas are not confined to people's heads anymore.

[Magikal]

Communism WILL NEVER WORK on a scale larger than a few hundred or thousand individuals...EVER.

Oh thank God, I'm not the only one who sees that.

I propose a middle path with right-wing economic policy and left-wing social policy where social policy is considered significantly more important than economics.

And just how exactly do you propose to do that? By the very nature of it, people with lots of money (the economics you speak of) make the policy. It's "The Golden Rule", i.e., "He who has the gold, makes the rules." It sux, to be sure, but it seems to me the best idea is to amass some of the gold yourself, then you can look to help others. It's the old saw of the emergency workers, "you've got to take care of yourself before you can take care of anyone else." Two guys both sitting in the dust can't do much for each other.

Taxes and regulation balancing a [relatively] free-market economy. A welfare state and social safety net in existance while those who "rise above" economically are rewarded for their luck/efforts. Then, those lucky few, get the SHIT taxed out of them in return for their custom OCC choppers.

Luck my ass, they worked their behinds off. And where's my incentive to work and take risks? You think the guys who started up Ford or Kraft Foods (or Microsoft for that matter) would have done it if they knew most of their profits would be stolen from them? And for what? The welfare state, LBJ's "Great Society", hasn't worked. All we have is generations of welfare recipients.

Look, I'm all for trying alternate models of goobermint, 'ray Castro 'n all that, but when people literally risk their lives to get away from the place, that's kind of a red flag to me. At least here, for all our failings, people die to GET here, not get away.

[can't sit still]

Well, Joel, you've certainly done some reading. The authors state that in general,,few people agree on the degree and effect of racism in Cuba. You can quote anything that you want. I went there.
One thing shines through though. You and many other people look at most issues through the lens of RACE.
I posted on politics and poverty. You immediatly threw the issue into the arena of RACE.
I've been to 45 countries. Some of them have 1 race. They still have rich and poor. They have people with more brains and incentive and they have people with less brains and incentive. Why do some people insist that the poor are in a disadvantaged position because of race? Why is the white man always the persecuter?
Idi Amin killed 2.3 million of the other tribe that had traditionally warred with his tribe. The Hutsus and the Tutsis recently slaughtered a half million people. You can't throw the white man into the role of antagonist in every situation of inequality.
I went to an all white high school. The only black guy in the school was the student body president. The only black girl was a failure.

You obviously haven't read "The Bell Curve" The authors prove very conclusively that intelligence is the main determining factor in success.
The foundations of their work are taken from hundreds of thousands of studies over 70? years. Nobody proves anything citing one example.

To me, race really isn't a factor in general life. If you ask why there aren't any black wrestlers when there are so many black boxers,,,, the answer is race. Same for swimmers and runners. It's the answer for sicle cell anemia.
But, in the main I don't use race to color any social situation that I run accross.
Intelligence and incentive are the main determining factors in success. Race is a MUCH smaller factor
The QUANTITATIVE effect of racism is laid out pretty clearly in "The Bell Curve"
Objectivity is a fundamental necessity in everything except Love.
I open my eyes and see the world. Dan

[joel the ornery]

You and many other people look at most issues through the lens of RACE.
I posted on politics and poverty.

you said

they have equality of poverty. There is "no" corruption.

i'll call your comments BULLSHIT...

#1. there is no equality in poverty, even in Cuba. the non-white Cubans have more opportunities.

#2. There is corruption if one race has less opportunity than others.

[Eric]

Communism WILL NEVER WORK on a scale larger than a few hundred or thousand individuals...EVER.

I propose a middle path with right-wing economic policy and left-wing social policy where social policy is considered significantly more important than economics.

Taxes and regulation balancing a [relatively] free-market economy. A welfare state and social safety net in existance while those who "rise above" economically are rewarded for their luck/efforts. Then, those lucky few, get the SHIT taxed out of them in return for their custom OCC choppers.

wow.
This could have come out of my own mouth.

I agree.

[Eric]

Taxes and regulation balancing a [relatively] free-market economy. A welfare state and social safety net in existance while those who "rise above" economically are rewarded for their luck/efforts. Then, those lucky few, get the SHIT taxed out of them in return for their custom OCC choppers.

Luck my ass, they worked their behinds off. And where's my incentive to work and take risks? You think the guys who started up Ford or Kraft Foods (or Microsoft for that matter) would have done it if they knew most of their profits would be stolen from them? And for what? The welfare state, LBJ's "Great Society", hasn't worked. All we have is generations of welfare recipients.

The top US tax rate from about 1935 until around 1981 was over 70%. From WW2 until the late 60's America had the greatest economic boom in history- with the top earners paying that rate. During that period CEO's made about 10 times as much as their lowest employee- now they make several hundred times as much, and put less of it back into "the system" through taxes. During most of that time it was also possible for a family with only one member working to earn enough to buy a home and raise kids. Our current taxation system make the poor pay for government so the rich can enjoy their wealth. Not good.

Sweden has incredibly high taxes- they also have great health care, great education system, responsive government....

I don't understand how paying taxes is "stealing" their profits. With no taxes you have no government- no police, no fire, no regulation. I don't think Microsoft could have started in Somolia.

Sort of rambling- sorry.

[can't sit still]

Eric, time for more discourse? The only problem is that I agree with you. I went to Communist Germany in 1984. The apathy was amazing,,especially compared to west Germany.
Karl Marx WISHED that it would work out according to his plan. You can never forget that you are dealing with people.
Plain and simply. If you remove incentive=you remove "performance"
There's no way around it,,,with people.
Business pulled out of California because of Workmens Comp taxes.
Many countries, like Ireland, structure their taxes to draw business.
You cannot overtax people to the point that it erases incentive.

Money does not make the world go around,,,,profit does. Another thing to keep in mind is that even if the rich don't pay high taxes,,they still circulate the money. They invest a part of it ,,and disposable income gets disposed. It circulates and goes into both our pockets.

Japan has a lot of capital but everybody just sits on it. I believe that their prime is still .25%. The gov tries to get the money circulating but they just squirrel it away.
Every time some fat-cat here buys an airplane or boat or mansion, part of the money goes in Joe Shmos pocket.
Money is like manure, you have to spread it around.
You need a happy medium between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand

If the rich get to keep their money, they spend it on goods and services.
If the gov takes the money and spends it, they spend it on making gov bigger. Defense, infrastructure, and social programs.
Goods, services, defense and infrastructure all go into the pockets of Capital, Business and Workers. Admin. takes a % of social programs.
Whats left over is what the "non-workers" get.

If you kill production with taxes, there's less to go around. If you let capitalism have free rein, there's more to go around, but less is directed to non-workers.
You have to strike a BALANCE.

We also have to abolish long term welfare. I spent time with the Eskimos. You were born on welfare and you're going to die on welfare. It's a trap that rots your soul.
Imagine if you woke up one morning and someone told you that you had to stay on your little piece of ground for the rest of your life. You're going to be supported on the dole....forever.
They've just ripped out the whole center of your life. You have no purpose and no direction. Your days and your life are aimless. You start drinking to silence that little voice in your head that tells you that you're USELESS. This is the very worst thing for a man. A woman can never respect a man who doesn't respect himself. Most people on welfare don't have the internal strength or role models to break out.
People who are poor still have self-respect. Men on welfare have money but crave purpose and respect. "he dissed me" is reason to kill.
Nothing is prefect and we'll always have social ills. We need to keep searching for a balance.
Dan[/u]

[Magikal]

During most of that time it was also possible for a family with only one member working to earn enough to buy a home and raise kids.

I grant you, it is true this is no longer really possible, and I don't have an easy solution for it.

Our current taxation system make the poor pay for government so the rich can enjoy their wealth. Not good.

That I don't buy. We do, as the cry went during the revolution, have "taxation with representation." If you don't make much, you don't pay much, and having kids is a deductable(sp?).

Sweden has incredibly high taxes- they also have great health care, great education system, responsive government....

And what have they produced? Right off hand, I can't name one product that comes from Sweden. Japan produces cameras, cars, computers. So do we. What does Sweden make? I can't help but think there may be a connection between crushing taxes, a universal mommy state, and not making much of your country. If I don't have any free capital, I can't exactly start an aircraft manufactuing plant.

I don't understand how paying taxes is "stealing" their profits. With no taxes you have no government- no police, no fire, no regulation. I don't think Microsoft could have started in Somolia.

Now you're taking it to a ridiculous extreme. I'm hardly an anarchist, and I recognize that some taxes are a necessary evil. I could have hardly set up my own DEW system to warn of incoming Russian nukes. And it is "stealing" because the money is being taken from me by force of arms, more than I would willingly give, and being spent on things I don't approve of. Like the crackhead holding a knife to your throat in an alley.

Sort of rambling- sorry.

No problemo. "Free association".

[can't sit still]

Eric, I seem to have missed a point that I'm not sure what you meant.


"Agree with the marriage bit- strongly disagree with the equalization of "big capital" to fascism. "
Mussolini said that the marriage of the two was Fascism. I wasn't trying to say fascism was the same as big capital.
Subsistence living sucks. When you have capital, you can build dams and irrigation and other constructs to allow a civilization to flourish.
Capital can be a pile of gold bullion or it can be a crude hut full of smoked fish. It frees man from a hand-to-mouth existence. It allows man to turn his energies to the things that separate us from the rest of the animals.
Dan

[Magikal]

I went to Communist Germany in 1984. The apathy was amazing

Plain and simply. If you remove incentive=you remove "performance"

You need a happy medium between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand

We also have to abolish long term welfare. I spent time with the Eskimos. You were born on welfare and you're going to die on welfare. It's a trap that rots your soul.

Men on welfare have money but crave purpose and respect. "he dissed me" is reason to kill.

Brilliantly stated, all. I could not have said it better myself.

[lurker]

can't sit still, Magikal said something, and it's always been a question, or point, that gets glossed over.

People risk their lives--many die--trying to escape the marxism-based governments that have been attempted. ALL of them. And escape is the proper word--not a single one of them has had free emigration. In cases where something happened, and the borders opened, people fled en masse.

Why should any marxism-derived system be looked at as anything but an objevt lesson in how NOT to govern?

[Eric]

Eric, time for more discourse? The only problem is that I agree with you. (snipping the rest as it's above this in the thread)

Agree with almost all of your thoughts in this.

However- I still firmly believe that our top tax bracket should go way up. We have the lowest tax burden of all the developed countries, but too large a portion falls on those who can least afford it (and who can't afford tax attorneys and squirling money offshore)

[Eric]

And what have they produced? Right off hand, I can't name one product that comes from Sweden. Japan produces cameras, cars, computers. So do we. What does Sweden make?

Mostly small regional stuff you seem to have never heard of: SAAB, Volvo, Ericsson, IKEA, Electrolux, Absolut vodka (a personal favorite)......... *grin*

Love me my Swedes.

[can't sit still]

[quote="lurker"]can't sit still, Magikal said something, and it's always been a question, or point, that gets glossed over.

People risk their lives--many die--trying to escape the marxism-based governments that have been attempted.

Why should any marxism-derived system be looked at as anything but an object lesson in how NOT to govern?[/quote]

Lurker, that's a damn good question. It's eminently debateable. So,I'll cop out and ask a question.
Do these people risk all for economic improvement?
Do these people risk all for political freedom?
I met many Cubans who travel AND return. They've got it comfy and they aren't in any hurry to decamp.The poor often have little to lose and so they take risks. I haven't heard of any rich people out there on a rubber tube in the Florida Straits. They do pay fishermen to transport the rich.

20% of all Cubans sign up every year for the visae that are reserved for Cubans who don't otherwise qualify for a visa.
It would be interesting if you could do a poll and find out what their motivation is. Some people actually don't care about freedom. It's not uncommon to hear of prisoners who don't want to be released from prison when their time is up.
America was populated by immigrants who wanted freedom and economic betterment. I think you end up with some percentage who want freedom and some percentage who want economic betterment. I don't know the numbers.
If you look at the people who cross the deserts of Arizona to enter the US,,the answer is economic. Mexico isn't oppressive. These people tend to be poor AND motivated.
I think that the motivations for escape vary. In general,they want a better way of life.
Saudi-arabia is authoritarian and rich.
Cuba is authoritarian and poor.

Marxism negates incentive----won't work on this planet.

The US desperately wants illegal immigration to depress the wages here and keep us globaly competitive. If they had papers,,,they wouldn't work for low wages.
The Dems can count on their votes and the Rep can count on their strong backs. We only make it hard to enter so that we only get the ones with motivation. We have enough unmotivated people here already.

The US is scared shitless of low pop growth like Italy and Japan. ALL strategies of Gov are predicated on growth. Illegal latino immigration is a win-win situation for the US gov. They get the attendant high birth rate of the latinas along with a workforce that doesn't complain like us whiteys. And of course,,a low wage workforce.

The Latinos generally have a great work-ethic and don't do drugs like the whiteys. My friends only hire Latinos because they have interminable problems with gringos.
Immigration control has always been a filter to get the best.

If this post doesn't stir things up, I'll have to go a bit deeper into my unlimited ability to get people wound up.
Dan