A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
===================
Liberty is good for us, and the freedom to choose Coke is an excellent
exercise of that liberty.
======================

We could have a more meaningful discussion of "liberty" if we are able
to define what limits, if any, there are on liberty.

There are limits, of course, but in general unless some individual's actions
actually harm, or imminently threaten to harm another person, they ought to
be at liberty to do as they please.

And exactly "who"
has this liberty?

Everyone.


For example, is a woman at liberty to choose what happens to her body?

Certainly. The question is, however, is a baby inside her body part of "her
body," and if so, when does the child become a distinct and separate
"person" imbued with rights?

Am I at liberty to hold loud parties which distrub my neighbors' sleep?

Maybe. Does your neighbor sleep during the day? Is your neighbor
particularly suceptible to noise? Does he make efforts to mask or reduce the
noise so that you may reasonably enjoy your property?

Am I at liberty to operate a car repair service in an otherwise
residential neighborhood?

Why not? If it doesn't cause some direct harm to your neighbors, and they
don't object, why should the government interfere?


Can we really say, as a blanket statement, with no caveats, that,
"Liberty is good for us...."

Liberty is good for us. I did not mean to suggest that liberty must not be
ordered or that unfettered liberty that is harmful to others is permissible.

Perhaps the best maxim I can give is "Your right to swing your fist ends at
my nose."

But, liberty is ALWAYS preferable to tyranny and oppression, without
exception.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive
government funding?

That does not make them socialistic endeavours. In socialism, the government
would not "prop up" defense industries, it would simply take them by force
and force the workers to produce the products without compensating them.

The US government is merely a consumer of products, albeit a very rich one.
Moreover, the "government" is really we, the people. Thus, defense
industries are but one more producer of consumer products that customers pay
to acquire. The government is merely our agent for the acquisition and
disposition of those products.


Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

That fact is what destroys your thesis. In socialism, a "firm" cannot "go
under" because it doesn't exist as an independent business entity. Thus,
communist/socialist governments maintain a monopoly on defense construction
and they don't have to pay either the owners (the proletariat) or the
workers if they don't want to.



And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns?

Understanding that agricultural production capacity is a strategic resource,
that's where.

This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

So? Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic. It's
merely the people of the US, through their duly elected representatives,
choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production capacity.


Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Because welfare queens don't produce anything, agriculture does.


Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser says:
================
Except that Saddam did have a lot in common with Osama. The most
important
thing they have in common is Islam
==================

Saddam's regime was a secular regime. Precisely the sort of government
Osama despised.

frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++

One comment only required: you clearly cannot concieve of an electoral
system or a form of government that is both different and better than
yours.

You belittle the German model. Likely you should study history before
you are so quick to dismiss alternate systems. As you likely don't know
(judging from your response), the German model was essentially based on
the American model. Under the tutelage of Americans occupying Germany,
post-WW2, a governmental system was devised. The resulting system took
the best parts of your American system and improved on it.

I know. That may be difficult for you to comprehend. Yes, some things
are better than whatever exists in the USA.

frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++++++++

SW says:
=================
But, liberty is ALWAYS preferable to tyranny and oppression, without
exception.
=================

There we agree.

frtzw906

SW says:
=================
But, liberty is ALWAYS preferable to tyranny and oppression, without
exception.
=================

There we agree.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
=============
I would still like specifics that affect the global position
================

Look, your initial question was not about "global positions". You
simply asked how or where global public opinion differed from
Republican doctrine. I gave you examples. Now you tell me that's not
ood enough. Well, why don't you clarify what you want to discuss to
begin with.

As to your election and polls. Of course it was YOUR election to
decide. And, as you'll recall, that was my starting point in this
thread. I simply pointed out that the "rest of the western" world would
have elected Kerry and the Democrats. I don't need you to point out
that our opinion carries no weight in the USA. That's a fact but,
more's the pity IMHO. As to whether Kerry was a good candidate or not:
that's irrelevant. In the eyes of the "rest of the western world" (and
surely also in the eyes of Soros), Kerry, for all his deficiencies, was
preferable to Bush. We don't need to argue this as there are plenty of
polls which attest to this fact.

If you doubt the polls, try listening to media from around the world.
Try BBC. Try Deutsche Welle. Try Radio Nederland. Try CBC. Listen not
just to the commentators, but listen to the voices of the people (BBC
has call-in talk radio). The disdain for your president is palpable.

Who cares what a bunch of lefty liberal twits think? Not me.


OK. you want one specific. The mood in Canada wrt to drug
legalization/decriminalization is light years (editorial opinion on my
part) ahead of the USA and fairly close to attitudes in much of Europe.
Whenever Canadian politicians make noises about enacting more
progressive legislation, Canada needs to listen to "warnings" from the
US ambassador about how such policies might have dire consequences for
Canada-US trade. You ask me, " How are they your concern." I'll turn
that around on you: How or why is Canadian drug policy a concern to the
USA.?

Because it threatens to cross our border, that's how.

If Canada wants to legalize heroin poppy production, that heroin is likely
to find its way to the US. We have every right to use our economic and
political influence to prevent that.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
=========
I thought I just heard the Saudis had an election.
=============

Please acquaint yourself with the nature of that "election". Did they
have universal suffrage? Will the elected official have any "power?"

That was NOT an election as we know it.

It's a start. A good start, in fact.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
=============
Still, people are clamoring to get here
and buy our products.
==================

On a per capita basis, there are several countries that have more
people "clamoring" to get in.

Fine by me. Let them take all the immigrants. In all probability, however,
they are clamoring to get in there because they can't get in here.

As to buying your products: I can only ask, "have you been in a Wal
Mart recently?" It looks like the world is clamoring to buy Chinese
products.

Yup. Including, interestingly, the Chinese...
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
=======================
If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso
facto,
free
==============

OK. ROTFL

What a load of crap! This sort of nonsense is not worthy of a rational
reply.


Sorry, but it's true. If the citizenry does not have the capacity to
overthrown its own government, then the citizenry exercises its liberties at
the whims and caprices of its government.

History proves this to be true.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser