Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Undertoad]

The world-wide debate on Communism is over and the Communists lost.

Sure, they killed around 100,000,000 people, and that's kind of bad.

Worse than that, they encouraged the notion that central planning is a productive way to manage an economy. In doing so they guaranteed that the work and lives of 2,000,000,000 people would be less productive.

It's unlikely that all nations of the world could be as productive as the US, which is a pretty productive culture. But look at what the last fifty years have done for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. Imagine what the world would be like today if the people of China and India saw a similar increase in productivity. Imagine if their ideas, their energy, their work was put into a productive system and not just wasted.

Yes, we'd have a lot more problems... but we'd also have a lot more solutions, a lot less hunger, a lot more medicine, a lot more culture, a lot more education, a lot less desperation.

About 20 years ago the Chinese leaders took notice that their economy had fallen so far behind the West that something had to be basically wrong with their approach, and since then they have introduced capitalistic reforms and the result is a booming China like nobody can believe.

And to make claims for Cuba today is to ignore the vital Cuba that was before Castro came along. The Cuba that wound up supported by the former USSR for decades, and the hundreds of thousands of people who survived being infants in the system long enough to desperately want to escape as adults.

[Happy Monkey]

Communism works in a commune, and it might work in a Star-Trek-like future where energy and production are all but free. On a large scale, with limited resources, it is not self-sustaining, and requires an increasingly autocratic central authority, which destroys the point of communism in the first place.

Originally Posted by Ibram

*snort* You think UG has any sway on me? I support the basic theory of communism, but I agree with both skunks and you, that it is the IMPLEMENTATION that is its downfall, and that, because it is always implemented horribly wrong, ENDS UP being the most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. Its core ideal isn't to kill people, it's to help. But Karl Marx himself said that it could never happen in this world unless every nation decided to implement it together (and, obviously, correctly), because... well, we've seen the outcome.

Just some food for thought: Cuba has a higher literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the US, but is dirt poor because of the US, mostly. Not that I'm defending Castro, he's about as evil as Mao or Pol Pot.

I love it when people say Cuba is poor because of the US. How many other nations could and do trade with Cuba? Well, not Cuba do they? Because you don't trade with anyone but Castro and his corrupt cronies do you?
That is why Cuba is poor and why no one wants to have anything to do with them.
The US is only one nation.
Castro stole land that US companies legitimately paid for, we don't want to do business with him, it is a no-brainer.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

How many other nations could and do trade with Cuba? Well, not Cuba do they? Because you don't trade with anyone but Castro and his corrupt cronies do you?

Not exactly. Canada and Mexico (among others) trade with Cuba. It depends what is traded. If trading food, Castro (and his cronies) have little influence on that trade other than to permit it.

You work in a factory. Is that factory free market or communist? Well you break a drill bit. If a communist operation, then you must get a boss (and maybe his boss) to approve a new drill bit. Communism. In a free market operation, you make the decision to buy and order a new drill bit. The company automatically pays without question because you are now responsible.

That is the difference between a communist and non-communist operation. And yes, in onecustom design firm, any part that costs more than $5 (their costs) meant two managers must approve the request. A 2732 Eprom (that was obsolete technology) was still listed at more than $5. Since this was a communist operation, then almost one half hour was required to get appropriate signatures. So I demanded 3 - only needed one; just in case. Communism or cost control management - no difference. Both stifle innovation and productivity for same reasons.

& we should extend the embargo to those companies & their products from Mexico and Canada that purchased the stolen land and property that is rightfully owned by US companies.

If they are having such success trading without the US they have nothing to complain about.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Rich is not totally without intellect or learning -- but what he does with them gives me the same reaction, to a milder degree, that I had on listening to Mario Cuomo's long-defunct radio talk show: How does someone of that obvious intelligence stay so wrong?

I seem to recall encountering a "RichLevy" in AOL Chat back when I haunted those chatrooms. I wasn't impressed then, either.

Summing up, the man's not clinically insane, and he doesn't seem grossly immature like tw, but I'm not seeing deep wisdom there either. Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.

Gee, thanks. BTW, my AOL chat is not RichLevy and I never really used the ID I did have. I am also sure that whoever this RichLevy in AOL was, he probably formed an equally interesting opinion of you.

I think the major difference in us is that as a liberal, I actually try to see your point. I make a concious effort to do so. In fact, sometimes the feeling I get trying to follow your logic is a lot like the one I get when I really have to take a crap and spend the first minute passing a huge log. It's uncomfortable as heck, but I know that the effort is important and that getting past it will allow me to get on with other things.

Still, as a liberal I have to consider your opinion, so I do. As a conservative, you have the advantage of being able to be true to your principles by deliberately not considering any other point of view.

BTW, I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, anymore than I am anti-car by agreeing that people should have drivers licenses before commanding the ability to cause a catastrophe.

As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. She has seen me in person enough times to probably make a clinical observation. Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaintence in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.

Maybe you should meet her. Just make sure she has time to pack the long sleeves 'just in case'.

[tw]

From ABC News of 1 Jun 2006:

DOJ Officials Will Testify Says Judge
In a new twist, a federal judge in Washington today ordered that senior DOJ officials, including Associate AG Robert McCallum, be deposed in a lawsuit seeking information about why the department drastically reduced the amount of damages it was seeking in a suit against the big tobacco companies.

Last June, following a lengthy trial, DOJ officials announced they were cutting the amount of damages they were seeking from tobacco companies, from $130 billion to $14 billion.

That decision prompted the lead attorney in the government's case, Sharon Eubanks, to quit saying that Bush political appointees undercut the government's case against big tobacco.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

SNIP~As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. She has seen me in person enough times to probably make a clinical observation. Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaintence in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.

Be honest, Rich....you don't live in her jurisdiction.

[tw]

When did the US decide an attack on Iran was not possible? The Economist suggest that German Chancellor Angela Merkel may have finally persuaded George Jr to stop his attacks on Iran; to actually solve the problem without military conflict. This may have averted (or delayed) an American 'Pearl Harboring' of Iran. Interesting insight from the Washington Post of 4 Jun 2006:

Rice Key to Reversal on Iran
At the end of March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Europe and had unusual, one-on-one conversations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. She also attended a meeting in Berlin on Iran at which the Russian and Chinese representatives denounced the idea of sanctions to halt Tehran's drive toward a nuclear weapon.

Rice returned to Washington with a sobering message: The international effort to derail Iran's programs was falling apart. Her conclusion spurred a secret discussion among Rice, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley: Should the United States finally agree to join the Europeans at the negotiations with Iran?

Some are still asking if this new policy is simply an attempt to win back momentum by requiring Iran to meet unilateral preconditions before any talks can occur. Did the Washington Post get it right or is the Washington Post being uses as part of a new anti-Iran campaign?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by tw

When did the US decide an attack on Iran was not possible? The Economist suggest that German Chancellor Angela Merkel may have finally persuaded George Jr to stop his attacks on Iran;

I think what persuaded him was the idea that to support a war in 3 countries would mean reinstating the draft, which would have finally brought the cost of war home to the American people.

It's easier to be an armchair patriot when your kids are safe at home.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Okay, Ibram, I see you and I are going to be at loggerheads for a bit. Thought it might be coming.

The "basic theory of communism" is not supportable because it does not mesh with human nature. To mesh with human nature, you must harness the profit, or self-interest, motive. The basic theory is so systemically flawed that no implementation by any human agency can make it work beyond the farm kibbutz scale, and I have my doubts about even any agriculture so lightly collectivized as a kibbutz.

And since when is being anti the indecent itself indecent??? Is it not better to understand evil and to not merely oppose it but to prevail over it, in pursuit of its annihilation? Think, youngster, think! I've lived inside a totalitarian social order and I've seen communism. No one with experience of these has anything nice to say about Marx's prescription for genocide, waste, poverty, and ideologically driven idiocy. Exposure to these is what makes me a libertarian. Communism is a horror and nothing but. It can bait the naive in, and often as not directly slays them too, in service of the nightmare. Unlike you, I l never took that bait at any point in my life, and never will. It's not too late for you to reject it also.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Okay, to exhaust this part of the topic:

Originally Posted by richlevy

Gee, thanks. BTW, my AOL chat is not RichLevy and I never really used the ID I did have. I am also sure that whoever this RichLevy in AOL was. . .

I suppose the coincidence would simply have been too much.

Still, as a liberal I have to consider your opinion, so I do. As a conservative, you have the advantage of being able to be true to your principles by deliberately not considering any other point of view.

This is not well thought out. What is here instead is an expression of prejudice -- your unjustified belief that conservatives must somehow never be intellectuals. Commentary, The World Jewish Review, and National Review all demonstrate just how unjustified that view is, monthly or quarterly.

Now there is the situation that in this forum what is written and read is the end product of years if not lifetimes of thought, and not the process or the development; you don't see any of the points at which a given idea was weighed and then accepted or rejected. This produces spaces between positions and philosophies, and some careless accusations of closedmindedness get thrown around, sometimes rightly, sometimes not.

BTW, I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, anymore than I am anti-car by agreeing that people should have drivers licenses before commanding the ability to cause a catastrophe.

Tolerable, but less strongly anticrime or antigenocide than my approach to it.

As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. . . Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaint[a]nce in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.

Well, yeah, you have -- I can tell as much by reading your posts, you know. I really don't think I'd have to check with Wolf. Wolf likes me, btw.

Maybe you should meet her. Just make sure she has time to pack the long sleeves 'just in case'.

Hee hee hee -- I'm a good sport. :p

WOLF likes YOU? I know Wolf is a right winger, but give me a break! So are you two going steady?

UG, its not worth my time to answer your hysterical posts with well thought out replies. The last time I did that, you ran and cowered in the woodwork for weeks until the thread was long cold. Big waste of time.

Congrats on your engagement with Wolf, the poor girl.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Nah, we're both married, to other people. :p IIRC.

Now Mari, since when do I give you a break? C'mon. Out here where everybody can see, anyway. (PM's are a different story; as soon as I write it, I'm going to shoot you a short essay I've been crystallizing in my fevered RW-Lib brain. )

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by marichiko

UG, its not worth my time to answer your hysterical posts with well thought out replies. The last time I did that, you ran and cowered in the woodwork for weeks until the thread was long cold. Big waste of time.

Speaking of, are you planning on stopping by this thread anytime soon, UG? I believe you owe someone an apology. Or at least a blustering, handwaving dismissal.