RAH wrote...
I'd like to hear how children who werent old enough to pronounce the
colour were 'reds' who were rightly tortured (apparently) in your
view, as well as the many women raped and tortured at the hands of
SOA graduates.
Funny how liberals always do the debits and not the credits in
these grotesque calculations. Shall we count the
several-orders-of-magnitude number of starved (*and* butchered)
children in various Marxist paradises around the world, too? I
thought not. It wouldn't be fair.
Holy shit, Hettinga. Most of the time you make some sense. This ain't one of
'em. So, in other words, if Salvador Allende is democractically elected in a
foreign country, then it's OK for the US to send agents and train torturers
and then assasinate their leader? This is a complete nonsequitur logically.
The fact that The Marxists would have killed even more is irrelevant. As
someone who seems to espouse a more or less deterministic viewpoint vis
economics and crypto-anarchy, you yourself should support a notion of
letting them figure things out on their own.
More than this, this is the exact thinking that has caused us all sorts of
problem. The best (and most obvious) examples are Vietnam and China. Both of
these countries repeatedly kicked our ass in several theaters and then went
through a brief socliaist period. In both cases, socialism is practically
gone. Had we instead been smart with Mao and China (who we sent the moron
Ambassador Hurley to meet) and Ho Chi Min (who was actually our ally against
the Japanese), might the excesses of, say, the cutlural revolution been
nearly as bad? Would Mao have felt it necessary to try to move the
industrial base to the countryside where things would be much less easily
A-Bombed (As MacArthur recommended)? Obviously not. There probably would
have been a cultural revolution/cleansing of some sort anyway, but this has
always happened periodically in China, and Fa Lun Gong is merely another
example.
In the end, China ended up being a major capitalist country, and our
involvement against the Chicoms only slowed this process down. We're making
a similar mistake in Iraq, and we New Yorkers will probably pay for it again
(if Tyler Durden stops posting after WTC#2 comes tumbling down, you'll know
what happened. I'll try to post one more time from under the rubble if I can
sniff a WiFi hotspot.)
-TD
From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [irtheory] War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:45:37 -0400
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ah. Here we go. A liberal hides behind the straw man, this time in
the shape of a child. How original.
At 3:37 PM +0100 6/13/04, Lee James wrote:
I'd like to hear how children who werent old enough to pronounce the
colour were 'reds' who were rightly tortured (apparently) in your
view, as well as the many women raped and tortured at the hands of
SOA graduates.
Funny how liberals always do the debits and not the credits in
these grotesque calculations. Shall we count the
several-orders-of-magnitude number of starved (*and* butchered)
children in various Marxist paradises around the world, too? I
thought not. It wouldn't be fair.
I'd also be keen to see evidence of this free-market success of
which you talk, because it isn't in central america for the
countless millions in poverty.
Freedom, market or otherwise, isn't about the fool's errand of forced
income redistribution, which is, invariably, what actually causes
famine and tragedy. See children, above. (Not that for the
children, above, isn't the liberal canard it has always been.)
Freedom, market, and otherwise, is about *choice*. The choice to work
hard and make money and do better than you started. Progress, more
stuff cheaper now than it used to be, more stuff cheaper tomorrow
than it is now, is the result. What you do with that stuff, is your
problem. More to the point, it is the very maldistribution of that
stuff that makes *progress* happen.
Marxists have this problem with counting stuff. They deal in lumps of
labor, or missing jobs, or labor theories of value, and it all
speaks to a basic innumeracy that does them ill in a world where
actual math and science are required to achieve things.
Before, a person encourages free-markets elsewhere, how about
encouraging them in the United States in order to really test the
theory and give these nations a chance of economic development. The
three most successful industries in the united states (steel,
agriculture and
techonology/military)
Straw man. You're comparing markets and economies that are, for the
most part, free, and pulling out subsidies which are, by definition,
exceptional, and then comparing them to economies in which private
property is, for the most part, criminalized, and saying that the
former is worse.
Give me a break.
Sure. I wish that government didn't control huge tracts of the
economy in the US, making them,
