It seems Joe Biden will be hedging his bets 
in the upcoming election. Biden will continue to run for US Senate while simultaneously running for Vice President. In the even that Obama/Biden wins the election, Biden will be sworn-in (Biden is a shoo-in to win the Senate race in Delaware) and then resign so that a replacement can be appointed. The Governor is also up for election in Delaware, so if a Republican wins, expect the current Democratic governor to make the appointment as one of her last acts in office.
North Korea is a bit upset about the US's refusal to remove the totalitarian state from its list of terrorism sponsors. The Foreign Ministry says that the work on the Yongbyon nuclear complex has been restarted in light of this refusal; they claim that the delisting was part of the previously negotiated agreement.
In continuing Ohio ballot access news, the Ohio Green Party has filed suit 
to be a ballot-qualified party in the upcoming election. The Libertarian and Socialist parties have already "qualified" in this fashion.
Comments :
Texas students pack bookbags; teachers pack heat
"Along with normal first-day jitters and excitement, students in this tiny district started school Monday wondering which teachers might be toting firearms...Several parents said they had no idea that employees of the K-12 school were allowed to carry concealed guns on campus until recent publicity about the school board's policy, approved quietly last fall. They said they were upset that the rural community near the Oklahoma border had not been able to give input."
Ya know...if people are worried about people bringing weapons into schools, I'd really prefer metal detectors & guards at the doors just like we have in Federal buildings. I support people having concealed weapons permits but I don't think teaching in a school is a valid reason for one.
Here's a case where one side has successfully whipped up panic. How often do school attacks happen? Rarely. Supporters would say even one is too many and arming the populace will deter that. Me, I say your wanting to go back to the days of the wild west is not appropriate civilized behavior. I want civilization to go forward, not fall back to the lowest common denominator.
Meh
The only thing I find a bit below board (heh) was that the school board didn't publicize this and get input from the parents.
I don't mind anyone carrying a weapon in a school provided they are trained in the safety and proper use of the weapon.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I have a problem with anyone
who wants to put firearms in direct proximity to my children. In fact that's a very good way to provoke a most uncivilized and brutal parental instinct in me.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Contact your local school board
Let them know you don't like it.
If they go ahead and do it anyway, be sure to let them know you'll either be working to remove them from office or will be homeschooling your child or changing schools.
Is there some sort of constitutional prohibition on firearms in schools? I highly doubt it, so you're going to have to live with it if your local school decides to implement such a policy.
Can you tell I don't have kids? I do have a ferret, though, of whom I'm very protective.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Suspected Hindu hard-liners set fire Monday to an orphanage run
by Christian missionaries in eastern India, killing one woman and seriously injuring a priest, police said.
Throw another log on the fire. Move over Islam, now you have Hindu's to keep you company.
While I think giving minority religions the same rights as majority religions would enable everyone to practice freely, all too many people out there only want freedom for their own views and won't give others the same capability. We aren't that far removed though. Christians are doing that here in the US. They are still bombing the occasional Planned Parenthood and threatening & restricting the staffs & doctors all in the name of their religious convictions.
Same thing in my mind.
hindufascism? -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
John McCain must explain his ties to felon Jim Hensley
As conservative bloggers and mainstream media sources work overtime to try and force Barack Obama to explain his relationship with former Weatherman Bill Ayers, John McCain still has questions to answer about his own relationship with a criminal. The criminal in question is McCain's father-in-law, the late Jim Hensley. At the time of his death in 2000, Hensley was one of the richest men in Arizona and owner of one of the largest Anheuser-Bush Distributorships in the nation:
"Jim Hensley vs. Bill Ayers
Felony Convictions: Hensley 1, Ayers 0.
Comment: In 1948, Hensley was given a six-month suspended sentence for falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations. Ayers has never been convicted of a felony.
Connections with Organized Crime: Hensley 2. Ayers 0.
Comment: Hensley and his brother were the owners of Ruidoso Downs racetrack, along with "silent partner" Clarence "Teak" Baldwin who had been banned from any ownership role due to illegal bookmaking activities. Long-time business associate Kemper Marley, Sr. was also connected with organized crime.
Illegally Acquired Liquor Licenses: Hensley 1, Ayers 0.
Comments: Hensley acquired a liquor license in Arizona despite the fact that he was not allowed to have one due to being a felon.
Divorces: Hensley 1, Ayers 0.
Comments: Like his son-in-law, Hensley divorced his first wife after having an affair and remarrying. Ayers has been married to Bernardine Dohrn for nearly 40 years.
Abandoned Children: Hensley 1, Ayers -1
Comments: Hensley abandoned his first child, Kathleen Portalski. Ayers and Dohrn raised two of their own children and adopted a third.
As anyone can see from the plain facts, Jim Hensley was far more dangerous man than Ayers has ever been, and profited wildly from his illicit activities. It is time for John McCain to stand up and explain his ties with the felon Jim Hensley."
What you left out
"Killings Connected With: Hensley 21,000, Ayers 4.
Comment: While neither Hensley nor Ayers have personally murdered anyone, both were heavily involved with organizations that caused the deaths of others. For Ayers, that organization was the Weatherman. For Hensley that organization was Anheuser-Busch. In 2007, Arizona reported more than 700 alcohol-related deaths. Conservatively putting the average number of alcohol-related deaths in Arizona at 400, Hensley has been responsible for the deaths of more than 20,000 Arizonans. And while Budweiser cannot be blamed for each death, it is clearly a gateway drug to harder types of alcohol, thus culpability is Hensley's."
By this logic we should bring back prohibition ( actually I wouldn't be against that good luck getting Americans behind you on that one. I am pretty sure most Americans don't equate beer manufacturers with terrorist organization. Oh and good luck getting people to care about what illegal activities McCain's father - in - law was doing 60 years ago.
The way I see it
Neither Jim Hensley or Bill Ayers are running for office.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
See, this is just the kind of....
....nonsense I get so jacked up about with you liberals?
A guy illegally having a liquor license is somehow as awful as a guy setting bombs in government buildings? Hmmm?
The one thing you were right about is Ayers should have been executed or sat his a** in a 4x6' cell for the last 30 years for killing inicent police officers who just got up and went to work that day, and punk a** bit*h killed them!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Of course
at the time said government was intent on murdering millions in south america and south east asia. There are circumstances under which I suspect you support insurrection, the only issue is you think the atrocities of the 60s don't merit. Ayers apparently disagreed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Tlaloc, even if one disagrees with...
...the war in Vietnam, I do not believe blowing up government buildings with innocent people inside was right.
It is appalling to hear that you apparently do?
And yes, he was responsible for the deaths of several police officers he didn't even know, he should have been put away for life at a minimum.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Are you going to argue
that there is never cause to rise up against one's government?
I'm guessing that's not a place you want to go since it brands all our founding fathers as nothing but terrorists deserving death sentences.
That being the case all we are doing is haggling over what crimes by a government are bad enough to warrant violence. Why is it lowering the tarriff on tea justifies killing when burning down a vietnamese village (or fifty) doesn't?
The US government did much worse in the 60s than the brits even imagined doing to their colonies in america. (Now granted if the brits had had the ability to carpet bomb and poison large swaths of land with "defoliants" it's quite possible they would have)
Personally I generally oppose violent resistance on utility grounds- usually it doesn't work, or doesn't work better than other methods. I don't have any moral qualms with it though.
And if you're honest neither do you, so long as you don't like the ones being opposed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ayers didn't exhaust his non-violent options
The problem here is that Ayers's targets were not the government institutions responsible for Vietnam. Neither did he exhaust all other options before violently rebelling.
I'm glad he was able to do something productive with his life. His recent work in the field of education has certainly helped numerous people.
On the whole you do have a point. I always found it a bit odd that we're supposed to alter or abolish the government when it no longer meets our needs yet doing so is treason. I suppose the difference between a terrorist and a patriot is popular opinion.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Success rate
the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is success rate.
I don't really disagree about Ayers. My point is less to defend his specific actions rather than to challenge the concept that resistance to government is automatically invalid.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Maintaining the capability to resist government
should government turn tyrannical is part of the way the pro-gun movement and NRA justify their desire to keep and bear arms, isn't it? Or is that just fringe militia groups?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I ascribe to the penis envy theory
of gun ownership.
Have I pissed off enough people yet? :P
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh! ;-) ...there is that element... LOL! n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
There's different types of violent resistance
I would distinguish between violent resistance specifically aimed at infrastructure or military targets, and terrorism aimed at innocent civilians.
I agree for both types that "usually it doesn't work, or doesn't work better than other methods" but from a a practical perspective I think targeting infrastructure or military targets is more likely to be effective and from a moral perspective targeting civilians is significantly more wrong.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Can you link me
to an article demonstrating that Ayers was in fact responsible for the deaths of several police officers? I wonder if maybe you're not thinking of someone else... Wikipedia
states that nobody outside the group was even harmed in any bombs set by the Weathermen:
The NYT
story on Ayers is informative.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan...
I believe this is from Chicago Magazine, and it accompanied an article in which Ayers was peddling his terrorist memoir, Fugitive Days.
At the time this photograph was taken, Obama and Ayers were serving together on the board of the Woods Fund. It was in 2001 when Ayers donated $200 to Obama's State Senate campaign fund.
"Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country" is one of the Ayers quotes in the top clipping.
I linked one source below, he blew up buildings, was responsible for the death of a policemen in San Francisco, his pals were killed building bombs for him, they killed another officer in upstate NY along with two brinks guards and another individual. Look the whole thing was insanity on his part, regardless of what the circumstances in the world.
If you want more let me know, I can't put pictures and links in the same post for some reason?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
This is what gives liberals a bad name
The idea that we should have fought against America in Vietnam brings to mind one word - outrageous.
Are there any circumstances
under which you think violent resistance against one's government is justified?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes when Human rights are clearly being violated in a
black and white manner. When it comes to a Constitutional Demcracy fighting a Communist dictatorship I'm not going to take the side of the Commnuist dictatorship.
Even when
the constitutional democracy is entering itself into an internal matter of another country and doing so in order to go against the wishes of the majority of that country?
Furthermore when the Constitutional democracy bases it's involvement upon an alleged attack by the communists that was actually faked in order to frame said communists, does that give you any pause?
Lastly, when said democracy proceeds to wage war with the heavy use of chemical weapons and carpet bombing of civilians does that at all change who you root for?
It is really pretty hard to think of a war that was more evil in its beginning, middle, or end than our war upon the people of Vietnam, unless one wishes to cause a Goodwin violation.
You should disabuse yourself of the notion that democracy means "good" or even that autocracy means "evil." Democracies can be very very evil things when the leaders have no compunctions about lying to the people, manipulating their baser natures, and when the people by and large let them. The single high point of Vietnam is that the people in large part stopped letting them and stood up to the government in a variety of ways.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why, what is your motivation?
Why work so hard, stretch so far , and waste so many keystrokes defending a bad person who did incredulous things to innocent people?
Pick and choose your battles a little better baby!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I'm indifferent to Ayers
As before, I'm much more interested in the bigger issues (justified violent resistance to tyranny, the capacity of democracies to be just as bad as the worst autocracies, notion of justified wars) than I am in a particular person.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
justified violent resistance to tyranny, ok...
...but the capacity of democracies to be just as bad as the worst autocracies?
Why are you interested in that?
Sure, some people in our democracy object to the Iraq war, not as many as you think because the anti war people are so vocal, but you will see that in November. So that is ok, the war is protested, we'll have an election and settle it. But how do you compare that to a Stalin for instance, where your Uncle disappears in the middle of the night.
Come on...?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Ask Padilla
American citizen grabbed on american soil taken to extrajurisdictional prison to be held without legal rights and quite likely subjected to torture.
Frankly that sounds a hell of a lot like Stalin era USSR. But it wasn't. It was us, the supposedly good guys.
So to answer your question- the potential evil of democracy is an important issue, in my estimation, because democracy has an etirely undeserved reputation of being inherently good. It simply isn't. Nor is it inherently bad.
All it is is a way to make decisions. In some cases it can be the best method. In other cases it isn't. In either case it is entirely possible for the decisions that are reached to be just evil.
So long as people recognize that they can be wary of it. If people aren't wary of it then there is an automatic presumption of innocence on the part of democratic governments which is very dangerous.
Personally I think democracy works pretty well for small group dynamics. It just doesn't scale up very well to the size of the modern US.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Are you F'ing kidding me?
What is your obsession with defending terrorists?
The guy was sentenced to 17 years in a supermax prison.
He's a scumbag who wanted to see you and me dead!
Any other example you care to proffer?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Terrorists, rapists, murders, thieves...
Human rights don't require character references. A lot, probably most of the people sent to the Soviet gulags also committed crimes. That doesn't excuse how they were treated.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Very well said. n/t
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
These are all Canadian people were arrested in Syria?
What does this have to do with the US?
As for Gitmo, many suspects were detained interrogated and released at the start of the war.....so?
Ooopps... replied to wrong post...meant to respond to post below.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Having trouble?
I've noticed you're having difficulty responding to the proper post in several different threads.
If there is something buggy about the site with your web browser, perhaps Ender can look into it. Do you use any odd hardware or software to access the site?
If you need help with anything just ask.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Thx, my wireless jumps in and out here...Maybe thats it?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
That's probably it
That very well may be. I don't know exactly how Drupal works in terms of tracking replies, but we may want to look into it.
Apparently there will be a site overhaul to update us to Drupal 6, so perhaps we'll check into it then.
In the meantime, be sure to use the preview button to make sure you're replying to the correct post. The post you are replying to will appear underneath the preview/post buttons after you make an initial preview.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Here are a few examples:
And yes, these are wikipedia links, but they all contain links to sources you might take a bit more seriously:
Abdullah Almalki
Maher Arar
Arwad al-Boushi
Ahmad Abou El-Maati
Muayyed Nureddin
Liban Hussein
Qayyum Jamal
Ahmad Mustafa Ghany
A note about these people: all of them were wrongly arrested, held in prison, and in some cases beaten into signing confessions later found to be false. And all were arrested due to joint operations between American and Canadian anti-terrorist units. The reason we know about these is because the Canadian government has admitted it was wrong, but the American government has not.
Now, take a look at the people released from Guantanamo that the Canadians aren't there to apologize for and provide transparent information about. It's a long list
. Some people on the list were transferred to other governments for prosecution in their own countries, and many were simply "released".
How in the world can that be justified, according to any understanding of the core values of American government? Snatch up people from other countries, hold them for years in prison with no recourse to the usual legal defenses, then release them years later when we realize they weren't a threat? That's insanity.
(incidentally, the Arar case just took an interesting turn
)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think what the government has done is wrong
am strongly opposed to it, and have argued vigorously against it. However, I also argue against the idea that America somehow just as bad as the USSR, or Hitler's Germany or Fidel Castro Cuba... In communist countries the whole country was turned into hell, much different than a handful of cases in the USA. Can what happens in the USA lead to what happened to the the aforementioned dictatorships? - yes. However, that doesn't mean we're anywhere near what those countries were. To compare America to these countries is like comparing a casual Marijuana user to a Cocaine dealer - one can lead to the other, but that doesn't mean we should consider them the same.
I think part of defending our freedom is to realize how great we have it. Stopping the erosion of civil rights should be an effort to perserve's America's greatness not an effort to turn us around from the depravity of States like the USSR. How can you preserve something if you don't recognize it? To not know the difference between the US and totalitarianism is to not recognize freedom.
I don't think you'll get a lot of disagreement
with those sentiments. Certainly not from me.
(As a side-note I would add that our policy towards Cuba has not helped liberalize that nation.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sure, not sure what we could do though
short of military action.
I'm with Flake (R) on this one --
lifting the embargo would help. More here
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I hold us to a higher standard
We should be a lot better than them. It says something about someone when they're essentially saying "but we're better than Cuba!".
By no means am I implying anyone here is saying that.
Certainly our country has a much better history than the Soviet Union, North Korea, or any other totalitarian country. The torture and other human rights abuses just stick out a lot more when it is us because we're supposed to be the leader of the free world. And again, to be completely sure no one gets the wrong idea, I'm not implying we are in any way comparable to them. Really, the fact that we're even having this conversation is a strike against us.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Nobody said Democracy was perfect
However, the idea that western democracies have just as much oppression as the USSR is as ridiculous as denying the holocuast.
"Just as much"
never said that. But I'm not of the opinion that you need to commit evil acts a million times in order for it to be wrong. It's wrong the very first time.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why waste your time difining...
....the gargantuan gap between the autocracies and a democracy, in particular, because you use it as your basis, the US?
It amounts to little more than a way of nit picking the greatest, most preeminent form of governance on earth to date!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I object!
I never ever criticized Sweden and I resent any implication that I did!
:)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Communism is evil,
fighting it was not evil. I think evil is always committed on both sides during a war - that's the tragedy of war. That doesn't mean both sides are equal though. The idea that communism can be just as good as American democracy is like I said something that gives liberals a bad name.
Spot on... ;-) n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Not sure that's what he's saying
The idea that communism can be just as good as American democracy
I think it's more the idea that even American democracy has proven itself capable of carrying out some pretty misguided or downright awful things.
One could of course argue, probably convincingly, that US missteps occurred despite our political system, whereas the indefensible actions of other nations in some cases arose naturally out of their political system. Still, that means that democracy wasn't functioning properly at that point in our history, and so it is perhaps understandable that there were those who felt it was necessary to act outside the traditional democratic system.
As Tlaloc says, the groups that chose to use violence undercut their own agenda, and I'm certainly not going to defend their actions. However, it is worthwhile to place all this in proper context if we really want to understand how and why the events of the late 60s/early 70s happened the way they did.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How so?
What is it about communism, the abstraction not a specific application, that is evil?
If you want to call the USSR evil, I'm not going to stop you (although I might point out the US record is scarcely better). Ditto Mao. Certainly Stalin.
But the idea of communism isn't evil. It is well intentioned and overly simplistic such that it doesn't work in real life as promised. And the same can be said of capitalism, BTW.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You're a nut?
Communism is evil in this one ultra significant way, it takes away the one thing you were born into this world with, and the one thing you will die with, your independence.
To compare those mass murderers with any of America's leaders is a sad comment on your world view, and I suppose we have little more to discuss on this topic going forth because of that.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
property = independence?
Really? I could have sworn that slavery and indentured servitude, you know, functions of capitalism, were pretty thorough ways to remove independence.
So I guess we've established that the leading socioeconomic systems of the world all suck.
I for one would like to welcome my new anarchist brethren. Welcome aboard, bitches! :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
See....
Does slavery represent Democracy, or capitalism for that matter. You better read up on your history, or take a poli-sci class.
Why do you just continue to burp up absurd ridiculous comparisons.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Why not?
Slavery as practiced in the US certainly was a function of capitalism, one that was vigorously defended in the democratic government until the power of Northern industry was such that they could squash it, for economic more than humanitarian reasons.
You asserted, sans proof, that communism takes away one's independence. I'm giving you a direct example where capitalism and democracy did exactly that to millions.
And yet your condemnation of communism is matched by equal support for capitalism. I find that odd.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wow, you are not this dim...come on....
Slavery was a choice by individuals to pursue the business of human trade, which was wrong and abolished in our fine democracy.
Dependence is the axiom, the hallmark of communism and was so till capitalism crushed the ideal, although people with short memories are trying to resurrect a sediment that is, and always was, absurd.
Like the college kids falling for an abstraction of Che for instance!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Why, Tlaloc, why?
this is well covered territory concerning slavery. It is not a function of capitalism, nor free-market thinking. This is not a matter of opinion or point of view.
Slavery was MADE to work in the US because the government FAILED to extend personhood to these human beings and respect their rights as individuals.
Why continue to push such absurd notions?
You're missing the point
Slavery isn't a function of capitalism necessarily (because slavery is a social policy while capitalism is an economic one), but that doesn't preclude capitalism from using slavery to further its ends.
Using purely economic arguments slavery makes sense -- cheap labor brings down the cost of goods. To put it another way, no free market Southerner decided to forgo the use of slaves because he thought it was better business to not use them.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
No YOU ARE....
..missing the point!
And should direct your post to the appropriate target!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Does you're back hurt, Stiney?
Because you're really bending over backwards to salvage a point here for a Tlaloc.
I get what Tlaloc is trying hard to say but it's simply wrong. It's a strawman that blurs and jumbles meanings to make an ideologically satisfying point.
No free market of any degree is compatible with slavery. NONE. It's a contradiction and an impossibility...like 70 degree ice cube or north poles of magnet coming together.
Not that I'm biased...
...But he is unequivocally correct!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Not quite
My are back hurt?
Either way you'll have to convince me free markets require a particular social policy. Even then, and we're getting of topic here, I don't see too much difference between slavery and effective wage slavery practiced by many companies (domestic and abroad) in the various sweatshops around the world.
I can already see the objection that this too is not a free market, but then you're running dangerously close to the "no true Scotsman
" fallacy.
And for the record, given sufficient air pressure, ice cubes can be formed at 70 degrees (centigrade or Fahrenheit).
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
There's nothing to convince, Stiney
What you want to be convinced of is as simple as being convinced that Tokyo is the capital of Japan.
But I'll make the effort, anyway ;)
It's easy
:
Whoever was quoted is the one most ignorant...
...person on earth!
Why respond?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
What do you mean?
Sorry John..I meant above.I am not that dialed in on posting....
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I'm reminded of a question from a management class
A car crash just occurred, a tall uniformed man with a badge ask both parties in the crash questions and collects their statements and pertinent information.
Was the police officer tall?
Stinerman: The tall uniformed man wasn't identified as a cop. So its in the realm of possibilities that the tall man wasn't a cop.
John: Well, its implied that the tall man was cop, so the officer was without a doubt tall.
Its not "illegal" if the slaves have no rights...if slaves have no rights to buy or sell, then they are "outside" the "free market"
Lack of qualifiers or preexisting conditions for a "free market" in your given definition of "free market" leave an open back door for slavery.
True Liberty for all = no slavery
Free Market = slavery possible
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Brutus,
What you're basically doing is what Stiner did above when I asked him if his back hurt.
Let me be blunt:
You're being biased. You are taking your level of selectivity in reading the exchanges as well your predetermined narrowness and broadness in what was said to the nth degree.
In your last paragraph you're basically injecting an "IF" that totally negates well-known and obvious pre-existing conditions that are inseparable from the meanings of terms.
It is not "MY" definition of a free market. It is THE definition of a free market. Slavery is antithetical to free markets.
There's simply no point in honest discussion to pretend otherwise for the simple purpose of giving undeserved leniency to someone you don't want to disagree with.
If I say Paris, France is in FRANCE, and someone you like agreeing with says "Not necessarily. There IS a Paris in Montana!", there's nothing there to parse or rationalize. That special someone you want to agree with is simply and clearly wrong and is misspeaking in the context provided.
Dred Scott and the Three-Fiths Compromise
Definitions that use undefined technical jargon will lead itself to negation of well known and obvious pre-existing conditions especially when other laws/theories/definitions are at play.
Not at all what we're arguing....not at all what's being said...that "free market" definition is ambiguous as is, because the " Paris, France is in FRANCE" definition you are using in contingent on other rights or definitions that are not directly specified and not inherent in the wording and can be taken to mean more than one thing.
Standing by itself, that definitive definition of "free market" could easily be defined as:
"Paris is only in France [and Parisians have certain inalienable rights]"
For the "free market" definition to mean "Paris, France is in FRANCE" then "buyer" and "seller" would need to be defined somewhere [ Otherwise one is asking for trouble if judges, or people from different POV, are thrown in the mix [judges/people cannot read minds and may somehow be unaware of well known and obvious truths that exist in other's unspecified definitions of words
].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
No ambiguity
None at all. POV