 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"The more powerful governments prevail. Leftism must be knocked out where it stands so economic prosperity can prevail"
I do like to think that we as humans have moved somewhat beyond the almost non-existent sensibility of pure darwinism, as a basis for the running of a society. Nonetheless, are you aware of a process called eutrophication?
It is where an ecosystem becomes so chocked with life, in otherwords, the balance of the food web becomes an inbalance, that repercussions occur, and the entire ecosystem collapses, and most or all life in that ecosystem dies out.
It is commonly found in small water-based ecosystems, where an inwash of fertiliser from farming can stimulate too much plant growth, which messes about with the oxygen balance, the light, and eventually, the whole thing silts up.
This is a good analogy for an economy left unchecked. Given finite resources and an entity desiring infinite resources (for all intents and purposes), and the ability to take more than what one can maximally offer, as is the case with unfettered capitalism when it gets really big, then the whole thing ends up collapsing in on itself. This is a danger in capitalist societies without checks and balances, as one becomes too based on what can best be described as "shaky foundations", which is that of corporations.
Of course, I'll spare you my usual argument about the fallacy of corporate ethics, because I'm guessing that such a society as the one you are advocating is not based on much of a separate philosophical or moral code, except that of corporations? Nonetheless, feel free to correct me if that is a straw man, it is merely my interpretation of what you have been saying.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
" If that is what must be done then let it be done"
But must it be done? What is so bad about people protesting and expressing their opinions that warrants sending in the army?
" Also I am always stressing a good economy so the people are supportive of the government."
Tis one facet of a more complex concept for how the people support the government. One may well find that it is best described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and that the best way to get more people higher on that pyramid would be to impose certainly limits on capitalism, and increase liberty so people can find their own paths.
"Capitalism will never collapse."
Hopefully my analogy has shown how that is not the case. Of course, it wont ever truly collapse, but large-scale megacorps certainly can and probably will.
"Only communism does that"
I believe you are referring to Stalinism, which, after reading much of Marx's work, is entirely different from true communism. Communism can and does work, and can do better than capitalism, for example, look at products created under psuedo-communist philosophies, for example, open source software. Regardless of the OS war, one cannot deny that it is successful, long lived, and vibrant today.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Yep - now let all the Apolyton Conservatives repeat after me.
"Bush was full of ****".
"Bush lied and we fell for it"
"The Lefties told us he was lying, but we were too dumb to believe them"
"We won't believe what Bush tells us again." |
How many times were you told that this war was about power politics? Do you know what power politics is? It doesn't mean powerful politics...
And there could have easily been weapons there, and they still might be there if they weren't dismantled at the last minute. And you know it. It was a worthwhile threat to pursue.
Al Capone shot up half of Chicago, but what did he go to jail for? Tax evasion. Same principle here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
Do you mean his attitude is haughty and despising ? As I cant see that in his post, could you explain your point ? |
Perhaps then you should look up the words haughty and despising.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The damage isn't in Bush lying, the damage is in Bush not having to pay a price for it, especially considering how blatant the lies are. More worrying is if it is true that 50 % of Americans believe in Iraq's Al Kaida links, and 40 % believe WMDs have been found in Iraq anyway, and whatever majority just feels better. Every people gets the leaders it deserves - and you (unless you're wearing your mexican hat today) have a bunch of pretty psychotic ones.
The bigger damage is in foreign relations anyway. The Bush admin had little credibility before, it has zero now. But at least you have to love Rumsie - I think he's telling Blair again that he wants the US to go to war without that annoying poodle up his arse. |
If I'm wearing my sombrero today, I've got a Presidente who's an ineffectual bootlicker to the psychotic gringo leader. 
As far as paying a price for it goes, give it time. Nobody gave a **** about Watergate initially either, but 26 months later, Nixon was gone. Hussein was an ******* in the first degree, so it's a bit of a tough sell to say the world would be better off if he was still there, and the UN continued on the sanctions course forever.
There's still a year and a half until the election, (which is the earlier time Bush could pay), and if Iraq is still a FUBAR, we get reports of our people getting ambushed in Afghanistan, al Qaeda is still blowing **** up, with the occasional audio from OBL or AAZ, the economy is still dragging, etc., you can bet Bush will pay just like his daddy did.
The McCarthy era dragged on for a while too, because in the American political scene, you can always milk a perceived threat for a period of time, but eventually, people see through it.
As far as damage to foreign relations, honestly, from the Official Imperialist Hegemon perspective, who cares? Like the saying from the Vietnam war - "if you grab 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" - most of the rest of the world is too dependent on the US economy, and too ineffective in organized opposition (Chirac?  UN? ) for the US to care. Enough countries will go along with the US, or look the other way, due to their own dependency, perceived interest, or bribes. Most people outside the US didn't like US leadership or the US before, so it's not like that worries people much if they don't like it now. If the outside world reduced it's collective economic dependence on the US and got some collective balls, (like I'd like to see a pan-Latinamerican trade and treaty organization), then there'd be a problem. Under the present situation, the only real problem (from the Macchiavellian imperialist perspective) is that some other countries are impotently uncomfortable. (and from that perspective, it ain't a problem.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-05-2003 06:07
jk
ACK!
)
|