Fidel Castro Resigns: Tuesday Marks Historic Moment

[russ_watters]

You realize that the Soviet Union and Communist China were both major contributors to the U.N.'s doctrines on human rights, don't you?

Ironic, yes. That's one huge flaw in the UN and why Clinton bypassed the UN on the Kosovo thing. The UN does not requires countries to follow its rules as a requisite for participation in things like the human rights commission. That makes the UN a laughingstock on some issues. Heck, perhaps the EU will eventually supercede the UN?

Neverthelesss, the document exists and even if the UN won't hold people to it, we will. [sometimes...]

And regarldess, you've glossed over my point for showing this: The point is that rights on a basic level are non-negotiable. Again: you cannot vote these rights away.

Check out Article 23 in the document you linked to. The right to work. Which you just declared cannot be a right and must be an entitlement.

You are again missing the basic point about what rights are. This is a negative right. You don't have a right for the government to provide you with a job, you have the right not to be denied work. Again, yes, you are confusing rights and entitlements.

That said, you picked on [one half of] one of the major ones that makes full socialism essentially illegal.

The U.S. system of rights was adopted by the U.N., eh? Not quite as simple as you think, dude.

No, it isn't quite that simple, but it is pretty close. Anyway, really, our system is common to a lot of western countries.

That's not what makes us the world leader on this, though. What makes us the world leader is that we lead. When other countries won't act, we do. The fact that we stand up for things others believe but won't stand up for gives us moral authority they do not have.

 

[russ_watters]

That said, you picked on [one half of] one of the major ones that makes full socialism essentially illegal.

And I'm sure with just a quick read you could identify a half a dozen or so more that make the old Soviet system (that Cuba approximates) very illegal. Basic things, like the right to leave your country and return, freedom of expression, etc.

 

[Art]

The imposition of one's own personal definition of freedom on others through force or coercion is an oxymoron.

The idea by the right-wing lunatic fringe in the US that their brand of 'freedom' be forced on other sovereign states is on a par with the rantings of the religious fundamentalist bigots who cause so much trouble in the world today.

A standard accepted measure of a people's freedom, and one that has been cited in this thread, is is how free their press is and as the US is currently ranked # 48 in the world it would seem following the logic of some of the right-wing contributors here it is behoven on some of the 47 countries ranked above them to invade or otherwise threaten the US to free it's oppressed, enslaved people

At the very least reports such as this should focus the mind of the right in America on reclaiming their own freedoms before worrying overmuch about others. It is also disgusting that those who support the curtailment of American freedoms through legislation such as the Patriot Act try to disguise their blatant anti-Americanism, a country founded on the principle of individual freedom, by wrapping themselves in the American flag and accusing anybody who disagrees with their narrow bigoted views, including their fellow Americans, as being anti-American. Huh - Talk about Orwellian double-speak.

Roll on November when hopefully some sanity will return to the US politcal scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders

 

[NeoDevin]

And I'm sure with just a quick read you could identify a half a dozen or so more that make the old Soviet system (that Cuba approximates) very illegal. Basic things, like the right to leave your country and return, freedom of expression, etc.

Neither of the things you list here are intrinsic to a communist economic system. There are (probably) many things in Cuba which are violations of human rights, and I don't think anyone here would argue that they shouldn't be changed. Tieing these things in with the idea that a country should be allowed to choose communism for themselves is creating a strawman (at the very least, I've never read a definition of communism which includes `people cannot leave the country and return', or 'the people shall not express themselves as they see fit'). Just because many communist nations have had these violations of human rights, does not mean that they are intrinsic to communism. Just because a nation has some violations of human rights, does not mean everything need change there (just that some things need to change).

jimmy, you mentioned that if someone wants to live in a commune, they should go join one, yet for the rest of your arguments you say that a country should not be able to choose to be/remain communist... this doesn't make much sense to me. If I were to join a commune (not happening, I'm a capitalist, but hypothetically), and a single member of the commune wanted to start a business, then by your logic it is a violation of that person's rights to disallow this. If Cubans, as a society, decide to live in a commune, then any member who would prefer a capitalist society would be free to leave (assuming no `other' violations of human rights). What you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting something) is that if someone wants to live in a commune, they can, but if a nation votes to become one large commune, they can't. If the majority of the people wish for a communist society, then I don't see why they should not be allowed.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

you say that a country should not be able to choose to be/remain communist.

I would be pleased if you would quote me on this one.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I apologize for using the pejorative phrase “temper tantrum” but ...

Thats not how I apologize. I put my back into it.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No, in dictatorship, it is a tyranny of one.

Are you saying that Cubans choosing to continue a communist economy would automatically make it a dictatorship? Because if you aren't saying that, it was pointless and pejorative to say this.

Ironic, yes. That's one huge flaw in the UN and why Clinton bypassed the UN on the Kosovo thing. The UN does not requires countries to follow its rules as a requisite for participation in things like the human rights commission. That makes the UN a laughingstock on some issues. Heck, perhaps the EU will eventually supercede the UN?

The European Union is a regional organization. The United Nations is a global organization. They aren't interchangeable.

So on one hand you're saying that some countries are to fault for not following the U.N.'s rules, and on the other hand you're lauding occasions when the U.S. bypassed the U.N.? You're trying to have it both ways - citing the U.N. as an authority on specific parts of its human rights doctrine that you agree with, then saying that the rest is just sillyness that no one should pay attention to.

Neverthelesss, the document exists and even if the UN won't hold people to it, we will. [sometimes...]

And regarldess, you've glossed over my point for showing this: The point is that rights on a basic level are non-negotiable. Again: you cannot vote these rights away. You are again missing the basic point about what rights are. This is a negative right. You don't have a right for the government to provide you with a job, you have the right not to be denied work. Again, yes, you are confusing rights and entitlements.

I'm confusing rights with entitlements, and the U.N. is confusing rights with entitlements, and half the countries in Europe are confusing rights with entitlements, and the people in South America and everywhere else who think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_of_2000" are wrong… are you seriously going to keep trying to pretend that this is something other than your personal opinion?

No, I didn't miss your point, I demonstrated that you were full of crap in trying to paint your personal interpretation of freedom and human rights as some sort of broad international consensus that the tenets of socialism and communism fundamentally violate. And that you weren't even basically familiar with the document you linked to as evidence for your claims. Disagreeing with you and pointing out that you're being foolish through quotes from your own cited sources is not “glossing over” anything.

That said, you picked on [one half of] one of the major ones that makes full socialism essentially illegal. No, it isn't quite that simple, but it is pretty close. Anyway, really, our system is common to a lot of western countries.

That's not what makes us the world leader on this, though. What makes us the world leader is that we lead. When other countries won't act, we do. The fact that we stand up for things others believe but won't stand up for gives us moral authority they do not have.

Now you're an expert on international law too, huh?

There are lots of human rights and freedom issues that the United States absolutely does not take the lead on. As I pointed out earlier, during the Clinton administration we were essential in getting China admitted to the World Trade Organization despite their use of prison labor in manufacturing exported goods and other human rights issues. Sometimes we take the lead on moral or freedom issues, but just as often we take the self-serving position or take actions and policies completely counter to freedom and democracy - I've already cited many instances of this up above.

And I'm sure with just a quick read you could identify a half a dozen or so more that make the old Soviet system (that Cuba approximates) very illegal. Basic things, like the right to leave your country and return, freedom of expression, etc.

Again, are you trying to pretend that there's some international law that says these things? I.e. that it was illegal for the Soviet Union to have the laws and policies it did?

Yes, there were many things in the Soviet system, as there are many things in capitalist Russia and capitalist China today, that are in contravention of freedom and democracy. Just like the United States often does things in contravention of freedom and democracy. I've already named several things I think ought to be changed in Cuba to promote freedom, it's not like I'm saying the state of things there is perfect. I'm simply saying that the United States is not some perfect model of freedom that Cubans are obliged to emulate whether they agree or not.

You're trying to paint this as if it's a black and white issue: U.S. policy makers and lobbyists are going to be the good guys and Cuban communists are going to be the bad guys in any U.S.-Cuba interaction. Like this is a Superman comic or an episode of the Lone Ranger or something. It's not.

And commercial activity is not enshrined as some kind of basic freedom, not in almost any of the creeds that have been followed or written about freedom, even in the history of the U.S.

⚛​

 

[Art]

russ_watters You are again missing the basic point about what rights are. This is a negative right. You don't have a right for the government to provide you with a job, you have the right not to be denied work. Again, yes, you are confusing rights and entitlements.

I disagree with what seems to be your personal definition of what the Right to Work means.

The universal declaration on human rights says in respect of the Right to Work

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Note the protection against unemployment clause. This places an onus on the gov't to ensure there is work available for people. Depending on their particular ideology some countries address this by the gov't employing these people directly whilst others create an economic environment whereby work is made available through 3rd parties (employers). Either way it's a lot more than the 'negative' right you define it as.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You have been putting words in my mouth since post #20. Stop it.

You repeatedly refused to explain what your statement meant and you evaded specific questions about it. You refused to explain what you meant about me playing people. Instead of explaining your views you told us all to “stretch our imaginations.” Instead of doing those things you just quoted yourself in giant bold blue type.

I was totally justified to say why I thought you were being evasive and imputing - because you probably have a position that isn't fundamentally compatible with freedom anyways, which would be a bit of an embarrassment to explain at this point.

I would be pleased if you would quote me on this one.

If you'd actually say something about the issue we'd be happy to quote you on it.

Thats not how I apologize. I put my back into it.

Aw, well geez, the rest of us must just not have any clue about this freedom thing after all if we're not as good at apologizing as you are.

I wasn't apologizing for pointing out that you're sneaky, evasive, and boorish - you definitely are. I was apologizing for incorrectly attributing one particular statement to you about my personal level of patriotism. If rather than accept that apology you want to try to use it to achieve some sort of leverage in the discussion, by all means, it will be totally consistent with the way you've behaved so far.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

NeoDevin: One thing I must point out is that communism is not like living in a hippie commune or something like an Israeli kibbutz. That's a fabrication on jimmysnyder's part. It isn't illegal to personally own things, it's illegal to privately capitalize commercial and industrial ventures.

Of course, the distinction was usually exploited in China and the Soviet Union to ensure that senior members of the Communist Party were the ones with cars and big houses and other wealth, but the point is that communism doesn't in general outlaw owning stuff. And when communist countries did outlaw the ownership of something it was with the same type of reasoning that, for example, the private ownership of many sorts of drugs or military hardware is outlawed in the U.S. - for the public good.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

One thing I must point out is that communism is not like living in a hippie commune or something like an Israeli kibbutz. That's a fabrication on jimmysnyder's part.

I never said that.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I never said that.

See here:

Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes.

You aren't trying to establish some equivalence between living in a communist economy and living in a commune, you just started spontaneously talking about communes?

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You can twist the meaning of my words anytime you want, and I can't prevent it. But it is wrong. I never said that "communism is like living in a hippie commune or something like an Israeli kibbutz." as you claim I did.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Forcing your opinion of freedom on Cuba... not allowing people to ask questions you don't want asked.

Anyway, even taking a quote of mine and twisting the meaning is better than nothing at all. Care to quote me on these now? Surely you can find something I wrote that you could at least twist into those meanings.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Okay, how exactly does your comment not mean that a communist country is like a commune?

You know an Israeli kibbutz is a commune, right? Did you at least bother to look that up before accusing me of twisting your words?

Denying implicit statements you're making by paraphrasing what you've said is not twisting your words. Especially when you've demonstrated that you will refuse to respond to any questions asking for clarification of what you have said. You've made your bed, now either lie down in it or join in the discussion.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Care to quote me on these now?

Care to quote you on what now? Is this another attempt to obliquely claim that I'm the one who is not responding to you?

⚛​

 

[NeoDevin]

I would be pleased if you would quote me on this one.

There is no freedom without economic freedom.

I was running on the assumption that you think nations should be free, which would imply from your statement here that nations should not be able to choose communism (as that would imply `no economic freedom'). If either the assumption or the implication are wrong, I apologize...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You know an Israeli kibbutz is a commune, right?

I lived for most of a year on a Kibbutz. Kibbutz Mizra, you can look it up. It is run by the Communist Party of Israel.

I voted for Bush in the last election for a variety of reasons. Partly as a reaction against what I see as socialism advocated by the Democratic party. This is true of me whether or not it is true of the Democratic party. What is more, I am not the only person who voted for Bush, nor the only one who had that reason. I could say in an informal way that people who voted for Bush voted against socialism. Such a statement has some truth to it, but it is after all a generalization. Most people would recognize it as such. These words do not mean that I think that since Bush won, there is no socialism in the US. A claim that they do would be a non-sequitur, and yet is equivalent to how you have interpreted my words. Am I open then, to the accusation that I don't want my words to be taken literally? I suppose. But then take them literally. What's this stuff about hippies and Israeli kibbutzes? Or what Communist countries are like? Will you insist that my words be interpreted narrowly and yours not?

My original statement has been put through this same kind of "I'm taking you literally even as I change your words" wringer. What I said was ..., no, I've said it enough times. Here is how it came back to me:

That if restaurants are allowed to compete within a country, then the country is free regardless of all other considerations. (this is too narrow an interpretation, but at least it isn't whole cloth like the following)
That there should only be two restaurants.
That I am a cold warrior.
That United States foreign policy is without blemish.
That my opinion of freedom should be forced on Cuba.
That nations should not be allowed to choose communism (I postdated this one)

There is a pattern here. I wish people would stop spreading non-sequiturs about me, and then blaming me for it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I was running on the assumption that you think nations should be free, which would imply from your statement here that nations should not be able to choose communism (as that would imply `no economic freedom'). If either the assumption or the implication are wrong, I apologize...

Good assumption. Yes, I think nations should be free. Do you know of anyone who doesn't?

Can you clarify what your question is? "Should not do", and "should not be able to do" are not the same thing. I think nations should be free and should not choose communism. I never said that nations should not be able to choose communism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Well, thanks for finally articulating. I hope it continues.

I voted for Bush in the last election for a variety of reasons. Partly as a reaction against what I see as socialism advocated by the Democratic party. This is true of me whether or not it is true of the Democratic party. What is more, I am not the only person who voted for Bush, nor the only one who had that reason. I could say in an informal way that people who voted for Bush voted against socialism.

That's great. I applaud you for voting your values and taking part in the domestic democratic process. I agree with you that it's generally true to say that people who voted for Bush voted against socialism.

Such a statement has some truth to it, but it is after all a generalization. Most people would recognize it as such. These words do not mean that I think that since Bush won, there is no socialism in the US. A claim that they do would be a non-sequitur, and yet is equivalent to how you have interpreted my words. Am I open then, to the accusation that I don't want my words to be taken literally? I suppose. But then take them literally.

Telling everyone to “stretch their imaginations” and figure out what your philosophy about freedom is and your stances on issues related to commercial competition and freedom is much more than asking for your words to not be taken literally.

What's this stuff about hippies and Israeli kibbutzes? Or what Communist countries are like? Will you insist that my words be interpreted narrowly and yours not?

You talked about communes. Hippie communes and Israeli kibbutzes are examples of communes. If your statement applied to all kinds of communes except for hippie communes and kibbutzes, you should have said so; otherwise what I said is valid.

“Living in a communist economy is like living in a commune” is not a narrow interpretation of your statement “Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes.” Unless you literally meant that the only way a communist economy can be achieved, and therefore the only thing that people voting for communist or socialist policies could want, is for everyone to live in communes.

My original statement has been put through this same kind of "I'm taking you literally even as I change your words" wringer. What I said was ..., no, I've said it enough times. Here is how it came back to me:

That if restaurants are allowed to compete within a country, then the country is free regardless of all other considerations. (this is too narrow an interpretation, but at least it isn't whole cloth like the following)
That there should only be two restaurants.
That I am a cold warrior.
That United States foreign policy is without blemish.
That my opinion of freedom should be forced on Cuba.

There is a pattern here. I wish people would stop spreading non-sequiturs about me, and then blaming me for it.

The best way to accomplish this would be to respond to requests to clarify specific nuances of your statements and requests to clarify your opinions on the topics under conversation.

Also, if you really think that there's something wrong with the way I'm arguing, you aren't taking a very strong stance against it to intentionally imitate it, as you appeared to with the “Clinton administration” thing, which appears to me to either have been what you're calling a non-sequitur or was a complete red herring.

P.S. I also never said that I was taking you literally, I in fact explicitly said that I was making inferences based upon what you had said and which questions you refused to answer.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

“Clinton administration” thing, which appears to me to either have been what you're calling a non-sequitur

You just made my day.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I haven't relied on appeal to authority to make my points here. But I thought it might be interesting to the readers of this thread to read some of http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html" of the 1999 book People's Power: Cuba's Experience With Representative Government by Peter Roman:

Most of the book is spent examining the lowest levels of People's Power, the Municipal Assembly (MA) and the People's Councils. Less space is devoted to the Provincial Assemblies or the National Assembly. The main reason for this is that Roman sees these local levels as the driving forces behind democracy. He cites the fact that two to eight candidates must stand for election for each MA post, and that they are nominated in popular meetings at which 75 percent or more of the eligible voters show up regularly. Elections are by secret ballot and a majority is needed for election. Usually well over three of every four eligible voters exercise their option to choose their representatives, and over 90 percent voted for ratification of the 1992 constitution. This, of course, contrasts starkly with the low turnout in U.S. national elections. Further, each MA delegate is directly responsible to his or her constituency. They must hold regular office hours, and they must respond to specific complaints lodged by residen ts of their particular districts. A recall vote is possible if 20 percent of the voters, or 20 percent of the delegates in the MA, ask for it. Almost all the MA delegates are known personally to their constituents and are constantly on call, even at early hours in the morning. Imagine calling your city councilman to tell him your electricity is out and having him respond in person!

Further, the party has no input into the nomination process or elections, and, at least according to Roman, party membership is not that important in getting either elected or nominated. While a number of outside critics have downplayed the importance of the MAs, Roman argues that their concern with education, health, water, and consumer goods--both the quality and distribution thereof--has a decided impact through the chain of government. This is true both because the lower levels of OPP spend about 70 percent of local budgets and because they wield considerable power over local units of production
and distribution. Debates at local meetings, by definition, have the question of the system's efficiency and its goals as a subject even if it is not verbalized in those terms.

So do we have a perfect budding democracy in Cuba? No, as even Fidel himself acknowledged in his speech at New York's Riverside Church in September 2000. Roman convincingly demonstrates that the system is still top-down in many aspects--national planning overshadows local demands, and the PCC retains total control of nominations at the top levels. He argues that the higher one goes in government the more bureaucratic the job and attitude. Yet, some 75 percent of the complaints from below are dealt with, if not always satisfactorily, they are at least on the agenda. Further, the local and very personal responses of the delegados to their local constituents, and the constituent's apparent general satisfaction, bode well for the future. Unfortunately, given the built-in constraints of the Cuban economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, no
representative, no matter how talented or conscientious, can answer every complaint positively.

The reportage about meetings and legislative sessions, as well as the interviews, show clearly that problems persist in Cuban society (including corruption, inefficient distribution, and the low quality of some goods). But it also demonstrates a real community (read socialist) consciousness on the part of the people and on the part of their elected representatives.

In short, Roman's argument and message is clear. Cuban grassroots democracy is alive and well--it is growing, but like any adolescent it still has problems.

Next to that conclusion from Roman I want to point out that the current nation of Cuba has only been around for about fifty years; a fair number of its citizens are older than it is.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You just made my day.

I understood perfectly well at the time what you were trying to do and I was pretty sure you didn't really have anything to say, that it was actually a red herring you were trying to use to comment on the way I was explaining your actions. Thanks for confirming that.

Really, feel free to throw red herrings out any time you want. I don't have any trouble dealing with them because I actually respond to the person I'm having a conversation with.

But sigh, I see that you're back to not saying anything.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I never drew the line between Clinton and non-sequitur, you did. Look, if you don't want me to laugh at all the red herrings you've been telling about me, then stop picking at this scab.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html" of the 1999 book People's Power: Cuba's Experience With Representative Government by Peter Roman

I looked at the review and certainly read more about politics in Cuba than I had in the past 57 years. The following is not a comment about Cuba, nor about the book, but merely about the review.
If, as Fidel himself says, "the system is still top-down in many aspects--national planning overshadows local demands, and the PCC retains total control of nominations at the top levels", then who even cares what happens at the grass-roots level.

Again, there may be a good answer and that answer may be in the book, but it is not in the review. As I only have the review to go by, I am left without light. Have you read the book?

I was taken by this quote from the review:

Imagine calling your city councilman to tell him your electricity is out and having him respond in person!

I assume the review intended this to show how good the city councilmen are, but it could be read to mean that the political system gets in the way of every minute aspect of economic activity. I would have called the electric company, not the council, and perhaps that's what the person in the anecdote did too.

 

[NeoDevin]

Good assumption. Yes, I think nations should be free. Do you know of anyone who doesn't?

Noone I can think of off hand, but you equate freedom with economic freedom with capitalism, which is not universally accepted.

Can you clarify what your question is? "Should not do", and "should not be able to do" are not the same thing. I think nations should be free and should not choose communism. I never said that nations should not be able to choose communism.

So if they are free to make the choice, and they choose `wrongly', then they are not free?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So if they are free to make the choice, and they choose `wrongly', then they are not free?

That's more like metaphysics than politics. How can you ever really be free if you aren't allowed to lock yourself in a prison? I have no answer to questions like that. Anybody else care to take a stab at this one?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I never drew the line between Clinton and non-sequitur, you did. Look, if you don't want me to laugh at all the red herrings you've been telling about me, then stop picking at this scab.

I think that neither “non-sequitur” nor “red herring” mean what you think they mean. A red herring is not a type of non-sequitur. By saying that the Clinton thing was a red herring, I mean that unlike the explanations I've made of why you may be dodging questions, you now seem to have confirmed that there was nothing at all behind your Clinton comment. You didn't have some deduction about my beliefs or politics in mind, you simply made a cryptic comment that didn't mean anything at all. That's why you've been unable to answer my questions about what you were implying.

It appears to me that you were simply trying to increase confusion about what you're saying, the same way you've been doing by avoiding explanation of your statements.

Feel free to laugh at me all you want.

If, as Fidel himself says, "the system is still top-down in many aspects--national planning overshadows local demands, and the PCC retains total control of nominations at the top levels", then who even cares what happens at the grass-roots level.

The significance to me is that, if the account is true, it seems to demonstrate that democracy definitely is compatible with Cuban communism. It's basically showing what I mean in saying that they have a different kind of freedom than here where McDonalds and Burger King competing is important and I guess is representative of freedom. I'm not trying to say that Cuba has a robust democracy or that it's more democratic than the U.S. or something. If the system is top-down (I'm not sure that the U.S. doesn't fit that description as well BTW) the Cubans definitely ought to be able to pick the guy at the top.

I have not read that book. I found the review while I was Googling for some unrelated stuff about Cuba.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I keep saying “here” as if we're all in the U.S. but I have no idea if that's really true, I apologize if statements like that have excluded anybody.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As for me not allowing countries to vote for Communism, here is direct proof that I do no such thing. How timely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23320308"
Oh those Cypriots. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts (that used to mean you were sure of your bet, now I think it means that you aren't) that they think they voted for Marx. If the past is any indication, they'll get Lenin. Anyway, a vote for a Communist is not exactly the same thing as a vote for Communism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Thanks for allowing that election in Cyprus, Jimmy.

I do believe you now after the recent discussion, that you don't think a country should be prevented from democratically choosing communism.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Thanks for allowing that election in Cyprus, Jimmy.

I believe the day is coming when you will curse me for not acting.

I do believe you now after the recent discussion, that you don't think a country should be prevented from democratically choosing communism.

Read post #132. I never said anything that could be red herringing into "should be prevented".

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I believe the day is coming when you will curse me for not acting.

LOL (I think? You're not the director of the CIA or something, are you? Actually, it would be cooler and more intriguing if you just don't answer that.)

Read post #132.

Okay, you're seeming cryptic again… I saw the locking yourself in prison post (good analogy, BTW) but I was correct that you don't think countries should be forced out of communism, wasn't I? The way you responded to NeoDevin there, primarily by appearing to say such choices are puzzling to you, was one of the things that seemed to confirm you think it should be allowed.

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

The link is simple: The freedoms typically listed (choice, expression, the press) require capitalism to be self-consistent. You cannot have freedom of choice without a McDonalds and a Wendy's (not to mention that mom-and-pop restaurant of yours) on opposite corners from each other. You cannot have freedom of choice without the choice to start your own business and set your own prices for the goods you sell (within reason).

You seem to equate freedom with "freedom of choice": where do I eat, what car do I buy, what house do I live in, what job do I do ?

However, these are, on my list of "freedoms", pretty low-lying items. Maybe not on others, but not to me. In fact, I don't really care much where or what I have to eat (as long as I have a choice between fish and meat, or potatoes or pasta, that's good enough for me), I have absolutely no preference for any car (as long as it brings me where I want), etc... Concerning my job, that's indeed slightly different, I want to have the feeling that I can quit at any moment.

But when I look back, I see that the job I have, the car I drive (my wife's !), the house I live in have been MOSTLY the consequences of totally random happenings, not some very carefully planned and weighted decision. Of course, there was some rationality in those decisions, but most of them were: "let's get quickly something acceptable with a minimum of effort, and let's then get back to PF ". In fact, as long as they don't are a total nuisance to me, most of these material items I don't care much about.

However, the day that I have to feel that I cannot SAY anymore what I think, the day that I cannot build an ARGUMENT anymore that doesn't fit a pre-defined model, I'd be pretty pissed off. The day that one tells me WHERE I have to walk on sunday, things wouldn't work out anymore for me. So to me, freedom is mostly equal with freedom of expression, and freedom to go where I want. I don't care much about houses, cars, jobs, or fast-food restaurants, as long as there is a minimum standard that is respected. In fact, I'm even very happy if somebody could make these boring choices in my place (usually, my wife does ).

Now, I can understand that these (in my eyes superficial) items are important for many people. They would also become important to me, if they get below a certain "confort threshold" where they get annoying.

You cannot say you are "free" without economic freedom. You also cannot say you are "free" without political freedom.

Probably, for some, a tiny bit of superficial freedom would indeed be lost that way. Not so much to me, in fact, as I said: if others could make most of the "economic" choices in my place, that would arrange me, so I don't have to spend time on that boring activity - with, I admit, the caveat that I want a "minimum standard" below which I'd be unhappy. But my lower standard is pretty low.

My kind of freedom is freedom of expression. In as much as I don't care (too much) about what kind of food I have to eat, I get allergically nervous if I have the slightest impression that my freedom of speech is limited. Although I'm absolutely not anti-semitic or racist or anything, I get even sick at the thought of being potentially restricted in speeches on items like the holocaust or so - although I would probably not make use of the freedom gained if these speech restrictions were lifted. But the very idea that my freedom of expression is limited makes me feel bad. Much worse than if one would now oblige me to go to Burger King, and not have a McDonalds anymore.

The choice of where to work is huge. In a capitalist society, you are free to quit your job and find a new one if you want. I recognize that that freedom doesn't really exist in France, but that is a shortcoming of France's level of freedom, not a shortcoming of capitalism. In the US, many people covet that freedom.

I agree with you that a fluidity of the working market is important in the *economic organisation*, and, contrary to what you seem to suggest, I'm not against a good dose of capitalism (without, however, taking it as an ideology that is supposed to solve systematically all problems in the best way). But again, the "freedoms" of capitalism (which means, that you have the freedom to act as the market dictates you, in fact) are, to me, pretty low-level freedoms. You could just as well talk about the freedom to have alternating current! It's a good system to distribute electric power, but it hasn't much to do with any freedom. In the same way, I see capitalism as a good way to organize economic activity (and that's important, I agree), but it doesn't have much to do with actual freedom.

So I'm not going to defend the French way of organizing the work market, which is BTW changing, because I also think that it is not the most *efficient* way of doing things. I didn't ask for it, I am not affraid of some competition, but I take things the way they are and they don't displease me. It is not fair towards youngsters etc... I'm fully aware of that. That said, one mustn't exaggerate. The funny thing is that I'm not French, I just got a job in France, because of essentially totally random criteria. I could have ended up as well in Germany or in England. I didn't make specific choice, "things just happened". So it is kind of funny that I ended up totally randomly having a job in the country that is supposed to have a "closed job market", without even specifically doing any effort for ending up there.

And yes, it is also true that like in France, many people fear that freedom. But I think statistics show that it works (which doesn't have anything to do with it being right or wrong, just that the fear is unfounded).

I agree with you here. But things are slowly changing in France. This isn't the 60-ies anymore here either.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't really care much where or what I have to eat (as long as I have a choice between fish and meat, or potatoes or pasta, that's good enough for me.)

Are you arguing for or against freedom of choice?