News Fidel Castro Resigns: Tuesday Marks Historic Moment

[russ_watters]

As to capitalism, for sure in certain areas it has shown to be a very efficient economical organisational process, but I fail to see the link with freedom.

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). [edit] Btw, that also makes high taxes an infringement on freedom of choice.

After all, the biggest dictatorship in the world (China, but take Russia in too) are ultra-capitalistic at this moment.

I'm not sure how you could say such a thing. It's a contradiction in terms and quite wrong. [edit] Just to be clear: You cannot say you are "free" without economic freedom. You also cannot say you are "free" without political freedom. So even if it were true that China had a high level of economic freedom (and it isn't), it would not show a contradiction in the positions being discussed here by capitalists. We understand that both are required. We're not the ones suggesting you can have one without the other...

Of course there is a limited form of "freedom" involved in a capitalist organisation: the freedom to set up your own way of trying to make money. But most people, even in capitalist countries, don't seem to take that freedom at heart, given that they work as employees (so they don't use their "freedom" to set up a business). So although the capitalistic principles can be *efficient* (mainly by eliminating very BAD practices, not so much by only keeping the best), I don't know in how much we should think of them as the ultimate pinnacle of *freedom*.

You're view is very narrow, particularly where your country falls short on freedom. 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. 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).

And it is true that freedom often breeds apathy, but so what? That really doesn't have anything to do with anything.

That said, on poor people's priority list might be in the first place some economic improvement (which can maybe be brought in by some form of capitalism) over genuine freedom, which only means something once you've got filled your stomach.

That's true and that's where capitalists and socialists start to differ. It's a whole 'nother discussion too, because a die-hard capitalist like me believes that in a capitalist society, even poverty is largely a choice.

To the Burger King/Mc Donald dispute, I'd say: the real form of economic freedom here would be to be able to open your *OWN* traditional restaurant and undergo fair competition with the hamburger conglomerates, so that you don't suffer unfair competition because of their financial muscle and publicity.

Yes, the McDonalds example is a little underdeveloped here.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yes! Now you're getting it!

That said, I do have two small quibbles with your understanding of the concept of freedom:

1. Commercial freedom is a kind of freedom (yes, that's redundant), so they cannot truly be said to be free unless they get it.

2. Freedom is an individual thing. You cannot vote on it. You cannot vote to remain Communist because in so doing, you are infringing on peoples' individual rights. Even if only 1 person in the country wants to start his own business, saying you have a free society requires that you let him do it.

I have to point out that those are opinions on your part, not generally agreed upon principles. The latitude for a few people to get to do exactly what they want frequently gets limited for the sake of the good of many or of all society. Don't pretend that just happens in communist countries or something.

Many people consider the right to work that is guaranteed in some communist countries far more important than the right to start a small business that is somewhat provided for in some capitalist countries. (And I'm a small business owner, so let me assure you that this right is no means guaranteed here in the U.S. - there are all sorts of loopholes to jump through and all kinds of ways the government can stop you from doing it, although from what I've read the climate for starting a small business may be better here than anywhere else in the world.

That's basically what I mean when I say that the U.S. is not an expert or authority on freedom - we have no justification to tell other countries that the way they value the right to work so much more than us is wrong and that they need to rearrange their priorities to better suit our philosophy on freedom.

You'r'e sliding off on that tangent again. The only thing Cuba needs to do to learn from us is crack open a history book. None of that other stuff has any relevance here whatsoever. (and btw, since when would learning not include learning what we did wrong?)

I don't know what you mean about learning, I didn't say anything about learning.

What the U.S. has done in the past in pushing around much smaller countries, and what it has done to promote freedom and what it has done to destroy or prevent freedom, are entirely relevant to discussing what attitude should be adopted towards Cuba and what the reaction to Castro's resignation should be.

I would appreciate it if you guys would stop stating or implying that I hate the U.S. or something. I don't have to like everything the U.S. has ever done to be proud of my country. I have family members in harm's way in Iraq right now and to attack my opinions on Cuba by insinuating that I hate the U.S. is a s▒▒▒ty rhetorical tactic, you have no more justification to imply you're the one who really loves freedom or our country than I would.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

insinuating that I hate the U.S. is a s▒▒▒ty rhetorical tactic.

Yeah, I hate it when people do that. By the way, nice font trick.

 

[russ_watters]

This exact thought had crossed my mind. If you want to become (or remain) Communist, join a commune. All it takes is one other like-minded person. Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes. If you can't find even one other person that wants to join you in a commune, then I extend my sympathy to you, but look on the bright side. You live in a particularly free society.

This is a common shortcoming in peoples' understanding of how Democracy works and I don't understand why because it is taught in schools. People should remember such basic things - I haven't taken an American history [intro poly sci would cover it as well] course since freshman year in college.

Anyway, this is a common criticism of democracy and one people just don't realize has already been dealt with:

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

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No one has suggested that the US invade Cuba and impose a Constitution on them. Indeed, the US has never done that and shouldn't ever do that.

I take it that you aren't familiar with the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the previous regime change before Castro.

And seriously - we've deposed or at least helped to depose the elected Prime Minister of a country and restored monarchy there (Mossadegh in Iran), but we just don't invade places and impose constitutions? The Iranian coup is not some fringe conspiracy theory, check out any encyclopedia.

If you want to become (or remain) Communist, join a commune. All it takes is one other like-minded person. Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes.

You're putting words in the mouths of Cuban communists again, just like you said that they want you to not be able to pick your music or your house or choose what restaurant to eat in.

There was a http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DA1030F933A05757C0A96E948260" introduced many state-capitalized activities that would probably look like freedom (or capitalism, at least) to you guys.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yeah, I hate it when people do that. By the way, nice font trick.

I was thinking of making the asterisks that vBulletin put in into size 7 bolded blue text, but instead I just replaced them with my own character.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

I have to point out that those are opinions on your part, not generally agreed upon principles.

Wrong. On two levels. The first is the simple logical level. You're arguing against logic. Logically, this is 1+1=2 simple. If you don't have freedom you aren't free. Actually, I guess that would be 1=1 simple.

You are also wrong about whether this logic is "correct". The idea of individual rights has been accepted as the global standard: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

That's all there is to it. So to sum up:
1. Freedom has to include freedom to be freedom.
2. The world community demands that people be free.

The latitude for a few people to get to do exactly what they want frequently gets limited for the sake of the good of many or of all society. Don't pretend that just happens in communist countries or something.

I never suggested it didn't. Jeez, you really do jump to a lot of conclusions here.

Many people consider the right to work that is guaranteed in some communist countries far more important than the right to start a small business that is somewhat provided for in some capitalist countries.

That's simply their misunderstanding of what rights are. Rights are negatives. They are protection against the government.

What you are talking about is entitlements.

That's basically what I mean when I say that the U.S. is not an expert or authority on freedom - we have no justification to tell other countries that the way they value the right to work so much more than us is wrong and that they need to rearrange their priorities to better suit our philosophy on freedom.

We have several(already listed):

1. Our system works.
2. Our system (of rights) was adopted by the UN.
3. We're willing to fight to uphold it, even when the UN isn't (See: Kosovo again).

I don't know what you mean about learning, I didn't say anything about learning.

Then you're missing the point of what we've been getting at.

What the U.S. has done in the past in pushing around much smaller countries, and what it has done to promote freedom and what it has done to destroy or prevent freedom, are entirely relevant to discussing what attitude should be adopted towards Cuba and what the reaction to Castro's resignation should be.

Why!?

You keep saying these things: Connect them to the discussion!

I would appreciate it if you guys would stop stating or implying that I hate the U.S. or something. I don't have to like everything the U.S. has ever done to be proud of my country. [emphasis added]

The comment wasn't just about you and there are several degrees here. There are people in this discussion who actually do hate the US and I know you are not one of them. That's why I didn't use the word "hate".

Btw, just in case you missed jimmy's sarcasm, the only person to use the word "hate" here is you. It's the same as you've been doing the entire thread: you are reading things that people didn't say. The word I used was "dislike" and you affirmed that it is the correct word (in bold).

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This is a common shortcoming in peoples' understanding of how Democracy works and I don't understand why because it is taught in schools. People should remember such basic things - I haven't taken an American history [intro poly sci would cover it as well] course since freshman year in college.

Anyway, this is a common criticism of democracy and one people just don't realize has already been dealt with:

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

So, is this a concession that this doesn't only happen in communist countries? If you think that it would represent an absence of freedom for Cubans to be allowed to vote on whether to retain communism you ought to be opposed to half the laws and policies that have been enacted in U.S. history, or at least say that many of the actions of the Founding Fathers and the government since then have compromised freedom.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Wrong. On two levels. The first is the simple logical level. You're arguing against logic. Logically, this is 1+1=2 simple. If you don't have freedom you aren't free. Actually, I guess that would be 1=1 simple.

You are also wrong about whether this logic is "correct". The idea of individual rights has been accepted as the global standard: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

That's all there is to it. So to sum up:
1. Freedom has to include freedom to be freedom.
2. The world community demands that people be free.
I never suggested it didn't. Jeez, you really do jump to a lot of conclusions here. That's simply their misunderstanding of what rights are. Rights are negatives. They are protection against the government.

What you are talking about is entitlements. We have two (already listed):

1. Our system works.
2. Our system (of rights) was adopted by the UN. Then you're missing the point of what we've been getting at. Why!?

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?

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.

The U.S. system of rights was adopted by the U.N., eh? Not quite as simple as you think, dude. You are totally deceiving yourself with this belief that the U.S. is the preeminent authority on freedom in the world. I think we're pretty good at freedom but what you're saying is just blind hyperbolic nationalism.

You keep saying these things: Connect them to the discussion! The comment wasn't just about you and there are several degrees here. There are people in this discussion who actually do hate the US and I know you are not one of them. That's why I didn't use the word "hate".

The comment “He hasn't been playing us - sometimes people just get caught up in their dislike for American and run off on tangents.” may not have been directed exclusively at me but I'm sure as heck going to respond to it.

Btw, just in case you missed jimmy's sarcasm, the only person to use the word "hate" here is you. It's the same as you've been doing the entire thread: you are reading things that people didn't say. The word I used was "dislike" and you affirmed that it is the correct word (in bold).

In the bold I said that I dislike some of the things this country has done. That is not the same thing as saying I dislike this country.

Jimmy has spent a great deal of this thread trying to cleverly imply things, refraining from saying what he actually meant by his statements, and refusing to answer straighforward questions that would clarify what he has actually meant, falling back to mostly making sniping comments that convey further insinuations. I'll leave it to the readers of the thread to decide whether he may have been trying to insinuate things other than a dislike for the U.S. on my part and whether he was maybe guessing that I haven't sent off my own flesh and blood to fight this country's wars. I would stand and let my patriotism be measured up to either of yours any day of the week if you're going to question it.

Russ, with the above U.N. thing you have demonstrated that you do not understand international opinions and conventions about freedom and human rights.

⚛​

 

[DrClapeyron]

The system in Cuba is stuborn towards the representation of people and their ablity to choose a head of state figure (like president or parliaments ablity to choose a minister).

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The system in Cuba is stuborn towards the representation of people and their ablity to choose a head of state figure (like president or parliaments ablity to choose a minister).

If I'm understanding you correctly, DrClapeyron, I agree with you that the Cuban people should have more freedom to select their officials and heads of government. They also ought to have more freedom of the press.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy has spent a great deal of this thread trying to cleverly imply things, refraining from saying what he actually meant by his statements, and refusing to answer straighforward questions that would clarify what he has actually meant, falling back to mostly making sniping comments that convey further insinuations.

What I said was

Freedom isn't when they build a McDonalds, or a Burger King. Its when they build both of them and one goes out of business[/size][/color].

Clever indeed. It is you that have implied things, telling everyone what I meant by my statement and sniping at my font choices. I don't like it any more than you do. All this stuff about forcing the Cubans to do something came from you , not me.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Clever indeed. It is you that have implied things, telling everyone what I meant by my statement and sniping at my font choices. I don't like it any more than you do. All this stuff about forcing the Cubans to do something came from you , not me.

Jimmy, you are trying to prove your points with font size there rather than explaining your viewpoint. I apologize for using the pejorative phrase “temper tantrum” but like I said, I had already acknowledged your point about restaurants going out of business when I said that you're saying “freedom is commercial competition.”

Instead of responding to my requests that you clarify what you meant or how competition between McDonalds and Burger King constitutes freedom, you simply repeated yourself. In size seven, bold, blue letters. And then you insinuated some connection between me and the Clinton administration, which you also refused to explain. If you'll explain what you meant by the Clinton thing, I'll gladly respond to it, as I gave you multiple opportunities to explain whether “McDonalds and Burger King is freedom” means that capitalism should be forced on Cuba. (I think you might've finally done that and said “no” recently, but I don't want to put words in your mouth if you're actually willing to speak for yourself on this.)

I apologize, re-reading now it was Russ who said something about me disliking the U.S., twice - you weren't the one making that comment either time.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I said that you're saying “freedom is commercial competition.”

I don't want to put words in your mouth

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

 

[russ_watters]

So, is this a concession that this doesn't only happen in communist countries?

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

Tyranny of the majority is a problem unique to democracy.

If you think that it would represent an absence of freedom for Cubans to be allowed to vote on whether to retain communism you ought to be opposed to half the laws and policies that have been enacted in U.S. history, or at least say that many of the actions of the Founding Fathers and the government since then have compromised freedom.

⚛​

I am against quite a few laws in the US that have infringed upon our rights, yes.

 

[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.

⚛​