Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhy were they not able to use their oil profits with much success?
I suggest you read a bit about Venezuelan recent history - Venezuela also had low taxation, poor government services and large income differences before Chávez took over so they certainly were not doing "fine." The Chávez regime used some of the oil revenues to fund anti-poverty programmes with moderate success, but they never attempted to emulate the ...[text shortened]... odel combining a mixed economy, representative multi-party democracy and a strong welfare state.
Gaddafi did just fine doing that. In fact, people in Libya enjoyed arguably the best standard of living in Egypt.
Was the Chavez regime simply too corrupt in the hording of oil revenue?
Also, were the people of Libya happier than Americans? If so, is this part of why Obama targeted him for extermination?
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyWhy were they not able to use their oil profits with much success?
Why were they not able to use their oil profits with much success?
Gaddafi did just fine doing that. In fact, people in Libya enjoyed arguably the best standard of living in Egypt.
Was the Chavez regime simply too corrupt in the hording of oil revenue?
Also, were the people of Libya happier than Americans? If so, is this part of why Obama targeted him for extermination?
Because they were unable or unwilling to do so.
As for Libya, to the extent that it is true that Gaddafi-era Libya had a "high" standard of living (Tunisia probably has the highest right now, and arguably also during Gaddafi), it is only by comparison to African nation states, many of which are ravaged by the (now abating) HIV/AIDS epidemic. Of course none of the African societies have a standard of living competing with the U.S., although if you keep electing people like Donald Trump they will probably catch up in the not-too-distant future.
Originally posted by @wajomaNot all US land was originally taken by wealthy people. Many settlers in the 16th to the 18th Centuries had next to nothing. But I never said it was. I said something different. Let's try it again:
You're off on another subject, otherwise known as diversion. Not all land was taken by wealthy folk, not all land was taken full stop, some land has been taken and retaken, unless you have some specific record of who owns what where it means nothing. It's part of history. Got some specifics, names places, surveys by all means go for it.
Don't try and j ...[text shortened]... ue not the wealth non-wealth of those who engage it's force under the cop out,"Hey, it's legal".
"If you investigate the origins of land ownership you will be surprised how often it originates in taking land from other people, how much is transferred through inheritance, and how little of its value is in any remote way attributable to the efforts of the owner. The privatisation of land once in common ownership, as in Britain's land clearances or the USA's genocide of native Americans..."
As you say, "unless you have some specific record of who owns what where it means nothing. " In other words, the (classical) Liberal concept of private property requires a public system to map and register land ownership, supported by a legal structure to secure ownership. Of course, native Americans who did not map and register ownership and who did not accept the principle of private ownership for land had utterly different values of common or shared stewardship of land and its resources. So when you say "not all land was taken full stop" what you cheerfully ignore is that this claim relies on the lack of prior registered ownership, which is not how land rights worked prior to European colonisation. In your ideology, so ably summarised by John Locke, the Europeans settled empty land that the natives were allowing to go to waste.
It is simply not possible to pursue an ideology of property rights in the absence of government. Historically, the lands of the North American continent were loosely regarded as the territories of diverse people with fairly consistent principles concerning rights to hunt, farm and exploit resources. Imperial authorities - British and French in particular - made (half hearted) efforts to develop agreements on territory and trade by treaty with the native Americans but were unable to restrain the steady, greedy landgabbing, intrusions of colonists or settlers who are best characterised as "Indian Killers". The colonists formed their own government, first as a confederation of states and then as the United States, to release an unrestrained policy of genocide and westward expansion which arguable continued to the 1890 Massacre at Wounded Knee.
There is no stage of the process at which freedom loving individuals could have achieved their goals without the resources of a nation state and the type of nation state constructed by the colonists was one that met their requirements in full. After all, the US was founded by a bunch of property speculators and they wrote the constitution accordingly. Your blessed Founding Fathers were a bunch of murdering kleptomaniacs.
Your notion that "the state" is some alien entity imposed on freedom loving Americans is unhistorical and bizarre. Your notion that the rights of property are under threat from a state designed to meet the needs of property owners and to protect them from the demands of the great unwashed wanting any share of the wealth is unhistorical and bizarre. The North American continent was not and could not have been colonised by a random assortment of unrelated individuals. It was colonised by a great movement of settlers, acting collectively and with the resources of a powerful state to achieve their collective ends, within which by all means it became possible for individuals to satisfy their specific needs. When the state failed to meet their demands, or even sought to restrain their greed and murderous progress, they changed the state and carried on.
As for the state's continuing role, as exemplified by the concept of "emminent domain," this is not to the end of the state seizing ownership of property away from its citizens, but simply the state arbitrating between the conflicting demands of different property owners when necessary. If a state agency acts outside its proper powers, then it is accountable and can be challenged, as my Trump example earlier demonstrated. What you need to achieve is a better administered, more open and accountable form of government in which the wealthy and powerful are less free to purchase whatever they want at your expense. We like to call it "democracy" and the USA should try it sometime.
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI see, so Gaddafi took care of his people who were happy and Venezuela does not, for what reason you have no idea, yet Mr. Nobel Peace Prize and his European cronies chose to target Gaddafi for assassination?
[b]Why were they not able to use their oil profits with much success?
Because they were unable or unwilling to do so.
As for Libya, to the extent that it is true that Gaddafi-era Libya had a "high" standard of living (Tunisia probably has the highest right now, and arguably also during Gaddafi), it is only by comparison to African nation stat ...[text shortened]... eep electing people like Donald Trump they will probably catch up in the not-too-distant future.[/b]
Interesting.
I would then assume you are a big Gaddafi fan and represents the utopia you speak of that is possible through centralized control and planning.
If only we could make dictators act right ......it.....might......work!!!! 😵
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyI see, so Gaddafi took care of his people who were happy and Venezuela does not [...]
I see, so Gaddafi took care of his people who were happy and Venezuela does not, for what reason you have no idea, yet Mr. Nobel Peace Prize and his European cronies chose to target Gaddafi for assassination?
Interesting.
I would then assume you are a big Gaddafi fan and represents the utopia you speak of that is possible through centralized control and planning.
If only we could make dictators act right ......it.....might......work!!!! 😵
Not in the slightest what I said. I suggest you try again and attempt to comprehend the contents of my contributions in this thread.
[...]Mr. Nobel Peace Prize and his European cronies chose to target Gaddafi for assassination?
Gaddafi (unlike Bin Laden) wasn't assassinated on orders of the Obama administration.
If only we could make dictators act right ......it.....might......work!!!! 😵
What part of "multi-party representative democracy" escaped your grasp?
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra===If only we could make dictators act right ......it.....might......work!!!!
[b]I see, so Gaddafi took care of his people who were happy and Venezuela does not [...]
Not in the slightest what I said. I suggest you try again and attempt to comprehend the contents of my contributions in this thread.
[...]Mr. Nobel Peace Prize and his European cronies chose to target Gaddafi for assassination?
Gaddafi (unlike ...[text shortened]... .....work!!!! 😵[/b]
What part of "multi-party representative democracy" escaped your grasp?[/b]
What part of "multi-party representative democracy" escaped your grasp?===
I'm gonna hazard a guess that it was the multi, party, representative and democracy.
Originally posted by @sh76Yea, multi party democracies are great.
===If only we could make dictators act right ......it.....might......work!!!!
What part of "multi-party representative democracy" escaped your grasp?===
I'm gonna hazard a guess that it was the multi, party, representative and democracy.
In the US, one party passes health care reform that no one wants, so they vote for another party that says they will repeal it, only to find out that they evolved and changed their minds and want to keep the current system. Screw the voters. They can vote, that should be enough for them.
Nice.
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyare nhealth care reform that no one wants
Yea, multi party democracies are great.
In the US, one party passes health care reform that no one wants, so they vote for another party that says they will repeal it, only to find out that they evolved and changed their minds and want to keep the current system. Screw the voters. They can vote, that should be enough for them.
Nice.
Interesting to claim that noone wants it. How is this determined and by whom? The evidence seems to be that, in the opinion of a majority of your elected representatives, their voters on balance do want it until they are offered something better, not nothing, not something worse.
Now we can wonder who will offer them nothing and who will offer them anything better.
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @finneganObamacare was not popular when they were trying to pass it, and those that said they were going to repeal it got voted into office. Even Dims say we need a single payer system and don't like it.
health care reform that no one wants
Interesting to claim that noone wants it. How is this determined and by whom? The evidence seems to be that, in the opinion of a majority of your elected representatives, their voters on balance do want it until they are offered something better, not nothing, not something worse.
Now we can wonder who will offer them nothing and who will offer them anything better.
So yea, no one likes it.
Democracy is a sham.
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyThe U.S. is not a multi-party democracy.
Yea, multi party democracies are great.
In the US, one party passes health care reform that no one wants, so they vote for another party that says they will repeal it, only to find out that they evolved and changed their minds and want to keep the current system. Screw the voters. They can vote, that should be enough for them.
Nice.
Originally posted by @whodeyIt was not popular when it was still a proposal and the media were screaming blue murder about its terrors, true. It was not popular when its implementation was confused by diverse obstacles placed in its way, true.
Obamacare was not popular when they were trying to pass it, and those that said they were going to repeal it got voted into office. Even Dims say we need a single payer system and don't like it.
So yea, no one likes it.
Democracy is a sham.
However, now it is in place for at least a proportion of Americans, and the Republicans are debating its removal, it seems that some Republicans are finding it is now popular after all.
It seems the practical reality of actually existing healthcare trumps the deluded warnings of a poisoned political arena.
Are people not allowed to revise their opinions in your world? And should their elected representatives ignore that change when it happens?