Has hope gone for unfettered US travel to Cuba?

[mazolaman]

I have a problem with the common form of Patriotism which blinds people to the their own countries faults while they have no problem raising everyone elses. Plenty of examples in Oz and NZ.

Big call about men of honour (lack thereof) in Latin America. Plenty of good people have run for Govt/spoken out only to have disappeared or shot down in a hail of bullets by govts or rebels often supported by the major powers. I am not sure you can achieve a higher level of patriotism than knowing what you say (for the good of your people) will likely mean your death.

I have no doubt Castro was a patriot to begin with. Turned into a Dictator raising the other issue. Don't put too much faith in labels.

My 2 cents

"patriotism is the last refuse of the scoundrel" good old Oscar Wilde.

Heartily agree with you Rob,many an atrocious act has been comitted under one flag or another.

Many South Americans have stood up and been murdered over the years,like the original 9/11 when Pinochet came to power and brutally murdered all opposition in Chile.

I would also agree that Castro was initially a true believer in the validity of his acts,but power corrupts,and absloute power etc...

Aang san su chi,there's a patriot.Odds on to be back under arrest soon.Or dead.

As for patriotism,I believe sport is the best vent for this.....btw...did anyone see the rugby?brilliant match.

[cigcars]

I have a problem with the common form of Patriotism which blinds people to the their own countries faults while they have no problem raising everyone elses. Plenty of examples in Oz and NZ.

Big call about men of honour (lack thereof) in Latin America. Plenty of good people have run for Govt/spoken out only to have disappeared or shot down in a hail of bullets by govts or rebels often supported by the major powers. I am not sure you can achieve a higher level of patriotism than knowing what you say (for the good of your people) will likely mean your death.

I have no doubt Castro was a patriot to begin with. Turned into a Dictator raising the other issue. Don't put too much faith in labels.

My 2 cents

*Really, REALLY 'preciate your "2 cents" Mr. Pres...nuthin' like an objective opinion. Baptista, who Fidel overthrew, was in fact the U.S.'s man in charge on that island, allowing American interests to utilize the sugar cane fields and so on to the detriment of the regular citizenry there. And all who opposed him, even in actual democratic elections, were indeed gunned down or disappeared. It was indeed going to take armed force to remove him, thus - Fidel.

Pigfish had talked about the Washingtonian presidents and the inception of the constitution for freeedom for all. As they penned the Constititution, ole' George was giving orders to have his slaves flogged for trying to escape, for not doing their labors to his liking, etc. Sorry folks, but you just can't tout yourself as a bastion of freedom when you own human beings and condemn them for life as slaves.

It was also said that American slavery was abolished per morals or some statement to that effect. In truth, it was because the South was becoming so rich under their slaves, they wanted to break off and become their own country. The North wasn't having that, "We need to preserve the Union and stay a unified country!" The South again said, no, we don't need you. We can do just fine under our own slave produced wealth...of which the North then said, "Well fine, we'll just cut off your source of revenue, we'll just abolish slavery," which took 600,000 lives to do. Yet, they in fact let the South keep slavery later, just under other names, i.e. Sharecropping, Convict leasing, etc.

In short, one action, one crime, one obstinant stance is cause and effect for another counter to it. While everyone here in the states regales against "C-O-O-O-M-U-N-I-S-M!" the Evil empire, the Red Menance, etc. you have to realize, they were a political philosophy that emerged under oppressive pratically non-payment of wages to all those working people in capitalist, imperial nations. Like it or not, folks, the only reason you have a "minimum wage" now, was thanks to a man named Engles, under the "E-E-E-V-I-L Communism" of 1917 Russia.

Love and kisses to everyone, I know my statements will (or may) offend our more Reaganess minded fellows on the forum. And again, as many of you all have aptly put it, if we can do business with China, Saudi Arabia, and even Russia, well - you know!

[El Presidente]

One man's patriot is another man's partizan! -;pig:

You can't have a lover of country and a lover of party/cause?

Personally I think the world has too many "Patriot" and "Partisan" Lites.

Just give me 'good men' and 'good citizens'

[mykeuva]

......In short, one action, one crime, one obstinant stance is cause and effect for another counter to it. While everyone here in the states regales against "C-O-O-O-M-U-N-I-S-M!" the Evil empire, the Red Menance, etc. you have to realize, they were a political philosophy that emerged under oppressive pratically non-payment of wages to all those working people in capitalist, imperial nations. Like it or not, folks, the only reason you have a "minimum wage" now, was thanks to a man named Engles, under the "E-E-E-V-I-L Communism" of 1917 Russia....

I'll try to not be too political, but I did have a couple points here.

The statement that "the only reason you have minimum wage now was thanks to a man named Engles under the e-e-e-v-i-l communism of 1917 russia" is flat out false. You can look to the rise of unions as the inception of minimum wage standards in the US, and as anyone who has done any reading on the subject knows, early American unions were viciously anti-communist. Look up Samuel Gompers, Matthew Woll, and William Green, to name 3. Union members, and men like these, knew that workers could not depend on the state (government) to protect workers' interests, and that's why they expressly rejected communism. It is quite amazing to see how openly and strongly anti-communist the early labor movement was in the US. In comparison, how did unions and worker standards fare under communist Russia? Not too well. The notion that the concept of minimum wage grew "only" (your words) as a result of the growth of communism is wildly inaccurate. In fact, one of the first places that instituted a national minimum wage was New Zealand, in 1824, when Engels was 4 years old (a full 24 years before the communist manifesto). I doubt many that support Engels would suggest he was so brilliant that he inspired minimum wage legislation by the tender age of 4.

Also, can you please cite the article/book that shows Washington beat his slaves? If not, it's probably not the best of ideas to claim that he did just to prove a political point. The one book I know that has a good accounting of Washington and his slaves is "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America," and there are no outright claims that are as specific as you are alleging. In fact, it's strange that you would pick on Washington, as there is ample evidence that he's the one prominent founding father that spoke out and took action against the institution of slavery (I'll hold off on listing all that Washington said and did against slavery, but will be glad to provide it if one wishes.)

Finally, why do you continue to repeat the words "communism" and "evil" by spelling them out so? It comes across that you're trying to make fun of a viewpoint that communism was an evil perpetrated on the world. If you are making fun of this viewpoint, I'd suggest you look up holodomor, the great leap forward, killing fields, and gulag. It's odd that a person would equate "non-payment of wages" with the slaughter that came with communism. I can understand the emotion that slavery is a bad on the world, and communism is a bad on the world, and we can just lump them together as all being bad. But to do that is to ignore what history has to teach us, and we all know the saying about not learning from history. There are real differences between these "bads," and we shouldn't ignore the lessons from one just so we can try to indict the other.

And it's not just "Reaganess minded fellows" that feel this way. Those of us who have had family members slaughtered (literally, like animals) by communism understand the important differences.

[El Presidente]

I'll try to not be too political, but I did have a couple points here.

The statement that "the only reason you have minimum wage now was thanks to a man named Engles under the e-e-e-v-i-l communism of 1917 russia" is flat out false. You can look to the rise of unions as the inception of minimum wage standards in the US, and as anyone who has done any reading on the subject knows, early American unions were viciously anti-communist. Look up Samuel Gompers, Matthew Woll, and William Green, to name 3. Union members, and men like these, knew that workers could not depend on the state (government) to protect their interests, and that's why they expressly rejected communism. It is quite amazing to see how openly and strongly anti-communist the early labor movement was in the US. In comparison, how did unions and worker standards fare under communist Russia? Not too well. The notion that the concept of minimum wage grew "only" (your words) as a result of the growth of communism is wildly inaccurate.

Also, can you please cite the article/book that shows Washington beat his slaves? If not, it's probably not the best of ideas to claim that he did just to prove a political point. The one book I know that has a good accounting of Washington and his slaves is "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America," and there are no outright claims that are as specific as you are alleging. In fact, it's strange that you would pick on Washington, as there is ample evidence that he's the one prominent founding father that spoke out and took action against the institution of slavery (I'll hold off on listing all that Washington said and did against slavery, but will be glad to provide it if one wishes.)

Finally, why do you continue to repeat the words "communism" and "evil" by spelling them out so? It comes across that you're trying to make fun of a viewpoint that communism was an evil perpetrated on the world. If you are making fun of this viewpoint, I'd suggest you look up holodomor, the great leap forward, killing fields, and gulag. It's odd that a person would equate "non-payment of wages" with the slaughter that came with communism. I can understand the emotion that slavery is a bad on the world, and communism is a bad on the world, and we can just lump them together as all being bad. But to do that is to ignore what history has to teach us, and we all know the saying about not learning from history. There are real differences between these "bads," and we shouldn't ignore the lessons from one just so we can try to indict the other.

And it's not just "Reaganess minded fellows" that feel this way. Those of us who have had family members slaughtered (literally, like animals) by communism understand the important differences.

Well thought out post.

We have some fantastic thinkers on all sides of the divide whom can articulate a point of view beautifully. Kudos to you all.

[cigcars]

I'll try to not be too political, but I did have a couple points here.

The statement that "the only reason you have minimum wage now was thanks to a man named Engles under the e-e-e-v-i-l communism of 1917 russia" is flat out false. You can look to the rise of unions as the inception of minimum wage standards in the US, and as anyone who has done any reading on the subject knows, early American unions were viciously anti-communist. Look up Samuel Gompers, Matthew Woll, and William Green, to name 3. Union members, and men like these, knew that workers could not depend on the state (government) to protect workers' interests, and that's why they expressly rejected communism. It is quite amazing to see how openly and strongly anti-communist the early labor movement was in the US. In comparison, how did unions and worker standards fare under communist Russia? Not too well. The notion that the concept of minimum wage grew "only" (your words) as a result of the growth of communism is wildly inaccurate. In fact, one of the first places that instituted a national minimum wage was New Zealand, in 1824, when Engels was 4 years old (a full 24 years before the communist manifesto). I doubt many that support Engels would suggest he was so brilliant that he inspired minimum wage legislation by the tender age of 4.

Also, can you please cite the article/book that shows Washington beat his slaves? If not, it's probably not the best of ideas to claim that he did just to prove a political point. The one book I know that has a good accounting of Washington and his slaves is "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America," and there are no outright claims that are as specific as you are alleging. In fact, it's strange that you would pick on Washington, as there is ample evidence that he's the one prominent founding father that spoke out and took action against the institution of slavery (I'll hold off on listing all that Washington said and did against slavery, but will be glad to provide it if one wishes.)

Finally, why do you continue to repeat the words "communism" and "evil" by spelling them out so? It comes across that you're trying to make fun of a viewpoint that communism was an evil perpetrated on the world. If you are making fun of this viewpoint, I'd suggest you look up holodomor, the great leap forward, killing fields, and gulag. It's odd that a person would equate "non-payment of wages" with the slaughter that came with communism. I can understand the emotion that slavery is a bad on the world, and communism is a bad on the world, and we can just lump them together as all being bad. But to do that is to ignore what history has to teach us, and we all know the saying about not learning from history. There are real differences between these "bads," and we shouldn't ignore the lessons from one just so we can try to indict the other.

And it's not just "Reaganess minded fellows" that feel this way. Those of us who have had family members slaughtered (literally, like animals) by communism understand the important differences.

*Being so used to being accosted by apologists on this point, I'll just briefly point out the sources, which were shown on History Channel and reluctantly stated by the commentators/narrators on that. They spoke of how when the Constitution was being penned, GEORGE WASHINGTON, your founding father, was ordering his SLAVES TO BE BEATEN FOR RUNNING AWAY, etc. He owned THOUSANDS of slaves. I didn't make this up. They spoke of how Pennsylvania did make an attempt to free slaves after 5 years of service. GEORGE would deliberately sell them around again and again, buy them back, put them back under his slaved service in moves to by-pass the 5 year rule and keep them PERMANENTLY enslaved. My spelling out Communism and Evil empire was my way of quoting the people who rant on against it. For the unions as you say being anti-communist I believe you, but the forces against them called them "COMMUNISTS" for-EVER as a way of stopping their fight for minimum wage. For those who've lost loved ones to the "Commies" this is meant as no intended disrespect to your position. And on one of the news commentary shows on our CNN/CNBC/ etc. news networks, one of the guest commentators on there said it was Frederick Engles who was responsible for the inception of minimum wage. I can hear the detest and angst in your tone against what was said, but just keep in mind - these very History Channel & PBS Station specials I have to take my hat off to in telling the facts objectively, and at risk of offending apologists who just think THEIR guys can do and have done no wrong in the bastion of history.

[mykeuva]

*Being so used to being accosted by apologists on this point, I'll just briefly point out the sources, which were shown on History Channel and reluctantly stated by the commentators/narrators on that. They spoke of how when the Constitution was being penned, GEORGE WASHINGTON, your founding father, was ordering his SLAVES TO BE BEATEN FOR RUNNING AWAY, etc. He owned THOUSANDS of slaves. I didn't make this up. They spoke of how Pennsylvania did make an attempt to free slaves after 5 years of service. GEORGE would deliberately sell them around again and again, buy them back, put them back under his slaved service in moves to by-pass the 5 year rule and keep them PERMANENTLY enslaved. My spelling out Communism and Evil empire was my way of quoting the people who rant on against it. For the unions as you say being anti-communist I believe you, but the forces against them called them "COMMUNISTS" for-EVER as a way of stopping their fight for minimum wage. For those who've lost loved ones to the "Commies" this is meant as no intended disrespect to your position. And on one of the news commentary shows on our CNN/CNBC/ etc. news networks, one of the guest commentators on there said it was Frederick Engles who was responsible for the inception of minimum wage. I can hear the detest and angst in your tone against what was said, but just keep in mind - these very History Channel & PBS Station specials I have to take my hat off to in telling the facts objectively, and at risk of offending apologists who just think THEIR guys can do and have done no wrong in the bastion of history.

Really quickly:

1. The guest commentator you mention talking about Engels was simply incorrect if he said Engels was responsible for the minimum wage. As I have pointed out, the earliest examples of national minimum wage laws and actions were in 1824 in New Zealand and to a lesser extent Australia. Engels was born in 1820. That means that minimum wage law was being put into effect, on a national scale, when Engels was 4 years old. 4 years old. The communist manifesto was published around 1848, a full 24 years after national minimum wage law was put into effect. Attributing minimum wage law to Engels is incorrect. Saying that Engels is the "only" reason for minimum wage law is horribly incorrect. Either you misunderstood the guest, or that guest is a person you should not listen to b/c they do not know of what they speak. Minimum wage laws emerged from and concurrent to collective bargaining movements.

2. On George Washington, you're going to have to do better than "oh, I heard it on the history channel." That is not a citation. Who did you hear it from? Where can someone else see this information? As shown above with Engels and minimum wage, someone can easily misinterpret something they heard on television, or they could be listening to someone completely clueless on a subject on television. If someone asks me to support a point, it's simple intellectual weakness for me to say "oh, I heard it on tv" and expect that to be enough of a citation. Back to Washington, I'm not going to drone on about the complicated issue of slavery as it relates to Washington and the rest of the founders, but I will try to say quickly, specifically, about Washington: Washington signed into law banning slavery in areas of the northwest territory seeking entrance into the United States (and b/c of that law, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery), Washington kept more slaves than needed despite it being economically disadvantageous for him to do so because he hated the idea of human trafficking as well as he did not want to break up slave families (a radical notion at the time b/c society and the law did not recognize slave marriages or slave families), he was the only founding father to free his slaves on his death (through a loophole in the law that allowed him to free slaves upon death), and numerous correspondence by Washington shows his opposition to the institution of slavery, here's but an example:

"there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

So you'll have to forgive me, but I find the unsupported claim that Washington beat his slaves to be a little suspicious. If you could point to something that someone else could turn to and examine, that would be much appreciated. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it would be nice to see some evidence of this claim. Until then, it's merely an unsupported allegation.

3. Yes, I realize the way you spell communism and evil was b/c you are quoting those that "rant" against it. But again, you try and make their positions as some sort of "rants", like those people are trying to scare people. You do realize that communism is in fact the worst killer of man, other than natural causes/disease, don't you?

4. If you knew about the early leaders of the unions like Gompers, you wouldn't claim that people were calling them communists, b/c the union leaders like Gompers were among the loudest anti-communists to be found. Violently so. If you think people are bad "ranting" about communism today, you should read some speeches by early union leaders.

5. Part of the reason why politics is such a difficult subject is b/c people get emotional, rant and start name calling and threads get heated. I've tried to remain calm and discuss things civilly. You don't have to start labeling people "apologists" for arguing a point. These are difficult subjects on their own without resorting to name calling. And besides, I don't think you wouldn't enjoy it if someone were to point out that you were apologizing for a philosophy that has killed more people than anything other than disease/nature.

[CanuckSARTech]

While I enjoy a great cigar from a communist country, capitalist raise the best beef!!! -LOL Cheers mates! -Piggy

Ehhhh, the best beef's Canadian beef!

And, if you believe certain media out of the U.S., then us Canadians and our beef are evil "socialists", and are to be the downfall of all civilized society.

But hey, you can still have some great steaks!!!

[cigcars]

Really quickly:

1. The guest commentator you mention talking about Engels was simply incorrect if he said Engels was responsible for the minimum wage. As I have pointed out, the earliest examples of national minimum wage laws and actions were in 1824 in New Zealand and to a lesser extent Australia. Engels was born in 1820. That means that minimum wage law was being put into effect, on a national scale, when Engels was 4 years old. 4 years old. The communist manifesto was published around 1848, a full 24 years after national minimum wage law was put into effect. Attributing minimum wage law to Engels is incorrect. Saying that Engels is the "only" reason for minimum wage law is horribly incorrect. Either you misunderstood the guest, or that guest is a person you should not listen to b/c they do not know of what they speak. Minimum wage laws emerged from and concurrent to collective bargaining movements.

2. On George Washington, you're going to have to do better than "oh, I heard it on the history channel." That is not a citation. Who did you hear it from? Where can someone else see this information? As shown above with Engels and minimum wage, someone can easily misinterpret something they heard on television, or they could be listening to someone completely clueless on a subject on television. If someone asks me to support a point, it's simple intellectual weakness for me to say "oh, I heard it on tv" and expect that to be enough of a citation. Back to Washington, I'm not going to drone on about the complicated issue of slavery as it relates to Washington and the rest of the founders, but I will try to say quickly, specifically, about Washington: Washington signed into law banning slavery in areas of the northwest territory seeking entrance into the United States (and b/c of that law, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery), Washington kept more slaves than needed despite it being economically disadvantageous for him to do so because he hated the idea of human trafficking as well as he did not want to break up slave families (a radical notion at the time b/c society and the law did not recognize slave marriages or slave families), he was the only founding father to free his slaves on his death (through a loophole in the law that allowed him to free slaves upon death), and numerous correspondence by Washington shows his opposition to the institution of slavery, here's but an example:

"there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

So you'll have to forgive me, but I find the unsupported claim that Washington beat his slaves to be a little suspicious. If you could point to something that someone else could turn to and examine, that would be much appreciated. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it would be nice to see some evidence of this claim. Until then, it's merely an unsupported allegation.

3. Yes, I realize the way you spell communism and evil was b/c you are quoting those that "rant" against it. But again, you try and make their positions as some sort of "rants", like those people are trying to scare people. You do realize that communism is in fact the worst killer of man, other than natural causes/disease, don't you?

4. If you knew about the early leaders of the unions like Gompers, you wouldn't claim that people were calling them communists, b/c the union leaders like Gompers were among the loudest anti-communists to be found. Violently so. If you think people are bad "ranting" about communism today, you should read some speeches by early union leaders.

5. Part of the reason why politics is such a difficult subject is b/c people get emotional, rant and start name calling and threads get heated. I've tried to remain calm and discuss things civilly. You don't have to start labeling people "apologists" for arguing a point. These are difficult subjects on their own without resorting to name calling. And besides, I don't think you wouldn't enjoy it if someone were to point out that you were apologizing for a philosophy that has killed more people than anything other than disease/nature.

*Well, listen, I'm not gonna keep bantering with you on history's "baddies", various political & national philosophies & so on. You have your opine, and I mine. I do have to credit you 'cuz you've been reasonably polite, courteous, and though I think a bit unwilling to believe bad news about some of history's "greats" we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, I'm aware names, dates, etc. as far as sources are paramount (I was on televised debate teams in high school in Louisville, Kentucky). Yet, I've seen over and over again that when a subject or statement is made to somebody who's GOING to be on a particular side, THOSE SOURCES are only and always attacked, put down, attempted to be discredited, etc. They're NEVER acknowledged. Also, don't mistake my attempts at being objective for appearing apologist, myself. In an earlier post, I did criticize Communism's philosophy of "From each according to his ability- To each according to his need" - uhm, no. I'LL decide what my need is and how much of it I'll get if I can reasonably afford it. As nearly everyone earlier had truthfully stated - MONEY as well as power is the ultimate aim & goal of whatever political group is in charge.

Wel-l-l-l-l, folks, so much for our Cuba's doors & travel options opening up for those of us who like their island product discussion!

[mykeuva]

*Well, listen, I'm not gonna keep bantering with you on history's "baddies", various political & national philosophies & so on. You have your opine, and I mine. I do have to credit you 'cuz you've been reasonably polite, courteous, and though I think a bit unwilling to believe bad news about some of history's "greats" we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, I'm aware names, dates, etc. as far as sources are paramount (I was on televised debate teams in high school in Louisville, Kentucky). Yet, I've seen over and over again that when a subject or statement is made to somebody who's GOING to be on a particular side, THOSE SOURCES are only and always attacked, put down, attempted to be discredited, etc. They're NEVER acknowledged. Also, don't mistake my attempts at being objective for appearing apologist, myself. In an earlier post, I did criticize Communism's philosophy of "From each according to his ability- To each according to his need" - uhm, no. I'LL decide what my need is and how much of it I'll get if I can reasonably afford it. As nearly everyone earlier had truthfully stated - MONEY as well as power is the ultimate aim & goal of whatever political group is in charge.

Wel-l-l-l-l, folks, so much for our Cuba's doors & travel options opening up for those of us who like their island product discussion!

Yep, agree to disagree.

But let me just say I'm more than willing to believe bad news about anyone. I care about the truth more than anything. What I'm not willing to do is take a claim about a historic moment/person at face value without a shred of evidence.

That being said, this is a forum for cigar lovers, and we can celebrate that which unites us here......

[mazolaman]

The Labels "Communism" and "Capitalism" are currently used as misnoma.

I'm not sure that there really is a true comunist society currently,as many despotic men call their country such,but it does not reflect the truth.

Also,we currently live under an extreme form of capitalism,where the bulk of the money goes to a small percentage of people,or nations.I believe capitalism was originally meant to contain a degree of social contingency.

I believe this was removed in the era of Reagan and Thatcher,who followed the Friedman "chicago school" model.

As our NHS teeters on the edge,and some in the US cannot afford their treatment,these facts seem a disgrace to me,in our civilised society.

"You do realize that communism is in fact the worst killer of man, other than natural causes/disease, don't you? "

This seems a fairly simplistic view.Given that approx 2.8 billion people live on two dollars a day.in many cases the desease they are dying from could be prevented with medicine that are freely available(well,currently!) to us,but are totally unreachable to them,purely because they are not paid a fair wage for their labours.

This form of capitalism leads to another problem-if you are a major drugs company,you can make a pill to cure cholera(for example) or a pill to give people a hard on,which will make you more money,therefore which pill gets made?There's no money in curing poor people.

A further example from britain-in the 1970's a Manageing director recieved 20x the lowest wage in that company,

This is now 200 x the lowest wage.

These examples demonstrate to me that unfettered capitalism always leads to massive societal unfairness.

Personally,I do not argue for pure "communism",I believe in a socially aware form of capitalism,as seen in some scandanavian countries.

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

Leopolis Semper Fidelis: Some folk seem to have a problem with the concept of patriotism. Correctly understood, it is to be encouraged. After all, what is a true patriot? Answer: one who defends, or is zealous for, his country's prosperity, freedom or rights. There have been genuine statesmen, men of honour - though few - in Latin America over the years. Such principled individuals were genuine patriots, who strove for the common good of their countrymen (one's motto was: Liberty for everyone and everything, save for crime and criminals). They recognised that other countries must have their patriots too. In this light, it can thus be seen that Castro is not a true Cuban patriot.

I have a problem with the common form of Patriotism which blinds people to the their own countries faults while they have no problem raising everyone elses. Plenty of examples in Oz and NZ.

Big call about men of honour (lack thereof) in Latin America. Plenty of good people have run for Govt/spoken out only to have disappeared or shot down in a hail of bullets by govts or rebels often supported by the major powers. I am not sure you can achieve a higher level of patriotism than knowing what you say (for the good of your people) will likely mean your death.

I have no doubt Castro was a patriot to begin with. Turned into a Dictator raising the other issue. Don't put too much faith in labels.

My 2 cents

I discussed true patriotism. The debased form certainly is widespread in the trans-Tasman countries: I, too, have a problem with this. I referred to genuine statesmen being men of honour with specific reference to Latin American ones, since Cuba is part of Latin America. The man I quoted was a President of his country who was assassinated for his efforts.

As for Castro, since he was at least a Communist sympathiser from his teens, he cannot be considered a genuine patriot, IMHO. My tuppence worth!

[mykeuva]

The Labels "Communism" and "Capitalism" are currently used as misnoma.

I'm not sure that there really is a true comunist society currently,as many despotic men call their country such,but it does not reflect the truth.

This line of thought is repeated over and over, usually by those that seek to excuse the crimes against humanity that communism has brought on (not saying you are doing this). The simple, terrible fact is that nations that have aspired to emulating the communist model, through state ownership/planning of the means of production, have, without exception, brought terrible consequences to their populations, usually through famine/hunger/poverty.

Also,we currently live under an extreme form of capitalism,where the bulk of the money goes to a small percentage of people,or nations.I believe capitalism was originally meant to contain a degree of social contingency.

I think it's important to remember the vital ingredient that works the best when dealing with these issues, and that's the free market, not simply "capitalism." Capitalism simply means private ownership of the means of production. The free market means there is little economic interference by the state, and competition runs free. You can have capitalism without a free market, but you cannot have a free market without capitalism. Those who are in favor of less economic intervention are not happy with crony capitalism, where governments work with businesses in deciding regulations and picking winners and losers.

That being said, you speak in terms of a fixed amount of money ("the bulk of the money), and that it simply gets shifted around society. In a free market, wealth grows. There is no necessary rule for where wealth flows to or from. That's one of the great things about free market economies, nobody in government picks winners and losers (and they pick poorly anyway, usually by simply giving out favors to people they know). Heck, just look at the richest of the rich in the US. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, etc. etc. These are billionaires that came from nothing, simply b/c of what value they brought to society (and were justly rewarded for it.)

Nothing states that a certain person will be poor or rich or neither in a free market, other than that individual's own efforts. If this were untrue, the US would still look to the Carnegies, the Astors, the Morgans, the Vanderbilts etc. etc. as they were decades ago.

I believe this was removed in the era of Reagan and Thatcher,who followed the Friedman "chicago school" model.

I don't believe you can boil down the US government in the 80s to simply following the "chicago school." Yes, tax rates in the US went down. But what happened to regulation and government spending? Those went up, drastically. High regulations and high government spending are not characterstics of the chicago school, nor any other advocate of free market economics.

As our NHS teeters on the edge,and some in the US cannot afford their treatment,these facts seem a disgrace to me,in our civilised society.

Is it your contention that people cannot afford treatment b/c they live in a relatively free market society? If so, how do people fare in societies with extensive government intervention in the economy? (Not too well.)

"You do realize that communism is in fact the worst killer of man, other than natural causes/disease, don't you? "

This seems a fairly simplistic view.Given that approx 2.8 billion people live on two dollars a day.in many cases the desease they are dying from could be prevented with medicine that are freely available(well,currently!) to us,but are totally unreachable to them,purely because they are not paid a fair wage for their labours.

You are correct, it is a simplistic view, because the evidence is so ample, the record of history is so clear, that the conclusions one draws are not difficult to come by.

And again, are 2.8 billion people living on 2 dollars a day a result from free market economies, and the rule of law, existing in those countries? I think you know the answer to that. The analysis doesn't begin and end with "the people aren't paid a fair wage." It's because, sadly, in a large portion of this Earth, people live under authoritarian governments that only exist to serve those governments. Free markets don't exist, the rule of law doesn't exist, respect for the individual, doesn't exist, in those nations.

Let's look at a ranking of economic freedom in the world, as compiled by the heritage foundation in their yearly index of economic freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx

Top 10 nations in economic freedom

1. Hong Kong

2. Singapore

3. Australia

4. New Zealand

5. Ireland

6. Switzerland

7. Canada

8. United States

9. Denmark

10. Chile

and now the bottom 10 in terms of economic freedom

170. Soloman Islands

171. Turkmenistan

172. Democratic Republic of Congo

173. Libya

174. Venezuela

175. Burma

176. Eritrea

177. Cuba

178. Zimbabwe

179. North Korea

Now let's get back to your 2 dollars a day point. How many nations that are among the freest economies in the world have workers who only earn 2 dollars an hour, let alone a day? I would say none. Now look at the bottom of the list.

I'm sorry, but history is clear on this point. The nations that have been able to escape this awful destitution are the ones that have market economies, protected by a rule of law.

So my point that you quoted stands, even though it is simplistic according to you. People that are dying because of a lack of nourishment/disease in these troubled nations aren't dying b/c their nations practice free market capitalism. They're dying b/c their governments are crooked, and interfere in everything, whether it be the economy, people's lives, people's thoughts, people's freedoms, etc. etc.

And in the traditionally communist nations in history, these evils, these mass murders, have not come about because of an accident. I wasn't even talking about the malnourishment and the poor medical care under communism. My quote referred to the deliberate slaughter of human beings. That is communism. No, the death toll I was referring to was all too intentional. They were intentional acts of slaughter. Again, the killing fields, the gulag, the holodomor, the great leap forward...all of these were planned by their governments. And those were just the big ones. I didn't even mention places like la cabana prison, or the falun gong camps, or the post WWII slaughter of freedom fighters, or the communist political prison camps of Romania, East Germany, Poland, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. etc. It's a history of human blood and flesh.

This form of capitalism leads to another problem-if you are a major drugs company,you can make a pill to cure cholera(for example) or a pill to give people a hard on,which will make you more money,therefore which pill gets made?There's no money in curing poor people.

It would seem common sense would dictate that a big part of the solution would be to allow as many people as possible to escape from this grinding poverty, so they could afford to nourish themselves, and treat their illnesses, no? And, as stated above, the best way to allow people to escape from this nasty poorness/underdevelopment would be for these nations to respect the individual, allow for freedom and competition not only in politics, but in economics as well.

A further example from britain-in the 1970's a Manageing director recieved 20x the lowest wage in that company,

This is now 200 x the lowest wage.

These examples demonstrate to me that unfettered capitalism always leads to massive societal unfairness.

It all depends on what you mean by "unfairness." Is it unfair that Bill Gates is worth over 50 billion dollars? There is no "fairness" or "unfairness." People receive according to the value they bring to society. It isn't a question of the wealth disparity, it's a question of is the quality of life improving for all, across classes? And in nations that have free economies, that question is answered with a resounding yes. Wages, when one includes benefits, have outpaced inflation for decades (the stories of stagnant wages ignore benefit packages that have become more and more popular throughout the years.) Furthermore, look at the quality of life/goods purchased today versus the past. A car purchased today is vastly improved, in terms of safety, comfort, efficiency, etc. etc. over a car built 30 years/20 years/heck even 10 years ago. People today have smart phones, laptops, cable tv, high speed internet, ipods, etc. etc. These improvements are not merely enjoyed by "the rich."

Personally,I do not argue for pure "communism",I believe in a socially aware form of capitalism,as seen in some scandanavian countries.

I don't believe in labels, nor partisanship. I simply advocate for the freedom of the individual, politically and economically. The more government interferes in either case, the worse results people tend to see.

Since you mentioned Scandinavia, and I've done some reading on the Swedish economy of the past hundred years or so, it's instructive to see what Sweden has done. They built their economy up through market economics, and saw their standard of living (as reflected in terms of GDP per capita) rise very high in the 20th century. In the 70's, Sweden ratched up tax rates and generally saw more government interference in its economy, and this corresponded to a gradual decline in their per capita GDP. It also ended up in a huge banking crisis in the early 90s, which saw interests rates around 500%. Sweden, in response, drastically slashed tax rates, and once again opened up its economy (today I believe around 90% of Sweden's GDP is from privately owned businesses) and saw it's per capita GDP rise again. Here's an interesting, somewhat short video on the subject by a Swedish economist:

I understand the impulse that people have when they advocate that the state should intervene to "help" people. It's a common sense emotion, the notion of being charitable. The problem is, it is counterintuitive to realize that when the state (government) interferes, it usually hurts more than it helps. No matter how many smart people you gather together in government, they are no match for the collective knowledge and experience of the people that is reflected in every day market transactions. Furthermore, when you have this small number of people in government directing capital, wealth is destroyed instead of created. The money taken out of the private sector is money lost that could have been spent on wealth creating activities (and those activities create jobs). And the money that the government took is directed to activities that fail, or are grossly inefficient.

And finally, since you mentioned Friedman, let me end this long post (sorry for that) with this great 2 minute video all should see:

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

Mykeuva: Many thanks for your input. You made some great points, well articulated. Did you, too, lose family members to the Red tyranny?

[mykeuva]

Mykeuva: Many thanks for your input. You made some great points, well articulated. Did you, too, lose family members to the Red tyranny?

Not close family (obviously, since I never had a chance to know them), but I have been told stories by family members of the loved ones they lost, shockingly awful stories, about Eastern Europe after WWII and the decades that followed. Entire villages that fought against nazis and survived only to be slaughtered by communists in the aftermath as a thank you for the war effort. And then throughout the years, the terror that people felt and had to endure, and all of this occurred in the nation that people said was the most free of the communist nations.

[PigFish]

mykeuva

Leopolis Semper Fideles...

... Forgive my candor mates but ****in' A!!! I am glad someone around here (other than me) actually reads a little history, makes logical observations of society, markets and governance and can peal back the skin of the 'red' onion to expose the facts that make an objective man's eyes water!

I thank you both for your insightful input. I get truly weary of being one of the very few around here that still attempts to make logical arguments regarding liberty and tyranny, regardless the popular labels attached them. The fact remains that the cockroaches of tyranny cannot withstand the light of truth when the documentation of true events and history come a callin'!

Cheers mates, you saved me a lot of writing. Thanks! Great reading! Great temperament! Bravo! Bravo! You have made silk hats from a sow's ear! -Ray

[khomeinist]

Lol. Congrats on your new-found solidarity Brothers of the Right! Color me unimpressed.

One man's 'objectivity' is another woman's closed-minded analysis.

For God!

For Country!

For Markets!

I bow in reverence. But I know better. God? Useful fiction. Country? Irrelevant in a global economy. Markets? Not generally free.

Please consult the 3/5 clause.

Please consult Manifest Destiny

Please consult the extensive scholarship on the economic bases for both the American Revolution and the Civil War. Please spend some time in a university library.

Yes. It is true that the Cuban and American Revolutions are very different. American 'Revolution' was middle-class in orientation, relatively calm in temperament, and more about localized control of the economy than anything else. Liberty? Please. Liberty for those trying to make money under a more favorable economic system free from British control. Once again. 3/5 clause.

The Cuban Revolution was a necessary response to USA/Mafia sponsored control. Yes. Fidel should have worked much harder to transition into a freer society after the revolution. That does not discount the Revolution in my eyes. Like the revolutions in France, Mexico, and Iran.... the initial revolt was sparked by moral imperative. The problem is how to calm a raging bull once it leaves the pen. The Americans were successful with this because the Revolution was essentially conservative. Truly outraged Radical forces are much more difficult to control.

Ok. I would have let this go my friends but I can't let a Pig gloat. His birthday pass has expired!

All in humor. Please get offended with a smile....as is my intent.

[PigFish]

While it is wonderful and happy that we are all willing now to swap spit in the shower I must say that I was not quite done with the topic. I have enjoyed the exchange and welcome the newest arrivals to the topic. There is nothing like the eloquent appearance of a few pertinent facts to slow down a fallacious debate!

Frankly I am not a spokesman for GW or an apologist for same. I still see GW as an American hero and have yet to meet a perfect man. The perfection of GW or the government that he helped create was never my intended focus of discussion. If one must bag on GW, have at him; although I am rather pleased that someone has stepped up to separate fact from fiction.

Pigfish spoke of the intent of the union formed by the ejection of a tyrannical government lead by King George 3 from the colonies in North America, and the difference between two systems of government. His point was and is that the ultimate goal of the Cuban revolution and the American revolution and the corresponding forms of governments created as the results were in fact different when viewed from a human rights perspective (and others I might add). His argument still is; that while there are no perfect forms of government, some are markedly better than others. Perspectives notwithstanding, unless you are a member of the ruling oligarchy and represent or yield the power and the control of the tyrant, it is better to live in a society based on Constitutional republicanism than in one controlled by communist tyrants. Comparing the two, and elevating the Cuban revolution as the result, was not only an insult to one American but a blatant misrepresentation of historic evidence.

I am happy to entertain intelligent discussion based on upon opinion, supposition or facts as long as they are represented as such. I have found that there are several ways to make a point and support an argument. Of the many ways to debate the topic, I have historically found those who harbor anti-American sentiments are almost always making their arguments by attempting to elevate tyranny. Or they simply point out the obvious, that the American government is imperfect and fallible and provide as a possible solution the theories that elevate tyranny.

Anti-American apologists are always pointing out the flaws of Americanism while overlooking the shortcomings of socialism and communism (hard and soft tyranny). It is simply amazing to me that with Marx inspired governments claiming the lives of 10's or perhaps 100's of millions of people, the anti-American will cede the faults of communism and its associated human atrocities to cite its ostensible virtues. I mean what is a few million dead when you can get a free bowl of soup if you survive the cut? The shear magnitude of the callousness of those who would side with those that commit genocide for the sake of an argument regarding an "alternative" government model makes me want to vomit!

I am partizan and unlike my friends I say call a spade a spade!

I am happy to openly admit that I have a hatred for those who perpetrate tyranny and those whom initiate and perpetuate communism are at the top of my list. I don't live in the shadows. I detest those who oppress humanity and that includes the forces of tyranny in all governments including my own. If my hatred of genocidal leaders offends you, please come forward and tell me where I went wrong. Please just come out and say that you detest the American form of government if you must. Enlighten me with the facts. Stand behind your man. If your man is Marx or Engels, Mao or Saloth Sar, have the guts to say that you support the theories that motivate and empower your genocidal heros and rationalize their beliefs and actions to me. Please don't just quote the theory of Marxism, Leninism and the rest. Don't shield yourself with microscopic differences as established by dialectic materialism... If you want to talk about the theory, well lets bring to the light of day where the theory has worked, and what the historical results were. I am all ears! When you rationalize the replacement of a tyrant with another tyrant you advocate tyranny... not liberty.

I can tell you this. If your augment for tyranny, soft or hard is in the form of the statement that the American government is flawed and as a result the theories of Marx and Engels are viable solutions; I pity you. You are in fact in league with the those that have perpetrated the greatest sins against humanity in recorded history. Even plagues can't kill as effectively as communists!

American imperfection is not rationale for tyranny. Inequality of life is not rationale for tyranny. A free education is not rationale for tyranny. Tyranny elevates only the tyrants and you need only open a book of history to see that it is true. A member here once said to me that the definition of insanity was the repetition of an act with the expectation that the results would differ. My reply was, while that may be true, he had just described those who find merit in the teaching of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Engels and others! I have to laugh almost at those who find merit in these guys!!! Each one preaching tyranny and all willing cut each others throats to become the tyrant on top! Now that is a system to emulate. But what can you expect from a system that replaces God with Marx, where the destruction of man is an act of nature and in that sense perfects man!

Friends do yourself a favor. Pick up a book and do a little reading on communist theory from one of the masters. If you are not nauseated by what you read and want to blow your own brains out afterwards then you'll fit right in with them. By that time you are likely ready willing to blow the brains out of your fellow man and feel good about it! After a little reading it is pretty easy to see why they do what they do and sleep well at night.

-Piggy

[khomeinist]

Lol. These debates probably fit the definition of insanity.

We each know where we stand. People over the age of 25 don't tend to change their political philosophy. We know the arguments for the 'other side.' We laugh to ourselves at the logical traps our opponents fall into while stumbling with logic. We never reach a consensus.

And yet we continue on. For humor? To feel superior? To feel self-righteous?

Restrictions to liberty come from both the right and left. Limit my ability to smoke. Tell me how to define marriage. Tell me what is 'patriotic.' Make me pay taxes for things I do not support (whether they be wars or social programs).

It goes both ways. The real truth probably lies in human imperfection at both the individual and institutional level. Perhaps we can just agree on that simple fact. There is a long history of tyranny that transcends 'communist,' 'democratic,' 'capitalist,' labels.

I think we all agree that the embargo needs to go. I think we would all like to meet in Havana for a stiff drink and several smokes. All the other political banter is quite secondary. We all have our opinions. Perhaps we can just agree on what to smoke en mass at Hotel Nacional?

[cigcars]

Lol. These debates probably fit the definition of insanity.

We each know where we stand. People over the age of 25 don't tend to change their political philosophy. We know the arguments for the 'other side.' We laugh to ourselves at the logical traps our opponents fall into while stumbling with logic. We never reach an consensus.

And yet we continue on. For humor? To feel superior? To feel self-righteous?

Restrictions to liberty come from both the right and left. Limit my ability to smoke. Tell me how to define marriage. Tell me what is 'patriotic.' Make me pay taxes for things I do not support (whether they be wars or social programs).

It goes both ways. The real truth probably lies in human imperfection at both the individual and institutional level. Perhaps we can just agree on that simple fact. There is a long history of tyranny that transcends 'communist,' 'democratic,' 'capitalist,' labels.

I think we all agree that the embargo needs to go. I think we would all like to meet in Havana for a stiff drink and several smokes. All the other political banter is quite secondary. We all have our opinions. Perhaps we can just agree on what to smoke en mass at Hotel Nacional?

*Amen, brother, and sounds good to me!

[PigFish]

Lol. Congrats on your new-found solidarity Brothers of the Right! Color me unimpressed.

One man's 'objectivity' is another woman's closed-minded analysis.

For God!

For Country!

For Markets!

I bow in reverence. But I know better. God? Useful fiction. Country? Irrelevant in a global economy. Markets? Not generally free.

Please consult the 3/5 clause.

Please consult Manifest Destiny

Please consult the extensive scholarship on the economic bases for both the American Revolution and the Civil War. Please spend some time in a university library.

Yes. It is true that the Cuban and American Revolutions are very different. American 'Revolution' was middle-class in orientation, relatively calm in temperament, and more about localized control of the economy than anything else. Liberty? Please. Liberty for those trying to make money under a more favorable economic system free from British control. Once again. 3/5 clause.

The Cuban Revolution was a necessary response to USA/Mafia sponsored control. Yes. Fidel should have worked much harder to transition into a freer society after the revolution. That does not discount the Revolution in my eyes. Like the revolutions in France, Mexico, and Iran.... the initial revolt was sparked by moral imperative. The problem is how to calm a raging bull once it leaves the pen. The Americans were successful with this because the Revolution was essentially conservative.

Ok. I would have let this go my friends but I can't let a Pig gloat. His birthday pass has expired!

All in humor. Please get offended with a smile....as is my intent.

My smile has inverted as I am saddened by the state of education when the vaccination that kills the patient is called a cure! Lets just look past a 100 million dead... the bull was a ragin'!

Don't give me a pass amigo, although I appreciate the courtesy. Extend the courtesy to those that are dead as the result of those you exult. As usual... the academic overlooks the deaths of millions to nitpick imperfections of Americanism!

For those that died by the hands of communist tyrants... is that all that you can say?

Truly outraged Radical forces are much more difficult to control.

Do those that excite such a force have no more responsibility than that? Or, have you also overlooked that death and chaos is the precise purpose of "Radical forces." These are not happenstance events, tangents of the process, they are intentional outcomes of the theory. You probably have more emotion to express to one who dings the door of your car and this is why I am not gloating...

I am here to get as good a conversation as I give, and represent an opinion that I don't always see represented; I am mainly here to discuss cigars. But by all means if you know better than me, educate me on the benefits of communism. I have searched for the answers myself and as of yet not been convinced by my research. I am over 25 and still willing to learn and change; I therefore dissagree with you statement regarding those over 25. Perhaps someday I will bring you a cigar and you can rationalize the cost of communism to me. Until such a day, I will give you a pass and focus my discussions with you to cigars! While we differ, I have appreciated your humor and restraint towards me and in that I have hope that you too have not stopped learning past the age of 25.

Cheers mate! -the Pig

[PigFish]

Oh, and Kommy! I thing my brothers make their points better than yours!!! -LOL Color me Red, White and Blue.

[khomeinist]

Lol. Well.... I am not a communist.... more of a general supporter of my conception of 'liberty'

I could probably be classified loosely as a left libertarian. I more conservative (or truly liberal in the classic sense) on economic matters than you might think. I am probably more 'liberal' on social matters than you could possibly stomach.

Ha. Anyway. Enjoy your time in the sauna with your tri-colored amigos. Coincidentally, many other nations other than the US of A have the same color scheme.

Peace. Yes. I know this is a bad word (to some).

[PigFish]

Peace. Yes. I know this is a bad word (to some).

I got no trouble with peace amigo! I just prefer to predicate with, "through superior firepower!" -LOL I wish you well; enjoy a good smoke in good health, and may you get levity from my folly! Your ultra-right wing friend, Piggy.

[mazolaman]

This line of thought is repeated over and over, usually by those that seek to excuse the crimes against humanity that communism has brought on (not saying you are doing this). The simple, terrible fact is that nations that have aspired to emulating the communist model, through state ownership/planning of the means of production, have, without exception, brought terrible consequences to their populations, usually through famine/hunger/poverty

I don't meet many people who seek to excuse mass murder.

Nations who have introduced a degree of socialism to their society,have faired well.

There is plenty of famine/hunger /poverty in many modern societies,who might be called free market.ie India,which has enjoyed massive growth,yet still has hurrendous poverty.

That being said, you speak in terms of a fixed amount of money ("the bulk of the money), and that it simply gets shifted around society. In a free market, wealth grows. There is no necessary rule for where wealth flows to or from. That's one of the great things about free market economies, nobody in government picks winners and losers (and they pick poorly anyway, usually by simply giving out favors to people they know). Heck, just look at the richest of the rich in the US. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, etc. etc. These are billionaires that came from nothing, simply b/c of what value they brought to society (and were justly rewarded for it.)

A couple of British chaps to put in there,Lord Ashcroft-conservative sponsor to a high degree,pays no tax in Britain,as he supposedly lives in the Cayman Isles,where no-one has ever seen him.

Sir Philip Green-clothing Entrepreneur,now government adviser,pays no tax in Britain,as his wife owns all his riches in Monaco.

As for just rewards,where are the clothes made to make people their millions?Places like Bangladesh or "free trade zones",where the lack of"rule of law" has been created to increase profit,ie no unions allowed,working for 50 pence/day,in terrible conditions.Also including child labour.

I don't believe you can boil down the US government in the 80s to simply following the "chicago school." Yes, tax rates in the US went down. But what happened to regulation and government spending? Those went up, drastically. High regulations and high government spending are not characterstics of the chicago school, nor any other advocate of free market economics.

I was referring more to my experiences of Thatchers Britain,where every government asset was sold to privatisation,which ruined all of our transport services,decimated all manufacturing and industry,and left us so hooked on the free market that when another country messed up their lending,we caught a cold too.Sad to say Blair was Thatchers protege,in the guise of a labour Prime minister.

Is it your contention that people cannot afford treatment b/c they live in a relatively free market society? If so, how do people fare in societies with extensive government intervention in the economy? (Not too well.)

No,my contention is that it is a shame on any well off society that cannot provide a minimum level of healthcare for all of its citizens.It is shamefull that in Britain,the recently announced cuts to our social services amount to £7bn,which was the same amount to be paid to bankers in bonuses.(they had a twinge of guilt,and reduced it to £4bn.

The NHS is the largest employer in the world,and the longest serving health system,that has been the basis for many other nations efforts,and it will soon be sold off in chunks.

You are correct, it is a simplistic view, because the evidence is so ample, the record of history is so clear, that the conclusions one draws are not difficult to come by.

And again, are 2.8 billion people living on 2 dollars a day a result from free market economies, and the rule of law, existing in those countries? I think you know the answer to that. The analysis doesn't begin and end with "the people aren't paid a fair wage." It's because, sadly, in a large portion of this Earth, people live under authoritarian governments that only exist to serve those governments. Free markets don't exist, the rule of law doesn't exist, respect for the individual, doesn't exist, in those nations.

I would argue that the free market has created many of these situations,by dealing with nations who we know exploit the workforce,ie Bangladesh.

We deal with the south American banana growers,who are given 1pence/kilo of bananas.

We deal with the Burmese junta who sell us palm oil,after they have levelled rainforrest to plant it,killing orangutan and anyone else who stands in their way.

We take the resources from places like Nigeria,in the form of their oil.

We actively encourage despots and bad government,as this makes our goods cheaper.

we are all aware of this.

L

I'm sorry, but history is clear on this point. The nations that have been able to escape this awful destitution are the ones that have market economies, protected by a rule of law.

So my point that you quoted stands, even though it is simplistic according to you. People that are dying because of a lack of nourishment/disease in these troubled nations aren't dying b/c their nations practice free market capitalism. They're dying b/c their governments are crooked, and interfere in everything, whether it be the economy, people's lives, people's thoughts, people's freedoms, etc. etc.

The country themselves may not be practicing free market capitalism,but their suffering can still be due to free market capitalism.Many crooked governments are maintained for our benefit,or with our help...ie Pinochet,Mugabe..

It would seem common sense would dictate that a big part of the solution would be to allow as many people as possible to escape from this grinding poverty, so they could afford to nourish themselves, and treat their illnesses, no? And, as stated above, the best way to allow people to escape from this nasty poorness/underdevelopment would be for these nations to respect the individual, allow for freedom and competition not only in politics, but in economics as well.

My argument would be that our current system holds many of the struggling nations down,for our own interest.we do not live in isolation.

It all depends on what you mean by "unfairness." Is it unfair that Bill Gates is worth over 50 billion dollars? There is no "fairness" or "unfairness." People receive according to the value they bring to society. It isn't a question of the wealth disparity, it's a question of is the quality of life improving for all, across classes? And in nations that have free economies, that question is answered with a resounding yes. Wages, when one includes benefits, have outpaced inflation for decades (the stories of stagnant wages ignore benefit packages that have become more and more popular throughout the years.) Furthermore, look at the quality of life/goods purchased today versus the past. A car purchased today is vastly improved, in terms of safety, comfort, efficiency, etc. etc. over a car built 30 years/20 years/heck even 10 years ago. People today have smart phones, laptops, cable tv, high speed internet, ipods, etc. etc. These improvements are not merely enjoyed by "the rich."

Most of the gadgets mentioned are not available to the poorest in the world,so they may not be able to come on this forum and argue their point.

Again,where are the parts made for these billionaires products?(dunno where microsoft stuff is made,but Gates seems a really decent guy),I know India is big on Hi tech manufacturing,how much are they paid?I can guarantee a chip made in India at least doubles in price when it arrives off the boat in the western world.Trinkets and baubles.

I don't believe in labels, nor partisanship. I simply advocate for the freedom of the individual, politically and economically. The more government interferes in either case, the worse results people tend to see.

Therefore you would prefer no government at all?As a governments role is "the act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation; as, civil, church, or family government"

So,I assume you would still like to have some government.

This is the point for me,a government with some social aspects for the good of all.

Meanwhile,our leaders are on bended knee to the Chinese........

Peace and love.