You sound exactly like Hugo Chávez.
Of course, the difference is that you say it in well argued fashion, with a great background of ideas and a selfless interest; while my country’s dicator just says it as a means to perpetuate himself in power while oppressing pseudo-colonies such as Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua with the oild dollars property of the Venezuelan people.
If they don’t pull the trigger, eventually the trigger is going to be pulled on them.
Time preference. The future is always discounted.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
If it’s an eventuality, why is it suddenly not one when they do pull the trigger?
And it’s still irrelevant. You aren’t justified in doing bad things to other people because bad things might be done to you in the future.
That’s because I am Hugo Chavez! I have been following you all over the internets! Revolucion is serius bizness! [:P]
I don’t want to dismiss you, but you’re not arguing the merits or deficits of the positions. You’re dancing around the discussion.
Americans have for quite some time (post WWII) been living off of the work of others. Most of that extortion has come through threats of force and political manipulation. The American dream is contingent upon looting someone else, somewhere in the world, preferably out of the sight of cameras.
I don’t think pretending things are not what they are serves any of us well. Except perhaps those that want to maintain the status quo.
Because if they win the game, they are safe from it until the next game.
It is relevant to an election, which isn’t turn-based but real-time. If you don’t protect yourself as best as you can in the election, then bad things will be done to you immediately, which is what Ruben’s example of the opposition boycott in Venezuela demonstrates.
You are not Hugo Chávez. He doesn’t speak English. His style is wordy, full of filthy language and derogatory comments toward other people.
In the future, we think the outcome may be different, that is why we take the option which allows us to reach future choices.
If it was inevitable, then some people would elect not to play a game they know they cannot win. They would opt out now.
The problems I have with your position are twofold.
Many people play willingly, and would kick and scream if the game was taken away from them. We’re not talking about 5 or 10%. Closer to 95% of people like the game versus the alternative of revolution.
All of these, “I am enslaved” scenarios, rely on the the notion that coercion removes choice. I don’t buy that. Under that reasoning, every act of coercion would be infinitely successful. In which case, we’re in a game we can’t win.
You are right. I went off-topic for too long, its part of the national collective eschizophrenia we all suffer and that has actually been diagnosed by psychiatrists as a new sociological disease.
Back on topic, the People’s Republic of China in the economic sense is adopting the American dream. Since their politics is different, one might argue that they are trying to free themselves from poverty. Poverty is slavery.
That sounds Karl Maxian to me. “Evil Western capitalists exploit poor workers in third world paying them unfair wages”. How dare the evil capitalists force new, better paid jobs on the people in the poor countries!
The furthest thing I am is a Marxist.
Americans are exploiting them by either 1. using their regimes to violate their property rights and keep them from realizing the fruits of their labour or 2. using their savings under a corrupt global monetary system. Americans literally are spending trillions of other people’s money, with zero intention of paying it back. America isn’t prosperous because it is free and people work hard. It’s prosperous because someone else is footing the bill as middle class kids go off to get $100,000 educations in fields without jobs.
Uhhh…yes.
I’ve just walked into a hypothetical trap haven’t I?
Evil western state socialists rob from people to buy and fund weapons and explosives they in turn sell to groups of thugs who rob from people around them all in the name of National Interest.
How dare the evil statists promote the use of newer efficient weaponry against those that are defensless living in squalor.
didja click the “replied on” link?
In order to grow their empire, they need prosperity. The only way they will have prosperity, is to become capitalistic.
Poverty is created by slavery, not the other way around. A free man can keep the fruits of his labour, own and protect his own property and satisfy his needs and wants as he thinks they should be addressed.
But they can win. You can get some bread if you stand in the bread line, even if it means other people will wait longer. If you don’t stand in the bread line, you starve.
Maybe, but we are not those people.
I don’t understand what this means.
False analogy. You’re not using violence on people to get the bread.
I understand. But it did sound eerily like would a Marxist say about the exploitation of the poor. I’d just like to distinguish between political actions of the American government and business decisions of the companies. I used to live in a poor country where many of the jobs were provided by the foreign companies so all the attacks on outsoursing really annoy me.
Also, don’t forget that the government imposes minimal wage and other regulations that create more incentives for the companies to hire labor elsewhere.
Marxist class theory isn’t entirely invalid. It’s just applied in the wrong sense. The exploitation is happening between governments and their “citizenry”.