The Truth Is More Important Than The Facts

See, you would have enjoyed my Educational Foundations 480 class, on Globalization. We looked at videos on capitalism, socialism, democracy...read some awesome articles, guest speakers. Our prof I think would be a conversationlist right up your alley, brilliant man. We looked a lot at the WTO and George Soros, multi-billionaire, and this one article, the Other Davos, you'd probably like...pretty eye opening.

P.S. I agree with the american b.s. machine comment.

So, you are allowed to form a church as long as you don't use it to preach anti-revolution "propaganda"? Picture, for a minute, what it would look like if the U.S. adopted a similar law. It could read something like, "No organization may be formed if it propagates opinions contrary to the will of the United States Government" i.e. no anti war rallies, no more jokes about Bush's I.Q., and no more Doonsbury comics.

The lefties would be crying bloody murder if the U.S. even considered such a law, and they would be right to do so. But in Cuba this same law seems fair and reasonable. "Of course you can have churches. All we require is that your sermons agree with our Official Government Doctrine (propaganda, if you will) and that you do not accept any money from certain people and organizations with whom we disagree."

There is a big difference between having to register with the government in order to avoid harrasment, and having the option of registering with the government in order to get the advantages of charity status. Failing to do the latter may cost you some money. Failing to do the former may cost you much more than that.

About Capitalism in general, I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what distinguishes it from democracy. Democracy means, if the majority of the people want something, their will be done. It is essencially mob rule. It's a pretty lousy way of running things, since there is always the risk that the majority will vote for something that infringes on the rights of the minority, but we have yet to come up with a better way of deciding who our leaders should be (although I kind of like the idea of casting lots . . .)

Capitalism, on the other hand, is the name commonly given to freedom oriented philosophies and policies, specifically those that advocate economic freedom. Capitalism means that you are allowed to do whatever you want with your own time, money and abilities as long as you do not violate a few basic regulations. These regulations are usually intended to keep you from infringing on another person's right to use their time, money and ability. One economist, Richard Maybury, has suggested that there only need be two regulations: Do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on other persons or their property.

In Capitalistic societies, "weak" businesses do tend to go extinct when forced to compete with "strong" businesses, but so what? "Strong " businesses are strong because they do a good job of helping customers, satisfying employees and working with their suppliers. "Weak" businesses are those that don't do such a good job. Why shouldn't the strong businesses succeed and the weak ones fail? Even if Wal-Mart does close down a few Mom and Pop stores, that doesn't mean the end of Mom and Pop. If they are the kind of hard working, intelligent, resourceful people that are capable of running a small business, then they will be able to find new, better jobs (either with Wal-Mart or with some other big preditor) and also enjoy the comfort and convenience that consumers enjoy when a big "evil" corporation moves into town.

One of the most interesting things about Capitalism is that, although the big and powerful do tend to get bigger and more powerful, the small and weak ALSO are better off. (At least when you consider things on an individual basis, as opposed to comparing one corporation to another.) Not everyone is willing and able to run a small business. Many people are restricted to working part time, or do not have the cash neccesary to start a business or simply prefer the security and perks that come from working for a big company. Where would these poor souls go if there were no big multinationals standing ready to pay them for their services? Surely you wouldn't want to leave them out in the cold if Pop is unwilling to hire them? They're much better off in the hands of Wal-Mart and co.

This phenomon of both the rich and poor becoming wealthier is why we in North America enjoy such a high standered of living. It's not because we take advantage of smaller nations, it's because the founders of most western nations were wise enough to set them up capitalistically.

I look forward to your comments on this. It's been a while since I've debated someone on this topic, and I hope you're enjoying it as much as I am. Also, I should clarify that my full name is Andrew Lilly and that I was also the one responsible for the other anti-cuba post.

i'll take this point by point and see if i can come up with decent rebutles(sp):

if a church in cuba chooses not register with the government, it obviously has something to hide. many catholic and protestan churches, as well as home churches opperate in cuba without persecution. there are also methods of opposition to the government in cuba, they only ask that groups be open and honest about their position. also the churches here that register as non-profits open themselves up to rules the government has set up for non-profits. things like hiring policies and who you can and can't have involved or participating in your church are becoming closer and closer to being determined not by church communities but by the government.

the US government has and does use extreme and exessive force to "control" protests, and the media in the US treats protesters with little or no credibility and most of the media in the states isn't balanced and fair. the US government has also used deadly force to extinguish groups which oppose and plan to overthrow the US government and the democratic system (if a two party system is democratic. here choose: rich moron one or rich moron two.)

now, let's pretend for a second that the US has a country less than 100 miles away and with a military base on the Unites States own land. this country has millions and millions more people and an army exponetionaly larger than its own. lets also pretend that the United States has such drastic and unfair sanctions placed upon it by this country that it is nearly impossible for the US to get enough basic luxuries as soap, toothpaste, and vehicles (that is so spelled wrong) to its people. lets also add to this the fact that most anti-US groups are funded by groups, as well as the government, from that larger country. do you honestly believe that the US would simply allow groups within its own country to secretly plot to overturn that government to operate within its borders. (note that in the united states most protests are not anti-democracy but anti-current policy or present "elected" leader.

i do not believe in democracy as a fair and accurate way to determine the will of the people. the policy and laws that are passed often don't reflect the will of the people and sometimes completely circumvent the constitutional rights of the people. want an example; the ciriculum of the school is constitutionally given to the state and municiple governments to decide, however the federal government has taken that right away. not by changing the constitution or passing a law, simply by saying: heres the new federal board of education and here's what you are going to teach your children. this is the reason that the theory of evolution, a religious and completely unscientific theory, is taught in many if not all public schools. the opposite of democracy is communism (both are atheistic forms of government), both are governmental systems. socialism and capitalism are not so much oppostites as different forms of economic structures. both with function to a degree under a democratic or republican system, but only socialism will function in a communist system.

on the capitalist front, it is interesting that one second you are talking about the regulations placed on businesses (one being not to encroach on another person or their property) and in the next you are justifing the obliteration of many small passive community based businesses by large corporations. i would imagine that going from owning a store that has been in your family for years or that you built from the ground up that is very rewarding, and then having it crushed by and then having to work for a large corporate company is very very humiliating. also i don't believe that the comfort and convenience our consumeristic society provides us is really all that benificial to us as a society.

As for the benifits that come from working for large corporate companies, most people that are put out of work by those companies end up working for them or another giant for minimum wage (which is even more pathetic in the US than here) and often without any form of significant benifits. of course since there is no where else to work, they must settle for these postitions. also, many of these large companies are strongly opposed to unions and any form of worker organization. this further cripples people in their ability to gain better wages or benifits. now i realize unions can be crooked and greedy, i work in SEIU (the hospital grunt staff and lab workers union) and most of our leadership is greedy and crooked bastards that use the lab workers as a way of preventing SDH (saskatoon district health) from letting negotiations from getting to far towards a strike (if the lab workers leave the hospitals are even more crippled than if the nurses leave).

my hands hurt.

this phenomenon of the rich and poor both getting richer is so rare in capitalistic society that ............... it doesn't happen. i would like to hear you explain the statement "It's not because we take advantage of smaller nations, it's because the founders of most western nations were wise enough to set them up capitalistically." none, if any of the nations where the US has set up capitalistic societies are sucessful. most suffer from huge proverty rates. very few have governments that represent the will of the people (most are puppet governments) and most retain a US military prescence to maintain the peace and to repress anti-government groups. oh, wait, i just re-read that statement. hmmmm, i'd have to do some research on that, but i think when the US and Canada where formed people where more interested in personal freedom than the economic structure. Capitalism usually has very little effect on the middle or working class, until it infringes on their quality of life (which is the reason why its very hard to convince people in the middle class there needs to be more restrictions on big business.)

interestingly enough i recently heard about a documentary and book that explore the corporation from the perspective of the World Health Organization's definition of psychopath. turns out the ideals of the corporate structure in most cases fits all the criteria to a tea. scary.

i'm glad you clarified who you were. i thought you were andrew hildebrant, but he doesn't like debates. i was a little confused.

I have a book, Unequal Freedoms, by Jonathan McMurtry. It'll put my 2 cents in better than I could. All I can say is that when Andrew talked about capitalism as a good thing, and that the poor are better off - reality says that couldn't be further from the truth. That whole argument scares me. Money and it's profit by that argument have value in and of itself. That scares me - then you make decisions based on how much it'll cost to keep so and so on life support, not whether or not his life is valuable in itself. That's when a country's entire people are put off the land (when their entire culture and belief system is tied to it) and told to work in factories for less than minimum wage - now having to pay for things they used to make for themselves, and used to share with each other - now it's each man for himself, for the sake of progress and globalization. That is not how God intended us to live. And it shows - greater poverty and illness and unemployment rates than ever, in these so-called civilized countries.