And it appears that the usual suspects cannot go one single thread without having to rehash this crap over and over again.

"Including Pol Pot"

Predictable. No I'm not including the guy who took CIA money to kill Vietnamese communists. Guess which of these powers opposed the Red Khmer.

A) USA
B) USSR

I'll even give you two guesses.

Oh, and guess which of these powers ultimately ousted the Red Khmer from power in Cambodia by force.

A) USA
B) Communist-led Vietnam

are you ladies done now?

"Why don't you have those lazy SOBs get off their ass and go plant a field?"

I thought the complaint was the socialist countries made their people work too hard, -zomg Gulags - now you're claiming socialism makes people lazy? Why does Cuba produce so many doctors, again?

And what does capitalism have to do with democracy? There have been many a free market dictatorship (Marcos, Pinochet, Suharto, Batista, Mont (Guatemala), Mohammed Pahlavi). In fact capitalism doesn't mix well with democracy, because the majority is never rich and generally wants the state to provide certain services. The majority is happen with redistributing wealth. The capitalists need an authoritarian government to keep the masses in line.

"are you ladies done now?"

**Grins & blushes**

@ President Eden: "What if NO system can fix the global hunger crisis?"

Enough food is produced on earth to feed everone on the planet comfortably. The problem is that market forces are incapable of distributing it properly and huge amounts are either eaten by fat americans or left to spoil.

"Is it really evil to say that, given economic scenario A which favors me at the expense of others, and economic scenario B which favors others at the expense of me, and given as well that neither one can ultimately provide that everyone's needs get met... given all of this, is it really evil for me to say I want A over B? Is that truly so wrong?"

Yes, it's wrong. It's wrong because Scenario B meets the needs of a lot more people than Scenario A does. The suffering under Scenario A is greater than the suffering in Scenario B. Thus is is wrong to choose Scenario A.

@ Crazy Anglican: "I would like a little further clarification (sorry if this was already addressed) but you think all significant resources should be held in common. What constitutes "significant"?

"For instance say my grandmother knitted a lace tablecloth. It would probably have no significance to society, but has great significance to me. Do I have the right to own that tablecloth as she made it and gave it to me?"

Yes, this has already been addressed. See my comments about people living in rented accommodation towards the start of the thread. You do not *need* to assert property rights for it to be acceptable for you to have the tablecloth your grandmother made on the table in your home. See also Putin's comment - "The tablecloth would not be state-owned, but the factories that produce the material needed to produce the cloth would."


@Putin: "What's more important to you, allowing the veneer of 'choice' by letting people buy Pepsi or Coke, or ensuring there is no homelessness, no starvation, and no unemployment?"

Putin +1. Choice is, as I said before, largely a myth.



@stratagos: "The vast majority of the countries on the "Hunger Index" appear to be run by authoritarian dictators, and hence are *not* market economies. Meanwhile, which countries are the biggest net exporter of food? Last time I checked, the US, Canada, and Australia."

The US is a net importer of food. That is, it imports more food than it exports. It's exports are large because the USA is large, but it imports more food than it exports. Your comment implies that the USA's economy generates a surplus of food, but that is not the case.

China on the other hand is a net exporter of food.

(Source: Reuters Factbox, 2006 - http://in.reuters.com/article/idINL1835607720080418)


@stratagos: "I have the "brass balls" to state - unequivocally - that nations with market economies treat their populations better than other nations."

Even if that is true the situation still stinks. How much poverty is there in the USA? Too fucking much for a country which you claim has the most perfect system possible. I'm not arguing that everyone should be like China or Cuba. What I'm saying is that the economy of planet earth is currently an almost complete failure, and it needs to be radically changed.


@stratagos: "If someone isn't going to contribute to society - be it a market economy or a centrally planned one - why the hell should the society bother to feed or clothe them? If someone is going to lay around on the couch all day and get a roof over their head, fed three meals, ect, they *why would anyone work*? Why would the home builders build? Why would the farmers farm? Why would the guys in the power plants keep the electrons flowing?"

This is not where we diverge, because I completely agree with the above statement.

"You seem to feel that society has an obligation to give people stuff even if they *make an active decision to give nothing back*. I'm not talking about people who literally *cannot* survive without assistance, but people who just choose to sit around and mooch. Am I misinterpreting your words?"

Yes, you are misinterpreting my words. I do not feel that society has any duty to support the lazy. I adhere to the old maxim 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. If people are able to work, they owe it to society to do so. Society, in return, has a duty to see that their needs are met.


@mcbry (to Crazy Anglican): "you could alternatively consider it in terms of resource management. The tablecloth in question can be considered a resource the use of which the community is perpetually ceding to you because there is no collective use for your stinking table cloth. If someone "stole" (usurped your usage right) it from you you would presumably have a valid complaint. But if there came a time where a collective use was found and the collective need greater than yours, then the collective could move to end your usage rights."

I'm sure the tablecloth doesn't smell that bad, but otherwise this is a very good argument, and one which I would agree with.


Finally, can we please have ONE political thread in which no-one is accused of being a neo-Nazi?

No one was accused of being a Neo-Nazi. Just pointing out that the source was suspect.

As far as the Cuban vs US model....(and I'm not saying the US system is perfect, but its a damn sight better than the Cuban or Soviet model)

if the Cuban model is superior to the US model, why have there been periodic instances of Cubans constructing rickety rafts to float to Florida?

I don't recall there being any mass movement from Florida to Cuban on rickety rafts.

You can selectively cite things, twist whatever facts you like, but if Cuba meets all the needs of its people so well, why have they been willing to risk their lives on the open sea in a raft made of inner tubes to get out of the country?

Riddle me that one, Batman.

I don't think there's any question that the majority in Cuba were better off after the revolution than before. Having few natural resources apart from agriculture and the natural beauty and climate of the island, and with a persistent trade embargo maintained almost exclusively by the US, there weren't many opportunities for the island to prosper, but it can be said that Cuba is far better off than Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador or any other economies in the region that can be reasonably compared to Cuba in terms of resources and potential. And the exodus out of Cuba hasn't exactly been monumental, particularly if you compare it to the immigration from any other country in the region.

The answer to your 'riddle' is simple. Since 1959, the US has actively encouraged illegal immigration from Cuba in order to score propaganda points. The US grants safe haven to anybody who leaves Cuba, including and especially criminals, smugglers and hijackers, by giving any and all who flee Cuba automatic refugee status and a lot of money was funneled into helping out these so-called "refugees", and laws were passed giving them permanent residency after one year. At the same time, the US since the 1960s has created massive barriers to prevent legal immigration from Cuba to the US. The rickety rafts make a good story, people risking life and limb to escape terrible Cuba, when if the US really cared about these so-called "refugees" all they would have to do is lift the embargo and the legal immigration restrictions. And lo and behold, once the US loosened legal restrictions in the 1990s, the issue of 'rafters' subsided. However, the US still promotes illegal immigration from Cuba.

I should also mention that the US also duped parents into having 14,000 children kidnapped and brought to the US during Operation Peter Pan. "Collateral damage" in American efforts to score cheap propaganda points against Cuba.

The scale isn't the point I was making.

Its the methods. Methods that I would think would smack of desperation. You've got to be pretty unhappy to risk your life and potentially your family's life in the open seas in a hommade raft.

mmm. Black really is white, isn't it Putin?

You do realize many of these so-called "rafters" are human smugglers and hijackers who use violent methods to commandeer vessels to bring people to Cuba. It doesn't take much 'courage' to commit violent crimes and be promised all sorts of goodies once you get to America.

Yes, because nobody wants to leave Cuba because its a socialist paradise.

Not a lot of immigration the other way, is there? Wonder why that is?

Black is white? Do you have any facts to bring to the table? Or are you just going to assert that everything you say is true because hey, you heard it on tv.

Which of the following is untrue?
1-US actively encouraging illegal immigration from Cuba, including the automatic granting of refugee status, millions if not billions of dollars in aid to these "refugees", and permanent residency status?
2-US placing restrictions on legal immigration from Cuba to the US from 1960s to the 1990s. (and really few visas are given out even now)
3 - Abduction of 14,000 children from 1960-1962 in Operation Peter Pan.
4 - Many hijackers, smugglers, and criminals being deemed "rafters" even if they used violent methods to commandeer vessels.
5- Economic warfare against Cuba in the form of the Embargo

"Not a lot of immigration the other way, is there? Wonder why that is?"

Uh, the Economic Embargo and travel restrictions perhaps? The fact that the US is a massively rich country blessed with an obscene amount of natural resources?

You don't see US citizens flocking to emigrate to the Dominican Republic, so what's your point? Still, medical tourism is popular despite the restrictions. I wonder why that is if it's so awful?

1. If the Cuban model is so great, why would they leave? I've participated in helping Cuban refugees settle in the US. They get some aid, but its along the lines of help while they get set up in the US, not putting them on the dole. Might be millions, but you imply that they're given monetary incentives to emigrate, which is not the case.
2. Immigration... we're not required to allow anybody in. I think we should have a much more relaxed immigration policy, but again... if Cuba is such a socialist paradise, why do they want to leave anyhow? It would make US immigration restrictions irrelevant, yes?
3. Operation Peter Pan, while it did involve cold war propaganda (on both sides) calling it kidnapping is a gross distortion of events.
3. Now you're the one saying things without anything to back it up. Also, relatively irrelevant "many" is a weasel word.
5. The embargo is mostly a joke anyhow, Cuba trades with much of Europe. Also, the US is under no obligation to HAVE to trade with anybody. I personally think its an outdated policy (if it ever was in-date, so to speak).

Again, if Cuba was such a great place, they'd have to have their own immigration policy to control the people wanting to come live in the socialist utopia. </sarcasm>

You're so far off base Jack... in comparison, how many people die trying to cross the border from Mexico. The method's? They freeze to death in freezer trucks or are cooked and asphyxiated in trunks or of thirst in the dessert or shot by one of the vigilantes...

You say its a superior way of life, and the refugees would disagree.


I wonder who has a better understanding of the Cuban life, a person who has lived it, or some Stalinist apologist?

I hate it when I get shot in the dessert, totally spoils the entire meal ;-)

But I do like like a frit dessert every now and again.

"1. If the Cuban model is so great, why would they leave? I've participated in helping Cuban refugees settle in the US. They get some aid, but its along the lines of help while they get set up in the US, not putting them on the dole. Might be millions, but you imply that they're given monetary incentives to emigrate, which is not the case."

"Now you're the one saying things without anything to back it up."

There is a list a mile long of Cuban vessels which have been hijacked, both boats and planes. Anybody with any knowledge of US-Cuba relations whatsoever knows this.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/hijack-ferry.htm

The fact of the matter is Cuban illegals are given special treatment. Guaranteed asylum, permanent residency, and monetary assistance in the form of the Migration and Western Hemisphere Refugees Assistant Act and the Cuban Adjustment Act. The Cuban Refugees Program received over a billion in funding, not to mention the medicare, scholarships, free English courses, and other assistance they alone were entitled to. No other immigrant group received this kind of special treatment, but we're supposed to believe the line that none of this is a financial incentive? Give me a break.

"2. Immigration... we're not required to allow anybody in. I think we should have a much more relaxed immigration policy, but again... if Cuba is such a socialist paradise, why do they want to leave anyhow? It would make US immigration restrictions irrelevant, yes?"

No one said the US is required to allow people in. But your "question" was why do rafters exist, and rafters automatically means Cuba is terrible, no other facts required. I was giving you context that you like to ignore. The context of severely restrictive legal barriers to immigration from Cuba to the US. You keep asking why people leave, and why do people leave on "rafts" (even if such "rafts" are actually hijacked boats). I'm telling you why - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the cost-benefit analysis of lots of goods for illegal immigration + heavily restricted legal immigration = illegal immigration is going to happen.

Hilariously enough, people like you and the US government found out the type of people they were encouraging to leave when Castro allowed the Mariel boatlift. Does it surprise anybody that criminals and thugs in the jails of any country who love the opportunity to have a completely new life on federal assistance with automatic residency in another country?

"Operation Peter Pan, while it did involve cold war propaganda (on both sides) calling it kidnapping is a gross distortion of events."

Gross distortion? Ok, so what would you call separating 14,000 children under false pretenses (the CIA and Miami Catholic Church claimed Castro would steal their children and make them go to Soviet work camps) and sending them to America never to see their families again? What nice-sounding phrase would you call that?


2. Immigration... we're not required to allow anybody in. I think we should have a much more relaxed immigration policy, but again... if Cuba is such a socialist paradise, why do they want to leave anyhow? It would make US immigration restrictions irrelevant, yes?
3. Operation Peter Pan, while it did involve cold war propaganda (on both sides) calling it kidnapping is a gross distortion of events.
3. Now you're the one saying things without anything to back it up. Also, relatively irrelevant "many" is a weasel word.
5. The embargo is mostly a joke anyhow, Cuba trades with much of Europe. Also, the US is under no obligation to HAVE to trade with anybody. I personally think its an outdated policy (if it ever was in-date, so to speak).

Again, if Cuba was such a great place, they'd have to have their own immigration policy to control the people wanting to come live in the socialist utopia. </sarcasm>

"I wonder who has a better understanding of the Cuban life, a person who has lived it, or some Stalinist apologist?"

So we're to trust everything the Gusanos say? Because exiles who hail terrorists and hijackers like Luis Carriles as heroes and who openly call for assassinating the leadership in Cuba are trustworthy people, right? That's why Ahmed Chalabi turned out to be such an honest fellow, because exiles are always right. Look at the Iranian monarchist nutters in Canada, or the diasporans who fueled the civil wars in the Balkans with their money and nationalist hysteria. They know best.

CA: *blush* damn, phone in my face and stuff... ;)

It is superior. There is not a person on that island that is lacking a necessity. Every single person there has food, shelter, education, security, health care, good provisions in emergencies... How would Cuba have handled Katrina? You're comparing apples and Mack trucks. The center of the Empire which has turned the entire planet into the supply chain for it's insatiable appetites is not the proper comparison point. Does it look pretty looking from the outside (almost anywhere) in? Yes. Hell, some doctors even leave Canada because they can get filthy rich over here. Is it sustainable? Responsible? No, it's wasteful, egotistical and disgusting. And for all that, how many people in the US live below the standard of living in Cuba?

Communism is the way forward.

Are you saying America is really that good Jack?

I mean, ignoring the huge class divide, the continued lack of racial and sexual equality, the widespread obesity and the general unfair society, its quite a good country.

But I'd rather live in Cuba.

Let's return to first principles and see if we can assess the truth or falsity of Jamie's original statement. Can we get a generally agreed upon definition of a right?

Jamie, all the data I've seen shows the US as a net food exporter; can you tell me where you're getting your data?

I'm not asserting the US is perfect, but we obviously are doing a few things right if we constantly have this whole immigration thing going on.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked.

Putin also thought that North Korea was the victim when they invaded the South.

You attribute every possible bad quality to US policy, and attribute angelic qualities to Cuba (or North Korea, or any other two bit dictatorship). There is really very little material difference between Putin and a Tea Party jacktard chanting USA! USA! over and over.

Neither one is willing to actually move beyond ideology.