davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/27/01 09:49 AM
|
Chomsky crit:"free trade"DML crit: anti Civil Dis.
[Post#: 121807
]
|
|
|
If the title didn't make sense....without space limitations it would read:
A SHORT Noam Chomsky criticism of "free trade" (or what he would call "investors rights") agreements, and
A short David Malmo-Levine criticism of what would be called, for lack of a better term, the "anti civil disobedience" (or "anti-citizen's veto) argument.
It is in response to stuff going on on private chat groups. I think the argument properly belongs where everyone can see. I hate those email things....all behind the scenes....filling up my email box with a mess that takes hours to delete.
Better do it here, where the information is organized, saved, and public.
Let's start with this: From: "Paul & Juliette Geddes"
> Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/
> Reply-To: bcmp@drugsense.org
> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:11:24 -0700
> To:
> Subject: Re: BCMP: Connie Fogal
>
> Connie Fogal is no friend of freedom. (See below)
>
>> Constance Clara Fogal and The Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee caused
>> to be filed today(Friday April 20,2001) an application for permission to
>> appeal, in the Supreme Court of Canada, from the ruling of the Quebec
>> Superior Court of April 18th, 2001 of Mr. Justice Blanchet.
>>
>> This serves as notice to the police and federal government that they will
>> be held liable in damages in the Courts for their flagrant police state
>> decisions and actions with respect to the manner, process and extreme
>> overbreadth of the military measures and martial law taken illegally and
>> unconstitutionally in Quebec City.
>
> Have you seen anything that Connie Fogal has written which supports allowing
> people to chose their own drugs?"
No.....Connie is not a freedom activist in that respect. I met her and she isn't opposed to anything we are doing.
In my opinion, the war will be over faster if we look to make alliances with anyone who will support the idea of no monopoly on cannabis and no lack of dignity for all users. The folks in the Canadian Action Party could all vote with us if we were to include an articulate argument against "investors rights agreements" ... like many of the herbal and organic food stores have already done.
We could steal votes from every party, in my opinion, by stealing their best ideas and adding them to the ones we allready have. We could win that way, frankly.
Connie is not a cannabis activist. She is, however, 1) against these agreements being held in the first place (agreements which allow talks about increasing prohibition but do not allow talks about legalization, and 2) for the people's right to obstruct tyranny (not free speech, but tyranny).
>
> In fact, Connie Fogal's career is devoted to opposing CHOICE everywhere in
> people's lives. She believes in government CONTROL. Look at where she DOES
> spend her political energy. She led the fight against allowing people to
> gamble in Vancouver.
I'm all for allowing people to gamble. I haven't seen any details regarding this. But it's the protest issue that I am concerned with, being a protester myself.
She is a major proponent of banning genetically modified food.
Lableling and putting it through the same amount of tests that extra-natural synthetic drugs go through wouldn't be a bad idea... GM is just so that Monsanto can copywrite their "roundup ready, non-viable seed weed" and then outlaw the other kind as being too uncontrollable. Pure friggin monopoly, pardon my french. And where does she say "ban" ? - most activists are arguing for lables so that the "free hand of the marketplace" can do it's work.
(Even if you DON'T like GM food, freedom to choose should
> not mean banning what other people might want.) She wants to confiscate the
> property of restaurants in Vancouver who want to allow their customers to
> smoke cigarettes."
Well, this one I'm against. I would rather go after those selling the fertilizers to the tobacco companies.....death merchants all.....arguing for their freedom is like arguing that IG Farben has the "FREEDOM" to sell Zyklon B with the warning smell removed....especially since the fertilizer merchants and the Zyklon B merchants are the same friggin companies.......Horst, Bayer, and BASF. They all have the "freedom" to put thalidomide-like restrictions on the vitamins and herbs of every nation on the planet? Too much freedom? Worse than the "freedom" of allowing some people to run others over to get to work faster. That's freedom we don't need. The freedom to be a king, to tell us all how to live and die, to be unaccountable and usually tyrannical.... is a freedom we did away with once before.
She is clearly opposed to the idea of allowing people to
> trade with people in other countries."
Greatest straw man argument since the cops said "all pot activists are saying all cannabis use is harmless".
What Connie is opposed to is Multinational Corporations consolidating their right to make a profit in poor contries with lax labour or enviro. standards while living in rich cournties....and to get countries to "out-bid" each other in a race to the bottom to see who can provide even more lax labour or enviro. standards.
" In the last federal election, she ran for the Canadian Action Party, a nationalist, funny money opposer of any
economic freedoms."
It's an oversimplification. She is for national freedom over of corporate freedom.
>
> But the best answer to her take on the right to demonstrate was provided in
> the National Post by Karen Selick (I'll post it below). Karen if you recall
> wrote an fantastic recent defence of a person's right to choose their own
> social lubricant (which was also posted to this list a week ago).
>
> Again, back to simple principles. Why do you think the government has NO
> RIGHT to interfere in your drug use? When you start thinking about the
> principles behind your belief, why would you be opposed to people forming
> voluntary multinational companies or trading with people who have the
> misfortune to be born on the other side of a man-made artificial line?"
It has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with monopoly and power. Here, if you don't believe me, check out Noam Chomsky, the most quoted living human being:
"Two technical economists in Holland found that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the hundred largest transnational corporations on Fortune magazine's list has benefited from the industrial policy of it's home country, and that at least twenty of them wouldn't have even survived if their governments hadn't taken them over or given them large subsidies when they were in trouble......You can make as much money as you want, but if you get into trouble, it's the taxpayers responsiblity to fix things. Under capitalism, investment is supposed to be as risk free as possible. No corporation wants free markets - what they want is power.
Another of the many areas where freedom and capitalism collide is what's laughingly called free trade. About 40% of US trade is estimated to be internal to individual corporations. If a US auto manufacturer ships a part from Indiana to Illinois, that isn't called trade; if it ships the same part to from Illinois to Northern Mexico, it IS called trade - it's considered an export when it leaves and an import when it comes back.
But that's nothing more than exploiting cheap labor, avoiding environmental regulations and playing games about where you pay your taxes. This sort of activity also accounts for similar or even higher proportions of trade in other industrialized countries. ..... So talk about "the growth in world trade" is largely a joke. What's growing is complicated interactions among transnational corporations - centrally managed institutions that really amount to private command economies.
The hypocracy is pervasive. For example, free trade boosters also demand intellectual property rights (copyrights, patents, etc) that are highly protectionist. The World Trade Organization's version of patents (which today's rich countries would never have accepted while they were gaining their place in the sun) is not only extremely harmful to developing countries economically, but also undermines innovation -- in fact, that's what they are designed to do. They call it "free trade" but what it really does is concentrate power."
-Noam Chomsky, "The Common Good", 1998, p.16-17 (available in any good book store....excellent interviews...)
>
> Here is Karen's article:
>
> Free speech, yes. Trespassing, No
> When the police block off streets in Quebec, it will have nothing to do with
> the protesters' message
>
> Karen Selick
> National Post
> As the barricades go up in Quebec City in anticipation of the Summit of the
> Americas conference, many who fancy themselves champions of free speech have
> decried the security precautions as a denial of civil liberties. For
> instance, Murray Dobbin wrote recently in the Financial Post of the
> "criminalization of democratic dissent." Quebec lawyer Marc Tremblay has
> gone to court seeking an injunction against the fence.
>
> All too often, self-styled advocates of freedom of expression fail to draw a
> crucial distinction between the content of what is said and the resources
> that speakers can use in making themselves heard. The guarantees of free
> expression and free assembly that Canadians regard as cornerstones of our
> liberty were traditionally intended to protect content."
This is utter bullshit. Read "On Liberty" - the origin of our Constitutional political rights. Mill states (and I paraphrase) that what is "indispensable" is accountability - the ability of forces outside the government to call into question bad decisions - something the "Free Trade" agreement does not allow. Nor the wall, for that matter.
No matter how
> unpopular your beliefs, or how far they diverged from or insulted the
> faction in power, you were guaranteed the right to speak them, and the right
> to do so in the company of others.
>
They said nothing about "only in ineffectual ways" or "only in protest pens" in the Constitution.
> But this was never supposed to give you the right to shout anti-free-trade
> slogans (or even pro-free-trade slogans) in my living room, on my front
> lawn, or in my office."
Howabout the streets surrounding your suposedly "pro-democracy" meeting is held? Hey, if the rabble can drown you out, you don't have concensus, do you? You arn't even close to consensus. You might just be in the minority.
In fact, you don't have the right to shout anything
> on my property unless I've invited you there. If you do it against my
> express wishes, you're trespassing. "
Since when did the Multinational Corporations own all the streets? Since when did they buy Quebec City?
>
> Similarly, your freedom of assembly doesn't mean you can hold an audience
> captive and make them listen to you against their will.
The Free Trade agreements do more to force people to do things against their will than all protests in the history of protesting.
You can't demand others' time and energy as your right. If they won't give it voluntarily,
> you're out of luck.
What a great excuse for banning all protests everywhere! "Hey MLK JR! Hey Ghandi! You have no right to "waste our time".....off to jail with you!
>
> In short, you should be free to express your opinions, however bizarre or
> vile they may be, so long as you use your own resources to do so, and don't
> try to commandeer anybody else's resources in the process.
>
Jim Crow laws were only abolished in the USA when college students took over racist hotel lobbies (see the latest "High Society" - rally do's and don'ts on Pot TV for details on that.....) the right of "concientious obstruction" does exist....it is called necessity. See "a legal defence of C.D." in the Activists and Activism forum for details on that.
> This may seem simple enough to understand, but in fact it has gone
> completely over the heads of those who think that free expression should
> come with a side order of free lunch. Their position is best encapsulated by
> the familiar catch-phrase: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those
> who own one." The implication is that those who don't own one should be
> entitled to usurp other people's resources through state coercion so that
> they too can have "free" speech.
>
The other view, that corporations should be "free" to use their money to influence the gov. to cut the CBC to nothing, and then pump corporate garbage propaganda at us 24-7 like in the USA....also leaves much to be desired. I think those who own the major media have a major responsiblity to use it in everyone's interest....rich and poor, powerful and powerless alike. Everyone should have access to the "town hall", even if it happens to be private. Take the BCTV discriminating against the BCMP, for one example.
> It doesn't help that Canada's highest legal authority, the Supreme Court of
> Canada, has repeatedly come down on the wrong side of both branches of the
> issue. In decisions such as R. v. Keegstra; Canada (Human Rights Commission)
> v. Taylor; and Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, the court gave
> its seal of approval to laws that abrogate Charter-guaranteed freedom of
> expression. All three cases clearly involved the content of speech --
> specifically, anti-Semitic propaganda. While utterances of this kind should
> be thoroughly repugnant to every decent person, they are precisely the kind
> of thing the free speech guarantee is designed to protect. The whole point
> of the guarantee is to prevent us from unwittingly transforming ourselves
> into the repressive society that these repulsive speakers advocate. If we
> abandon our principles so readily in the face of every odious challenge that
> comes along, we hand a victory in principle to the fascists and neo-Nazis.
> We've endorsed the right of those in power to repress speech -- the only
> task remaining for the totalitarians is to gain hold of the reins of power.
>
> On the resource branch of the issue, the Supreme Court has also muddied the
> waters, holding that a government-owned airport violated freedom of speech
> when it prohibited all advertising and soliciting on its premises,
> regardless of content. In effect, the court created a right to use
> government property for the purpose of expressing oneself. Justice Claire
> L'Heureux-Dubé even endorsed the need for the state to subsidize citizens'
> self-expression, saying: "If members of the public had no right whatsoever
> to distribute leaflets or engage in other expressive activity on
> government-owned property ... only those with enough wealth to own land, or
> mass media facilities ... would be able to engage in free expression."
>
> This, of course, is manifestly untrue. Those lacking the wealth to own land
> can (and generally do) rent some at a fraction of the cost. They can then
> freely express their opinions through meetings or signs on their leased
> premises. In fact, the People's Summit scheduled to occur in Quebec the same
> week as the Summit of the Americas is a perfect example.
>
This is so bogus......is anyone really arguing that if Ghandi or MLK JR can't pay the rent (and the cost of policing, most likely) of their protest, they have no right to protest? Are you for real?
Just because you are pennyless, does not make you wrong.
> Furthermore, the Comment page of this newspaper demonstrates daily that the
> owners of mass media facilities are quite prepared to publish viewpoints
> from either rich or poor, left or right, provided that contributors can make
> cogent and interesting arguments."
What a crock of shit. The newspapers did not allow anything on Bill C-8 in the letter pages that was remotely able to combat their lies about "no criminal records" and "zero-red tape industrial hemp" until the bill had passed. Actually, the Globe and Mail mentioned increased police powers, once, two years before the bill had passed. What a total crock of shit.
The greedy capitalist pigs just want to sell as many newspapers as possible."
Correction, they want to sell as many ADS as possible. They make most of their money from ads. They could care less about readership....they practically give their newspapers away.
Diversity of opinion simply makes good
> business sense."
Not when it pisses off advertizers.......see the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media (1970) if you don't believe me.
And for the occasional mass-media owner who perversely
> remains biased, there are competitors willing to woo readers and advertisers
> with different opinions.
>
The big four in Van (Sun, Province, Globe & Mail and Post) all rely on the same ad base. Piss off one advertizer, and they'll go to where the comments are less harsh.
> But back to Quebec. The claims of protest organizers that the demonstrations
> will be peaceful are unrealistically sanguine."
It's hard telling the starving kids not to break things.......especially when they see their non-violent co-protesters shot with rubber bullets and beaten with clubs. APEC protestors were non-violent and non-destructive, and it did them no good. Still, tactically, I oppose destruction of property (which I consider less serious than hurting people) while there are still so many other options available.
I will quote Ghandi "It is better to be non-violent than violent. But it is better to be violent than a coward."
Or JFK "Those who make peacefull revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
Even if organizers wanted
> them to be, the excitement of Seattle, Prague and Washington will inevitably
> attract some elements who will simply be looking for an excuse to rumble. So
> when police block off the streets, it will have nothing to do with the
> content of the protesters' message. After all, how much content is there in
> "Hey hey, ho ho, globalization's gotta go?" In fact, the streets will be
> equally inaccessible to those wanting to protest in favour of free trade.
> (And yes, I actually know of a group of libertarian students who are
> planning to do just that -- rather imprudently, in my opinion.)
>
Hey Hey, Ho Ho,
Corporate Fascism has to go!
> Access to Quebec streets really isn't a free speech issue at all. It's just
> another example of the age-old problem of who gets to control public
> property. Who owns the streets? Nobody -- and everybody. So who gets to
> decide what use will be made of them? Without private ownership, the answer
> is inevitably a political one. The government of the day decides. "
Bullshit. People decide. They have a historical right to go get pissed off in the streets. I guess this writer was for the clampdown against Chinese protesters in Bejing......
> Supposedly, it represents the will of the majority. The protesters, in this
> case, don't happen to be part of that majority. "
Another crock. THis is an international agreement. The international community has yet to be polled with a decent question on the issue. My money would be on the global population to vote "no" to the question "Are you in favor of throwing out labor rights and environmental/health rights for investors rights?"
>
> Can't they recognize the irony? Their whole argument against free trade and
> globalization is based upon an unbounded confidence in the benevolence and
> wisdom of government. Government is supposed to be the knight in shining
> armour who will hold the power of evil multinational corporations in check.
> Government is the caring, sharing institution standing up for the poor and
> the downtrodden. Government is equality, social justice and brotherly love."
Someone mail this person a copy of 1984.
> Doesn't it give them even a moment's pause when they see their beloved
> government turning on them like this? Can it have escaped their notice that
> their reasoned arguments against globalization -- assuming they have any --
> will get better play in this capitalist pig newspaper than on the people's
> streets of Quebec?
>
> Karen Selick is a lawyer in Belleville, Ont. kas@karenselick.com
>
Karen, and Paul and any other right - winger....listen up.
The right to peacefull assembly has been infringed by the wall. Therefore, it is the wall that must fall, not the right to effectively protest.
Everything that the pot community has put together has been supported and protected by protests. If we support those who would take the right of protest away from the anti FTAA crowd, we risk losing it - and everything we have created here.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond TutuEdited by davidmalmolevine on 4/27/01 09:51 AM.
|
JohnDillinger
(member)
4/27/01 01:27 PM
|
Re: Chomsky crit:"free trade"DML crit: anti Civil Dis.
[Post#: 121867
/ re: 121807
]
|
|
|
"Lableling and putting it through the same amount of tests that extra-natural synthetic drugs go through wouldn't be a bad idea... GM is just so that Monsanto can copywrite their "roundup ready, non-viable seed weed" and then outlaw the other kind as being too uncontrollable. Pure friggin monopoly, pardon my french. And where does she say "ban" ? - most activists are arguing for lables so that the "free hand of the marketplace" can do it's work."
What does labeling have to do with "free hand of the marketplace". If you as a consumer don't want GM food, then refuse to buy anything but that which says it doesn't (ie: buy foods labeled as organic). I usually don't like Frontline, but they did a (mostly) objective report on GM foods just this past week. Is mostly fear mongering by a few that are opposed.
"What Connie is opposed to is Multinational Corporations"
You could have stopped here...but....
"consolidating their right to make a profit in poor contries with lax labour or enviro. standards while living in rich cournties....and to get countries to "out-bid" each other in a race to the bottom to see who can provide even more lax labour or enviro. standards."
Increased trade will benefit these countries far more than any restriction would. Frankly though, the best solution is just dropping our own trade barriers and letting the rest of the world do their own thing.
But I would like to hear Paul's response.
" In the last federal election, she ran for the Canadian Action Party, a nationalist, funny money opposer of any
economic freedoms."
"It's an oversimplification. She is for national freedom over of corporate freedom."
Freedom is freedom. What the heck is "national" freedom anyway? People have freedom, not collectives.
"It has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with monopoly and power. Here, if you don't believe me, check out Noam Chomsky, the most quoted living human being:"
Noam Chompsky again. Fine, lets just separate government power from economic power. So long as there are governments, they'll be controlled by powerful interests for their benefit. You know, the alternatives (protectionism) also protects the interests of large corporations.
"Since when did the Multinational Corporations own all the streets? Since when did they buy Quebec City?"
Don't know, but what a great idea ;-)
"> Can't they recognize the irony? Their whole argument against free trade and
> globalization is based upon an unbounded confidence in the benevolence and
> wisdom of government. Government is supposed to be the knight in shining
> armour who will hold the power of evil multinational corporations in check.
> Government is the caring, sharing institution standing up for the poor and
> the downtrodden. Government is equality, social justice and brotherly love.""
"Someone mail this person a copy of 1984."
Do you understand sarcasm?
"Or JFK "Those who make peacefull revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
Sure that wasn't Jefferson?
"Karen, and Paul and any other right - winger....listen up."
Birds have wings ;-)
"The right to peacefull assembly has been infringed by the wall. Therefore, it is the wall that must fall, not the right to effectively protest. "
I don't think anyone is critical of peaceful protest, but these guys have made a name for themselves by destroying the property of others. I watched them throwning bricks at the cops and the cops just standing there. If it was the anti-abortionists instead of pseudo-anarchists doing this sort of thing, would you be here defending that? Lets got over this "if they're protesting, they have the right to do it where ever they want and do what ever they want" crap. They had their space for protest...story over.
JD
Legalize Freedom!
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/28/01 11:49 AM
|
I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122058
/ re: 121867
]
|
|
|
A response to
Poster: JohnDillinger
Subject: Re: Chomsky crit:"free trade"DML crit: anti Civil Dis.
DML
"Lableling and putting it through the same amount of tests that extra-natural synthetic drugs go
through wouldn't be a bad idea... GM is just so that Monsanto can copywrite their "roundup ready,
non-viable seed weed" and then outlaw the other kind as being too uncontrollable. Pure friggin
monopoly, pardon my french. And where does she say "ban" ? - most activists are arguing for
lables so that the "free hand of the marketplace" can do it's work."
JD
What does labeling have to do with "free hand of the marketplace". If you as a consumer don't
want GM food, then refuse to buy anything but that which says it doesn't (ie: buy foods labeled as
organic). I usually don't like Frontline, but they did a (mostly) objective report on GM foods just
this past week. Is mostly fear mongering by a few that are opposed."
DML
Ok.....say I want to do something crazy like make something I will call "Cheapfood" (TM) - it's half woodchips, half food. Looks just like hamburger. It turns out that labrats don't die from it....I've put it through the required 100 million lab rat sacrifice ritual.....no deaths from Cheapfood (TM). Does this now mean that I can mass produce this product and it is up to people who don't cut their food with woodchips to advertize "non-woodchiped" product, or is - to bottom line it - the ownus of adding the warning of untested-on-humans-in-long-term-studies extra-natural new methods of doing things .... is the ownus on the producer of these products, or on the competitors? Howabout nuclear versus wind or wave energy? What about Europe, ahead of us in so many ways, now shifting subsidies from fossile fuel to wind energy...and lablelling GM food (and people arn't buing it). Again, the only reason you would do something as stupid as going beyond the limits imposed by Nature (doing things that Nature could never do for herself....like fishtatoes) - "GM" for short.. in the first place is for the short term benefit of the producer at the probable cost (see thalidomide and the rest of the pills, chemical fertilzers, DDT, oil, tree paper, Nukes, ebola etc etc) to both producer and consumer.
DML
"What Connie is opposed to is Multinational Corporations"
JD
You could have stopped here...but....
DML
"consolidating their right to make a profit in poor contries with lax labour or enviro. standards while
living in rich cournties....and to get countries to "out-bid" each other in a race to the bottom to see
who can provide even more lax labour or enviro. standards."
JD
Increased trade will benefit these countries far more than any restriction would.
No proof. From the highly protectionist South Korea to the export-agriculture of most of the third world, people suffer greatly under "investors rights" agreements. Every time a dispute goes to the secret star chamber courts (are you in favor of secret courts?) the court sides with the company and against labor and the environment and people's health.
JD
Frankly though, the best solution is just dropping our own trade barriers and letting the rest of the world do their
own thing.
I think you have to be kidding yourself when you think that we don't have "centrally planned" economies. We do. The top 100 corporations according to fortune all benefit from corporate welfare and 20 wouldn't exist without it. We should just admit this isn't a bad thing, and then release the control of the subsidie-giving powers over to the masses, who may not be as smart as a politician, but are way more honest, and can't be bribed into global enviro-suicide like Double-you Bush.
JD
But I would like to hear Paul's response.
DML
So would I. I wonder why they don't argue these things in public?
" In the last federal election, she ran for the Canadian Action Party, a nationalist, funny money
opposer of any economic freedoms."
DML
"It's an oversimplification. She is for national freedom over of corporate freedom."
JD
Freedom is freedom. What the heck is "national" freedom anyway?
DML
A nation has a Constituion. Your freedoms are guaranteed, primarily, on a national level. Individual freedoms, national guarantees.
JD
People have freedom, not collectives.
DML
Spanish people have slightly differently-phrased freedoms than Columbians than Germans. In the USA, there are even slightly differently phrased freedoms State to State (see alaska's privacy rights, for example). The point is, the International Declaration of Human Rights should be accessible to everyone - but it has no teeth, so we are dependent on our National Constitution to maintain our freedoms.
DML
"It has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with monopoly and power. Here, if you don't
believe me, check out Noam Chomsky, the most quoted living human being:"
JD
Noam Chompsky again.
DML
He's done the homework.
JD
Fine, lets just separate government power from economic power. So long
as there are governments, they'll be controlled by powerful interests for their benefit.
Ummm, I have to bring up Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" again. That is where I want to be, more or less.Spain in 1936. No politicians. No employers. Some slight variation in wealth, but not much. Justice. Freedom. You have to read Orwell's diary of the time. It's awe inspiring. Hemingway was just getting drunk in the cafe's in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" - Orwell is where it's at when it comes to anti-facist radical democrat history. Of course, there was Paris in 1871, 1968 etc etc but that's another story.
JD
You know, the alternatives (protectionism) also protects the interests of large corporations.
I'm counting on the reintroduction of hemp and medicinal/social cannabis and the reintroduction of cannabis cafe's - owned and run by a great many people and a great many cultures evening up things considerably, on an economic level. Humans used to be 90% agricultural workers. We could go back to that through herb breeding - very profitable, very necessary, very sustainable. Plus the cafes and eco tourism....heaven on earth!
DML
"Since when did the Multinational Corporations own all the streets? Since when did they buy
Quebec City?"
JD
Don't know, but what a great idea ;-)
Hey, don't laugh....some people think they can buy anything. The corporate press have managed to monopolize on much of the "town hall" - but Coca Cola can't buy the streets, too.
"> Can't they recognize the irony? Their whole argument against free trade and
> globalization is based upon an unbounded confidence in the benevolence and
> wisdom of government. Government is supposed to be the knight in shining
> armour who will hold the power of evil multinational corporations in check.
> Government is the caring, sharing institution standing up for the poor and
> the downtrodden. Government is equality, social justice and brotherly love.""
"Someone mail this person a copy of 1984."
Do you understand sarcasm?
Do you understand the glaring hypocracy of blaming democratic governing for everything undemocratic corporate whores do?
DML
"Or JFK "Those who make peacefull revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
JD
Sure that wasn't Jefferson?
He was probably quoting Jefferson....it sound so much more radical coming out of JFK's mouth. Everyone expects Jefferson to be that way.
"Karen, and Paul and any other right - winger....listen up."
Birds have wings ;-)
"The right to peacefull assembly has been infringed by the wall. Therefore, it is the wall that must
fall, not the right to effectively protest. "
JD
I don't think anyone is critical of peaceful protest, but these guys have made a name for
themselves by destroying the property of others.
DML
Nike Town in Seattle, for example. Nike pays their workers 16 cents per hour for 80 hour weeks. They get fined for talking, going to the bathroom or if they get to "old" (like, say, 25) and can't produce like the young ones. Arguably, those shoes were made in a concentration camp called "China". In world war two, the Governments of the world were asked why they didn't bomb the tracks to the camps. I can understand the anger of a starving, poor, highly educated young person in the USA. My heart doesn't go out to the "property" of Nike but to the Workers in their factories suffering from free trade. If someone thinks they can speed up the process of reform, or "vote with a brick" - it seems like that makes sense, doesn't it. Not my style, though.
I like doing things that don't scare people. Rock concerts. Obstruction. Hanging things from buildings or such. But the violence is all Nike and the Cops - damage to property is not the same thing as damage to people.
JD
I watched them throwning bricks at the cops and the cops just standing there."
DML
Hmm....I was at the APEC protest. I, and hundreds of other peaceful protestors got peppersprayed. No one did anything violent exept the cops, and the only property damage was to the fence.
In Seattle, people didn't start throwing things at police until hundreds of peaceful protestors had been gassed and shot with rubber bullets and run over with a motorcycle while chained together.
Perhaps you didn't get the whole context. I recommend you see a movie called "This is what Democracy Looks Like" .... it's floating around these days....
JD: If it was the anti-abortionists instead of pseudo-anarchists doing this sort of thing, would you be here defending that?
DML
I think that the only reason abortion and free trade are still issues is that all the big media do such a crappy job of facilitating debate. "Politically Incorrect" with Bill Marr is entertaining, and occationally educational, but it's really a joke because it's so short and all the commercials just never let anyone get caught in a contradiction. And the guests are usually not that academic. Chomsky would decimate anyone in a serious three-hour long debate on CNN regarding Free Trade - and then it would be a non-issue. Similarly, after three hours of good debate between the lifers and the choicers, we would all see that sex education prevents abortions far better than whining and blockading peoples access to the clinics, and sex education would be funded and the lifers would (thankfully) be in the minority. But it will never happen, because the TV ain't there to teach us things - it's there to sell us things - sell us the old ways of domination and fear.
JD
Lets got over this "if they're protesting, they have the right to do it where ever they want and do what ever they want" crap. They had their space for
protest...story over.
DML
Here you go, Martin Luthor King Jr.....you can march in the black neighbourhoods, but don't you start up with that uppity-negro talk in my neighbourhood, or in Washington DC, for that matter. You be a good little negro and stick to the "protest pens" lak a tol ya."
For protest to be effective, it has to be able to pressure. A pressureless protest is ineffective and useless.
You just want to invent a system of protest where poor people can't get in the way of the powerful people and have a "citizen's veto". I think any time someone is willing to be arrested to stop something their "representatives" are doing, I think they should be able to get their representatives attention and be able to stop their representative's actions and demand a public answer from their representative....otherwise, the name "representative" becomes an Orwellian newspeak term and we have to start over from scratch and fashion a stronger, less puppet-strewn democracy. Direct democracy, with Refferendums and ratification, proportional reps and all power to the people.
Legalize Freedom!
"Freedom without socialism is privlege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
-Bakunin
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
JohnDillinger
(member)
4/28/01 01:38 PM
|
|
Re: I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122087
/ re: 122058
]
|
|
|
"DML
Ok.....say I want to do something crazy like make something I will call "Cheapfood" (TM) - it's half woodchips, half food. Looks just like hamburger. It turns out that labrats don't die from it....I've put it through the required 100 million lab rat sacrifice ritual.....no deaths from Cheapfood (TM). Does this now mean that I can mass produce this product and it is up to people who don't cut their food with woodchips to advertize "non-woodchiped" product, or is - to bottom line it - the ownus of adding the warning of untested-on-humans-in-long-term-studies extra-natural new methods of doing things"
JD - Reminds me of when ITT produced a bread in the 1970s which they called all natural and full of fiber. Turned out it was made from tree bark
You people who worry about such things, and the "investigative" reporters should get out there and "raise awareness". That alone has a long history of changing corporate attitudes. In the mean time, I have a tree to eat
"What about Europe, ahead of us in so many ways,"
That's what they said in '38.
"now shifting subsidies from fossile fuel to wind energy...and lablelling GM food (and people arn't buing it)."
If consumers express enough concern, producers will start labeling. I have no problem with eating GM foods. I think they're wonderful and yummy.
"Again, the only reason you would do something as stupid as going beyond the limits imposed by Nature (doing things that Nature could never do for herself....like fishtatoes)"
You should have watched the Frontline story. Nature didn't create most apples available today either, or most veggies we now take for granted. What is unusual with GM products is that they take a strand of genetic material from, say a fish, and apply it to at tomato. I haven't heard anything that would make me concerned.
"- "GM" for short.. in the first place is for the short term benefit of the producer at the probable cost (see thalidomide and the rest of the pills, chemical fertilzers, DDT, oil, tree paper, Nukes, ebola etc etc) to both producer and consumer."
What does ebola have to do with Nukes? Anyway, so what are you saying, we should stop science because it sometimes poses risks?
"JD-Increased trade will benefit these countries far more than any restriction would.
You - No proof. From the highly protectionist South Korea to the export-agriculture of most of the third world, people suffer greatly under "investors rights" agreements."
First off, I said I support FREE TRADE, not government regulated trade. Many countries have benefited from freer trade, the most obvious recent example is Hong Kong. They have virtually no natural resources, but now have a general standard of living exceeding our own. Singapore is another such example. These countries are no longer considered "third world" thanks in large messure to being about the most free trade places on earth. Moreover, the entire industrialized world was built on trade, with the US growing in the 19th century to the largest economy in the world through trade.
"Every time a dispute goes to the secret star chamber courts (are you in favor of secret courts?) the court sides with the company and against labor and the environment and people's health."
Who are you debating with, me or someone else? I think we should do what the HK administators did in Hong Kong, open trade to the world. No need for agreements, just do it and hope other countries follow.
"DML
So would I. I wonder why they don't argue these things in public?"
Don't know. Wasn't even aware there was a mail-list until you pointed it out. I think they're trying to maintain the peace between the libertarians and the socialists, and they might have a hard time of it with us two going at it
"JD
Frankly though, the best solution is just dropping our own trade barriers and letting the rest of the world do their
own thing.
You - I think you have to be kidding yourself when you think that we don't have "centrally planned" economies.
Not sure how you got that out of what I said above, but I'll bite. We do have attempts at various types of social engineering (economic and social). Those attempts are doomed to failure and create more problems than they can ever solve. The market is best at properly allocating resources, satifying consumer demands and feeding the poor. Any doubt, take a look at the countries of the world and weight those where governments take a greater hand in the economy and those that take a more hands off approach. On the centralize control team we the former Soviet Union (absolute control), most of Africa, moving to those with some intervention, like most of Europe and down to places like Hong Kong that have next to none (ironic, isn't it?).
"We do. The top 100 corporations according to fortune all benefit from corporate welfare and 20 wouldn't exist without it."
Cut off their welfare then. Have a separation of state and enterprise. Have governments protect the basic rights of its citizens (the Lockean "life, liberty and property")and no more.
"We should just admit this isn't a bad thing, and then release the control of the subsidie-giving powers over to the masses,"
It is a bad thing. Governments should not be giving advantage to one business over another. And no one or group should be given the power to control (engineer) the marketplace.
"JD
Freedom is freedom. What the heck is "national" freedom anyway?
DML
A nation has a Constituion. Your freedoms are guaranteed, primarily, on a national level. Individual freedoms, national guarantees."
They're guaranteed as long as the state says their guaranteed. But what you're really talking about is individual freedom, not "national freedom". It is the individuals who are free, and that freedom is (theoretically) protected by government. In reality, even in "free" countries, is the largest violator of one's individual freedom.
"JD
People have freedom, not collectives.
DML
Spanish people have slightly differently-phrased freedoms than Columbians than Germans. In the USA, there are even slightly differently phrased freedoms State to State (see alaska's privacy rights, for example). The point is, the International Declaration of Human Rights should be accessible to everyone - but it has no teeth, so we are dependent on our National Constitution to maintain our freedoms."
Freedom pretty much has come to mean whatever someone thinks it should mean. When I talk of freedom, I'm talking about freedom FROM coecerion. The freedom to do what you want, make the choices you want without risking violence from others, so long as your choices do not violate (ie: aggress against) the rights of others. Its the old "my freedom ends where your nose begins".
"JD
You know, the alternatives (protectionism) also protects the interests of large corporations.
You -I'm counting on the reintroduction of hemp and medicinal/social cannabis and the reintroduction of cannabis cafe's - owned and run by a great many people and a great many cultures evening up things considerably, on an economic level. Humans used to be 90% agricultural workers. We could go back to that through herb breeding - very profitable, very necessary, very sustainable. Plus the cafes and eco tourism....heaven on earth!"
No don't know what this has to do with my statement above, but okay, I'll bite again.
The modern world could never return to the "good old days" where everyone is a farmer. Pol Pot tried that little number in Cambodia. And I believe you're greatly overestimating the potential of the hemp plant to solve the worlds ills. Of course, the only way to find out is by re-legalizing marijuana (at least hemp)..so lets work to do that
Anyway, this debate is getting too long for one reply.
JD
Legalize Freedom!
|
JohnDillinger
(member)
4/28/01 01:57 PM
|
|
Re: I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122095
/ re: 122087
]
|
|
|
"JD: If it was the anti-abortionists instead of pseudo-anarchists doing this sort of thing, would you be here defending that?
DML
I think that the only reason abortion and free trade are still issues is that all the big media do such a crappy job of facilitating debate."
You sure like playing "dodge the question". What does any of your reply have to do with the question?
"Politically Incorrect" with Bill Marr is entertaining, and occationally educational, but it's really a joke because it's so short and all the commercials just never let anyone get caught in a contradiction. And the guests are usually not that academic. Chomsky would decimate anyone in a serious three-hour long debate on CNN regarding Free Trade - and then it would be a non-issue."
I'd put Milton Friedman against Chomsky anyday. Chomsky would be 'dead meat'
"Similarly, after three hours of good debate between the lifers and the choicers, we would all see that sex education prevents abortions far better than whining and blockading peoples access to the clinics, and sex education would be funded and the lifers would (thankfully) be in the minority. But it will never happen, because the TV ain't there to teach us things - it's there to sell us things - sell us the old ways of domination and fear."
You see, I ask you "would you defend the right of anti-abortionists to demonstate in the same fashion as those guys in QC, and you answer by debating the abortion issue. You completely miss the point. Do or do you not support the right of any group, including those you disagree with, to protest? Yes or No?
"JD
Lets got over this "if they're protesting, they have the right to do it where ever they want and do what ever they want" crap. They had their space for
protest...story over.
DML
Here you go, Martin Luthor King Jr.....you can march in the black neighbourhoods, but don't you start up with that uppity-negro talk in my neighbourhood, or in Washington DC, for that matter. You be a good little negro and stick to the "protest pens" lak a tol ya."
Completely different. The protesters weren't kicked out of a neigborhood, they were keep behind a fence put there to protect the safety of people and property.
"For protest to be effective, it has to be able to pressure. A pressureless protest is ineffective and useless."
Well, protest is largely useless unless you've already won people over beforehand. And displays such as the one in Seattle, Windsor, DC and now QC work against the protesters (so as a representive of corporate America, I thank you)
"You just want to invent a system of protest where poor people can't get in the way of the powerful people and have a "citizen's veto". I think any time someone is willing to be arrested to stop something their "representatives" are doing, I think they should be able to get their representatives attention and be able to stop their representative's actions and demand a public answer from their representative....otherwise, the name "representative" becomes an Orwellian newspeak term and we have to start over from scratch and fashion a stronger, less puppet-strewn democracy."
Representatives represent the views of the majority, if not, you can vote them out (I'm only half serious here).
"Direct democracy, with Refferendums and ratification, proportional reps and all power to the people."
God, just what we need, direct democracy. Mass ignorance and mob rule. Kiss your pot smokin' days good bye.
And by the way, what happend to your support of constitutional guarantees by government (you know, your "national freedom" argument?). If our freedom is constitutionaly guaranteed, what use is direct democracy?
JD
Legalize Freedom!
|
JohnDillinger
(member)
4/28/01 01:59 PM
|
|
Re: I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122097
/ re: 122095
]
|
|
|
Legalize Freedom!
"Freedom without socialism is privlege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
-Bakunin
"Slavery is Freedom" - George Orwell.
Legalize Freedom!
|
BC_Budman
(newbie)
4/28/01 02:06 PM
|
Re: I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122100
/ re: 122097
]
|
|
|
Can't attribute this quote, but thought I'd share anyway:
"Responsibility without freedom is slavery; freedom without responsibility is anarchy."
That's not a dig David.
"Life is a tragedy for those who feel
and a comedy for those who think."
|
JohnDillinger
(member)
4/28/01 02:57 PM
|
|
Re: I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122111
/ re: 122100
]
|
|
|
Anarchy: absence of government.
You can have responsibility and anarchy.
JD
Legalize Freedom!
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/28/01 08:48 PM
|
|
Re: I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122179
/ re: 122111
]
|
|
|
I just read the latest stuff....I have a reply, but will take a few days off to get shit done.
You haven't one yet, Darth. Emperor Gates will not turn this Jedi to the dark side of the force.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
Herb
(journeyman)
4/29/01 08:31 AM
|
|
Re: I'm not convinced......
[Post#: 122255
/ re: 122179
]
|
|
|
David,
an anarchist in a Libertarian land! Sounds like fun - well, maybe : )
IMHO > Although there is significant disagreement between anarchists and Libertarians on the issue of private property, there is much in common.
You know, of course, that most anarchists think that political parties and "politics" are a waste of time and that "direct action" is the best and only strategy.
There was a major debate among anarchists about whether to become involved with politics during the Spanish Revolution. So this debate on involvement in politics among anarchists is nothing new.
So what do you think of the BCMP as a strategy? You are a party member/candidate so you must see some positive things about supporting a political party like the BCMP.
If and when you get a chance, what are they?
Have fun on the campaign trail.
|
|
