Define "human development." I'm just amazed that so many people who live in the most powerful economy in the world would want to kill the golden goose with socialist psychobabble. Capitalism and freedom are the means by which we are the world's wealthiest nation. To state otherwise is sheer lunacy. Socialism is a failure because it saps the desire of people to work hard (since they are being leeched off of so badly by a parasite class of leeches) since they are so over-taxed. The free market is the ultimate solution to most problems.
Actually, the "human development index" (HDI) was created by the UN to measure various metrics as they relate to standard of living. These metrics are real GDP and life expectancy along with health and education levels. While we are far and above the other countries in real GDP, we rank below them on the HDI because our life expectancy at birth number is considerably lower than Norway, Sweden, and Canada. Those countries have hybridized their systems in order to maximize things like health care and education. GDP is not the only measure of happiness and social stability in a country. Some things are far more important than the economy. While the free market can solve many problems, it should be clear that there are some problems that can be better solved another way. Nobody is advocating socialism, which pretty much anybody with brains has accepted. Despite your continued bleatings about socialist and communist boogeymen, nobody (except the Green Party) is pushing those forms of government. In many cases, the government CAN solve many problems that the free market simply will not.
But it does not solve those problems efficently or effectively. Govt. by its very nature is a wasteful entity. Anything that is not driven by profit motive to perfection is untrustworthy. What incentive is there for govt. to serve us when: A. govt. workers are extremely difficult to fire. Thus why should they do their jobs when they know they can not/will not be axed? B. agencies remain around long after their usefulness has expired. C. Since they are not motivated by profit, the attitude "good enough for govt. work" mires us in mediocrity. Pretty much anything govt touches turns to dust.
bamaslammer, I’ve got a couple of questions for you. 1. What would happen to America if there were no army and no police, i.e. if they were both disbanded or all shipped to some desert island? Phrased another way, does American need its armed forces and police forces? 2. How could you have an army and police forces without a government? If you work your way through these questions you will see why government is not only a good thing, it’s an essential thing.
Good lord. What complete and utter BS. Can you come up with something that doesn't sound like it's straight from the Limbaugh Institute of Ridiculous and Absurd Soundbites? The government is not the source of all evil. If it wasn't around, you'd soon realize it. govt. workers are extremely difficult to fire. Thus why should they do their jobs when they know they can not/will not be axed? -bamaslammer What garbage. Do you sit around and dream this stuff up? Or is there a handbook of crappy far-right, anti-government junk that you get this from. I know several state government workers who work their ass off, and they are not some tiny minority I looked around for so I could attempt to make a point. They are paid less for the same work compared to what they could get in the private sector. They work their tail off and they rarely get a pay increase. They are getting their benefits slashed every year... benefits which were a big reason they put up with the low pay and rare salary bumps, and they have to hear garbage like this. Truly, bama, you have no clue. One can find lousy government workers and lousy government agencies. Most of them aren't, but sure, you can find them. And you know what? You can find lousy workers in the private sector and you can find lousy businesses. Big hairy deal. Get a grip, man. You're on the wrong planet. I don't know what world you think this is, but clearly, you got off at the wrong spinning round ball.
I agree that we should do some things to raise government efficiency, but we can make those improvements in the existing agencies. We can improve efficiency and productivity of government workers, for example, by tying bonuses to increased efficiency and productivity. Which is why every single new agency should have a sunset clause. Again, there are some things that cannot be measured in terms of profit. Who profits when a country has a lower infant mortality rate? (the whole country) Who profits with a highly educated workforce? (the entire country) Who profits when a large percentage of the population has health care? (the entire country) The same government you decry as making everything "turn to dust" has also solved a host of problems that would NEVER have been resolved were it left up to private industry.
The 'trend' I was refering to wasn't about socialist govt per say, but that just about every country on that list has large socialist social programs that bs depises and claims are holding us all back. All the top standard of living countries endorse the very programs that bs claims stifle prosperity. The list speaks for itself in pointing out the lunacy of bs's view that "Socialism is a failure because it saps the desire of people to work hard (since they are being leeched off of so badly by a parasite class of leeches) since they are so over-taxed. "
I knew I'd get a knee-jerk reaction from the left. Of course we need a govt. to provide for the common defense for enemies foreign and domestic. Of course we need a Federal govt. to coin money and take care of treaties. But anything else is just ridiculous. We have gazzillions of regulations and regulators to enforce them that are not rooted in common sense. We have a parasite class of people who depend solely on govt.'s ability to steal what I make and give to them thanks to their power of force. Just look at the Post Office, Amtrack and the stupid baggage screeners among others to tell me about how govt is "good." The waste in every movement up there is amazing. Imagine more of your tax dollars closer to home could do for you. I'm shocked that so many of you on the left don't trust Bush at all, yet you never question the motives of a labryinthine bureaucracy that exists only to service itself. The Founders never intended the Federal govt. to become as big and as invasive as it is now. The states should have the greatest say in most matters, but thanks to that godawful Constitutional amendment which allowed senators to be elected rather than appointed by state legislators, the state govt has no voice in Washington.
This is in response to BS’s earlier article which I think is relevant to this thread because it relates to Reagan’s incessant anti-“communist” rhetoric, even though it’s pretty clear that he didn’t really understand what communism is. Ideal communism is a theoretical state where no government exists at all. From the things you’ve posted, BS, I think that you may favour the Ideal Communist point of view, at least in this regard. This isn’t workable, however, because people can’t be counted on to conduct themselves ethically all the time. What would end up happening is that wealth would be accumulated in the hands of a few who would crate monopolies and use unfair business practices to drive out fair competition and you’d end up with essentially an oligarchy or even a dictatorship. Rules and regulations therefore must be implemented, and there must be some way to enforce them, i.e. a government. But the government can’t be without controls either else it could abuse it’s power and eventually become dictatorial too, so (ideally) a government should be held accountable to the general population through a democracy where (almost) anybody can put forward ideas and run and be elected. The government should be representative of the people, so again (almost) anybody should have the means to, and be able to run. How much government control there should be over the economy and the lives of the people is up to the people and the particular conditions of that state. In practice there is a spectrum, so presenting democratic socialism and capitalism as two discrete options is not a true representation of how it works in practice. When it is presented this way, either by the left or the right, it is often simply political rhetoric, instrumental reason, for the purpose of manipulating people, not for the purpose of increasing understanding (which would involve the use of communicative reason). This piece bears a lot of the earmarks of the former. This statement is clearly not true, but presumably he’s going to try to justify it further on so I’ll hold off on my comments. You also have socialized tax collection, police enforcement, and sewage collection. Should we privatize tax collection? What say we let any citizen pay for an audit and investigation of any other citizen? If tax evasion is found the person who paid for the audit gets a percentage. Or how about we privatize the police? We can pay them based on performance, the more crooks they lock up the more we pay them. I think an enterprising entrepreneur could even combine the first two, and use his police force to watch possible tax evaders, and then lock them up when they’re caught! Sounds like a perfect system, doesn’t it? And about the sewage collection. Clearly having only one sewer line coming into everybody’s home is an abomination, an ugly example of “communism” at work. Every house should have at least 3 so the home owner can chose. That would clearly be best for the consumer, right? Never mind the fact that 3 sets of sewer lines would have to run down every street and lead to 3 different sewage treatment plants. What’s best for the consumer is choice! Ok, clearly I’m being a bit facetious, but I hope I’ve made my point. There are many instances where it doesn’t make sense to have a market controlled service, where a single provider, watched over and made accountable by a democratically elected government, is the best way to go. Huh?? Again, more odd statements. In a fair market economy you need rules. They are a good thing. I would say that the trend is in many areas to less government control, not more, but these are things that change as conditions change and as people decide they should change. And again, “socialism” has clearly proved to be extremely successful. Private property and contract law are protected by rules and laws that are enforced by the government and legal system. This is one confused man. In one paragraph he attacks government, and in the next he hold up as examples of capitalism the very things that regulations and government provide. Can this man be taken seriously after this? Capitalism is based on the rules of fair trade, which cannot exist without government and the enforcement of laws. Of course it does. The market pace has to be regulated by a common set of rules. It must be a level playing field, and this requires central planning and decision making. This guy either has no idea what he’s talking about, or this is all part of some kind of deceptive rhetoric. False again. It is exactly because people work for their own interests that the market needs rules to keep it fair. Hello Enron anyone? This was an example of people looking out for their own interests. What they were doing, however, was not fair business practice. No regulation means all-Enron, all the time. Regulation (formed and enforced by government) means that this kind of practice is illegal and the market is kept fair and healthy. Were the con men and women of Enron abused and exploited by the state when they were called to justice? Is this guy an anarchist? The very purpose of state intervention, ideally, is fairness and justice. You used to be a soldier didn’t you bamaslammer? How can you stomach what this guy is saying? He is attacking your very profession. ??? It almost seems like he’s talking about totalitarianism now. It certainly doesn’t relate to socialism. This is one confused man. Ok, this is not even followable at this point. “War on drugs” presumably refers to the US so he’s suggesting that the US is a totalitarian regime?? How can you stomach this stuff BS? What’s your point in posting it? I can’t detect any logic or relation to real world facts or issues here at all. Is he trying to talk about totalitarianism?! Other things he’s mentioning seem to refer to fair market regulation. Ideal (extreme?) communism is a state where no government exists at all. This is one confused, confused man. There is no way this guy is an attorney. This is just rambling jibber with no relation to real world fact or events. It’s so whacked you can’t even follow it to respond to it! BS – What was your point in posting this? I would think that someone in your position would be quite offended by many of the things this guy is saying. He would appear to be an enemy of the constitution, and enemy of the free market system, an enemy of law and order and justice. WOW! Just to tie that secularism bit to Nicaragua in any way I can think of, which is where this started, the Sandinistas had a Christian foundation. They were closely tied to Christian Liberation Theology.
Bamma which of these Federal regulations do you find has hampered the U.S.? And in what way has the negative of these particular programs outweighted the benefits of them? 1.Rural Electrification 2.The Interstate Highway System 3.National Institutes of Health 4.Youth Summer Jobs Program 5.The FAA 6.Lighthouses 7.Federal Penitentiaries 8.National Park System 9.guaranteed student loans 10.Aid to Israel 11.Aid to Greece 12.Aid to Afghanistan 13.Aid to Iraq 14.Head Start 15.The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 16.Public Libraries 17.The GI Bill 18.FDA Othere things that wouldn't be around without Government regulation A. Child Labor Laws B. Integrated Schools C. Automobile manufacturers wouldn't have seat belts installed in cars. D. Monopolies would be legal. There wouldn't be any anti-trust legislation. E. It would be legal to have asbestos in any amount in the workplace. F. There would be no over time. G. There would be no forty hour work week H. There would be no sick days I. There would be no leave for pregnancy or child care J. Price Fixing between producers to gouge the consumers would be legal. K.There would be no maternity leave for working mothers(or fathers) L. There was no standard for foods sold to the public. There were problems with unhealthy and dangerous foods being sold. The list goes on and on. Bamma or others might say that those things are all good, but that they should be the responsibility of local govts. Well some of them such as the interstate highways couldn't be by definition. Secondly all of those things were unable to be dealt with locally and were problems until the Federal government stepped in to correct matters. Many of these things such as Child labor laws, food safety, forcing the auto manufacturers to install seat belts, work safety regulations etc. were actually costing people their lives in the name of profit and the 'free market'. We are familiar with the saying that 'those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' That seems to be the case for those who want to repeal or remove all or some of the govt. regulations that protect us.
How was it "pretty clear that he didn't really understand what communism is"? Did he not understand "pure" communisim? Did he not understand communism as it was practiced in the Soviet Union and Cuba? Did he actually understand the differences but didn't bother to focus on "pure" communism because "pure" communism didn't/doesn't exist on a national scale? What makes you say he didn't understand what Communisim was? Did you ever talk to him about it? Did you ever read anything he wrote about it? Or are you taking the word of political enemies that he didn't know? Just curious.
Well, he kept saying that he was against the “evil of communism.” So what was he against? He became a friend of Gorbachev, who was the leader of the USSR at the time, so he didn’t seem think he was “evil”. It almost sounds like he was referring to totalitarianism, but then he (or at least his administration) supported Saddam Hussein and even tried to overthrow a democratically elected government in Nicaragua, seemingly in favour of the preceding dictatorship! So that can’t be it. What exactly was he talking about when he said he stood against the “evil of communism”?? Frankly, it sounded like he was just repeating a line out of a 50’s era McCarthy influenced movie without really understanding what he was talking about. If his thinking was any more sophisticated that this I’d be interested in hearing about it.
No knee jerk reactions here but yours. I have held out hope that you might actually be intelligent and openminded enough to debate reasonably, but you simply choose to use one-liners and cliches. Please respond to the questions asked above if you would like to be taken seriously.
Please STOP posting the truncated version of the Afghanistan story. Tell it entirely or don't tell it all.
The article in question was written by someone other than me, which means it is not for me to edit. In addition, it was a piece specifically focused on drug policy and as such, did not need to go into complete detail about Afghanistan. If YOU would like the full Afghanistan story posted here, please feel free.
You could have deleted the part that was incomplete and misleading. Insert this: <i>.............</i> to show that you eliminated something. <b> Quoting from articles that have incomplete & misleading sections leads to reader(s) thinking that other parts of the article may also be incomplete & have misleading sections. </b> Why bring up the Reagan Administration part without bringing up the Carter Administration part in regards to the Afghanistan story? It would only have cost him another sentence or two to add the Carter Administration part and based on the article length, brevity didn't seem to be a goal. <a HREF="http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html">Zbigniew Brzezinski: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen</a> <i>Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76* Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists? Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today. Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. * There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version. The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" </i> If that source is unacceptable, let me know and I will try to come up with another one
Jane Wyman was Reagan's first wife back in the '40s. It would be interesting to know why Reagan and the first wife split. I do remembering reading that Jane had their first child just seven months after they got married. I have always heard that the first child sometime arrives real early
