Posted on 07/24/2003 9:00:48 AM PDT by nwrep
Marx was much better at predicting socio-economic upheaval than he was at formulating a utopian alternative. Heck, even Adam Smith warned us of the same consequences.
Excerpted and condensed from: Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Chapter 2
The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, how far, or in what manner, it is proper to restore the free importation of foreign goods, after it has been for some time interrupted, is, when particular manufactures, by means of high duties or prohibitions upon all foreign goods which can come into competition with them, have been so far extended as to employ a great multitude of hands. Humanity may in this case require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence. The disorder which this would occasion might no doubt be very considerable....
I do think it gets abused, and I think the above scenario is just one motive. Some folks get off on the ego-ride of playing politics. Some are just ornery. The latter is the reason I was a Libertarian for ten years, but I put that aside long ago.
There are also those folks who entertain the fantasy that they can grow a third major party, failing to realize that in democracies (and democratic republics), party systems are molded by electoral systems. Communist systems nurture one party; parliamentary systems nurture many; and ours, uniquely, gets two.
hehe ! Yeah, I did. In fact, it seems I saw an article posted about something regarding that too . . .
Uh, haz anybahdy
seed hillary ??
Uh, nevah mind!
Ah found 'er !!More bump images HERE !
First of all, talk to Jim Robinson for he has done an excellent job of doing so with his efforts!
I'd lay good odds that he would be an asset to your endeavors.
What's it matter to you, Luis?
Seems to me that YOU'RE the one babbling a lot of incoherent nonsense about "the will of the people" and ideology not making any difference because social engineering is going to happen anyway.
Heck, I could quote Winnie-the-Pooh to you and you wouldn't know the difference.
"Yes, when did Bush unsign the ICC? Once Bush knew the treaty was a done deal, anotherwords enough nations were committed to signing on by a
certain date, he voiced disagreement. Once again, it was too late."
It wasn't too late. Bush has taken the U.S. out of the ICC, and Bush has convinced numerous other ICC nations to give us immunity from the ICC when Americans are on the territory of those other nations.
In my last post to you, in response to you calling my assertion that Bush waited too late to unsign the ICC treaty rubbish, once again stated you were wrong. On this subject I mentioned that the ICC is a reality today in no small part due to the failure of the United State's leadership to condemn it from day one. Clinton and Bush deserve the blame for this. Neither of them took a firm stand against it until it was known to a certainty that it would be ratified. Once again you ignore this fact to rant on.
Now granted, taking on the ICC that Clinton signed wasn't Bush's very first Executive Action.
Nobody expected it to be his first action. I'm not sure how long it took you to realize the plan to create an ICC was wrong, but it took me less than 15 months. Here is an article from NewsMax that was still urging the President to unsign the ICC as late as April of 2002. Here's the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/670218/posts
Here's a CNSNews article from April 2, 2002. It's titled UN Poised To Ratify International Criminal Court http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/658123/posts
Bush finally unsigned the treaty on May 06, 2002, over fifteen months after taking office, and over one full month after it was known to be a done deal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/679031/posts
I will be waiting for your appology.
Coin toss.
As for me, W would the vote because on personal character and party affiliation.
Outside of that, there isn't too much difference.
I already conceded not having the answer. I hope to know it when I see it.
By this time next year, someone will be running hard on the issue of jobs for Americans. It's likely to have a real resonance with the voters by then.
Well Willie, I have my reasons for that, and I will readily admit my advantage over you, mine is not a "chance of birth" citizenship, I had to earn mine.
I had to earn it by understanding it, and the underlying principles...specifically that principle which commands the Federal government to acquiesce to the will of the people.
You see Willie, the first three words of the U.S. Constitution arer the single most important words in that venerable document: "We the people...", and that's never changed.
I realize that you believe that this idea of government by the will of the people is nonsense, I disagree, as did my role model:
"From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden." -- Ronald Reagan
Maybe you should read considerably less Winnie The Pooh.
Excuse me?
I will not argue with you.
C ya!
Pres. Bush is blamed for everything that's not been addressed to each critic's satisfaction. We are millions of people after all seeking instant gratification from one man it seems. (The fast food president was x-42 and in addition, he was a robber barron along with his wife.)
If the better off question comes up, I am "better off" than I was when bubba was president. Isn't that a standard that the average American relates to every Prez election? Free Republic registereds are not average America we must consider.
"Bush will lose if he does this or doesn't do that" what kind of talk is that? And, globalism is a big topic in itself that has many dimensions. The idea is to get the economy moving but folks on this thread are obsessing over immigration problems. FV
Simply, no.
Marx's core innovation over **all** other socialists before him was that he criticized and attacked all utopian visions of socialism. He said that pushing for utopia was unrealistic, and that expending energy and efforts for an unrealistic goal was therefore counterproductive, and therefor an **obstacle** to incrementally implementing socialism worldwide.
Likewise, Marx's core weakness was that he claimed that capitalism would fail in every instance where it was tried, making the working class poorer and poorer each year, leading to the working class rising up and overthrowing every form of government that embraced capitalism. Marx further weakened his argument by claiming that socialism, if it did not pursue unrealistic utopian visions, would make the working class richer and richer, but this claim pales in comparison to Marx's claim about capitalism, and Adam Smith duly kicked his ideological butt on this issue.
Yes, Bush killed the Kyoto treaty.
But Bush is not going to trample all over states' rights in order to prevent misguided states from implementing their own **aspects** of the now-dead Kyoto treaty.
Bush stopped Kyoto at the national level, and I dare say stopped it at the Texas level while he was governor there, though with a Democratic legislature back then who knows if he was really able to stop every back door aspect of Kyoto.
If you want to prevent various aspects of Kyoto from being implemented at the state level, you'll have to recognize that such actions aren't going to be labeled as "Kyoto" anything, but rather that other stealth names will be given to such actions...and you'll have to get involved at a local level. Bush can't be everywhere for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.