Canada & Progressives

[Dilip Panjwani]

On the Right, Sen. Ted Cruz has this incredible admission at about the 32-minute mark, where he basically says he came into office to be the leading defender of Israel in the US Senate.

Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran

On the Left, you have Rep. Ilhan Omar repeatedly making Somalia first comments.

Squad member Ilhan Omar slammed for 'disgraceful' speech saying she is 'Somalia first' and pushing an unrecognized deal with Ethiopia | Daily Mail Online

If a person has an allegiance to any country other than the country they are representing, they should not be eligible for office. There is no room for divided loyalties. I think the same of citizenship. I do not think anyone should be allowed dual citizenships.

Ted Cruz's and Ilhan Omar's priorities are obviously shared by a large number of American citizens who voted them to power. However, we would not have to worry about these 'divided loyalties' if USA was truly Libertarian, enforcing the Natural Law...
If American citizens with divided loyalties use their own money and time to help citizens of other countries, it is just a 'charity' scenario.

[Tom O'Donnell]

In theory it is a melting pot. Over the last decade or so things seem to be changing for the worse ...

Thousands of illegals flying Mexican flags in the US. They love Mexico but they live in the US because they make more money there. The US is an economic zone to them.

On the Right, Sen. Ted Cruz has this incredible admission at about the 32-minute mark, where he basically says he came into office to be the leading defender of Israel in the US Senate.

Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran

On the Left, you have Rep. Ilhan Omar repeatedly making Somalia first comments.

Squad member Ilhan Omar slammed for 'disgraceful' speech saying she is 'Somalia first' and pushing an unrecognized deal with Ethiopia | Daily Mail Online

If a person has an allegiance to any country other than the country they are representing, they should not be eligible for office. There is no room for divided loyalties. I think the same of citizenship. I do not think anyone should be allowed dual citizenships.

You cannot have a melting pot of cultures that hate each other, or which hate the country they are coming to. Which is why people who bring these problems to our countries should not be allowed here.

It is interesting that you are willing for this sort of trial and error to exist when implementing government policies but appeared to me to be almost offended when I suggested exactly this as one of the mechanisms that made capitalism relatively successful. Trying and failing in any arena is the precursor to trying and succeeding. Whether in businesses, governments, or individual achievements.

Ok so Tom I have some questions ... as you know, the USA has been described as a "melting pot" of world cultures and peoples. If all these peoples and cultures can abide and live under the U.S. Constitution within USA, why then cannot that system be worldwide? After all, the system allows for freedom of religion and free speech and cultural differences.

Why should any individual country be "appeased" to be able to live under it's own system? Especially the systems that stifle freedoms?

Again, I am not advocating one-world government. But if the U.S. Constitution was a worldwide standard, and countries could add on to it but NOT subtract from it, wouldn't this be a good thing?

We might even improve on it.

I keep thinking of the Star Trek universe, set in the 24th century, in which war between humans on Earth or anywhere else was supposedly abolished. How could this happen? Perhaps a mankind-agreed to a standard like the U.S. Constitution but improved by trial and error.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I think the US Constitution / Bill of Rights is great. I am in favour of free speech and the right to protect myself, for example. These are in accordance with Natural Law, i.e. rights that do not impose a burden of action on other people. It should work well in a country founded by people opposed to tyranny of the monarchy. Will it work everywhere? I don't think so and would say places where they try to force it, it has been a disaster. What I might consider to be good policy many people in the world would not. I consider myself quite libertarian but that doesn't mean I think all peoples' want the same.

I do not believe that there will be - let's say for sake of argument the next 1000 years - a set of norms of behaviour that would be considered acceptable to 95+% world-wide. This is one reason why there should be borders and strict limits of who should live here.

Thank you, Tom.
It would indeed be the easiest for the borders between the countries to disappear if everyone supports strict and rapid enforcement of the Natural Law, and accepts the simplicity of Libertarianism

[Pargat Perrer]

I think the US Constitution / Bill of Rights is great. I am in favour of free speech and the right to protect myself, for example. These are in accordance with Natural Law, i.e. rights that do not impose a burden of action on other people. It should work well in a country founded by people opposed to tyranny of the monarchy. Will it work everywhere? I don't think so and would say places where they try to force it, it has been a disaster. What I might consider to be good policy many people in the world would not. I consider myself quite libertarian but that doesn't mean I think all peoples' want the same.

I do not believe that there will be - let's say for sake of argument the next 1000 years - a set of norms of behaviour that would be considered acceptable to 95+% world-wide. This is one reason why there should be borders and strict limits of who should live here.

Ok so Tom I have some questions ... as you know, the USA has been described as a "melting pot" of world cultures and peoples. If all these peoples and cultures can abide and live under the U.S. Constitution within USA, why then cannot that system be worldwide? After all, the system allows for freedom of religion and free speech and cultural differences.

Why should any individual country be "appeased" to be able to live under it's own system? Especially the systems that stifle freedoms?

Again, I am not advocating one-world government. But if the U.S. Constitution was a worldwide standard, and countries could add on to it but NOT subtract from it, wouldn't this be a good thing?

We might even improve on it.

I keep thinking of the Star Trek universe, set in the 24th century, in which war between humans on Earth or anywhere else was supposedly abolished. How could this happen? Perhaps a mankind-agreed to a standard like the U.S. Constitution but improved by trial and error.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Tom, do you think on this principle that the U.S. Constitution is not worth supporting, because it tries to have a set of norms that are acceptable to everyone? and in addition to that, that there can never be any "Constitution" that can serve as this set of norms?

...

I think the US Constitution / Bill of Rights is great. I am in favour of free speech and the right to protect myself, for example. These are in accordance with Natural Law, i.e. rights that do not impose a burden of action on other people. It should work well in a country founded by people opposed to tyranny of the monarchy. Will it work everywhere? I don't think so and would say places where they try to force it, it has been a disaster. What I might consider to be good policy many people in the world would not. I consider myself quite libertarian but that doesn't mean I think all peoples' want the same.

I do not believe that there will be - let's say for sake of argument the next 1000 years - a set of norms of behaviour that would be considered acceptable to 95+% world-wide. This is one reason why there should be borders and strict limits of who should live here.

[Pargat Perrer]

1) .....

I think it is also impractical to have a set of common norms that are acceptable to everyone, or even say 95% of people world-wide.

Take something like female genital mutilation (FGM). There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where a doctor was performing this. Should this be a crime? If that's a crime, what about circumcision? You will never get people to agree on this world-wide.

Tom, do you think on this principle that the U.S. Constitution is not worth supporting, because it tries to have a set of norms that are acceptable to everyone? and in addition to that, that there can never be any "Constitution" that can serve as this set of norms?

.....

3) In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history. If you strive for perfection, presumably you have to meet people's basic needs first. This will involve people making errors about how capital is allocated. Trying and failing is the precursor to trying and succeeding, most of the time. There is no person, or group of people, so intelligent that they can predict what works and what doesn't in all cases, which is what central planning attempts but fails to do. Perhaps some sort of computer will eventually be able to do it, but as it stands now you can wish that people had this level of foresight but that's all it is, wishing.

Capitalism might also be said to have put more people INTO poverty than anything in human history. I mean in terms of absolute numbers, not percentages of people. But such a statement is very arguable. It's hard to quantify it against other political or economic systems.

Yes, trial and error is to be expected in such matters. But I think to say trying and failing is the precursor to trying and succeeding most of the time is being a bit idealistic and naive. Because the "trying" in capitalism is very often not about societal benefit, but is about individual achievement. Capitalism is all about the individual. To say that the aims of the individual mostly align with the aims of societal improvement is naive, imo. Yes, it can align in such manner but it is mostly not the case -- again, very hard to quantify. But if it did align in such a way most of the time, then we should be seeing a gradual improvement of capitalist society, and we are definitely NOT seeing that. Just look at mental illness and use of opiods as two indicators.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I will say this about the defenders of Marxism out in the real world beyond the confines of chesstalk, many of them write well ... almost poetic ....

The truth about anything is not revealed by how well you praise it ... it is substantiated by the reasons you give for why you say it is good, and the explanations you give about why the reasons being given for it being bad are not true...

Those who cannot do this, and just say: 'let us agree to disagree' are simply misguided folks...

[Vlad Drkulec]

Who is Bob Holliman?

I am sure you aren't defending the policies of Mao, who if there were a contest for the worst human of all time, would be a strong contender for the gold medal.

It is interesting that the number of people who emigrated from China to the West must surely dwarf the reverse. I wonder why is that?

Actually Bob is defending the policies of Mao, he just wants us to divorce ourselves from the inevitable fruits of those policies and pretend that this time things will turn out differently, despite all evidence to the contrary based on experience with the poisonous fruit of these doctrines.

I will say this about the defenders of Marxism out in the the real world beyond the confines of chesstalk, many of them write well in the sense of their almost poetic defense of the the indefensible existential evil that is its heart and soul.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Hi Tom:

... I know a Canadian Chinese entrepreneur, successful in the restaurant/coffee shop business (two locations in Toronto, with a major renovation of one just completed), who is pro-Communist Chinese Government. ...

Bob A

Let me see if I get this straight. This person is pro-Communist China so they/their family moved halfway around the world to set up a business in a Western country?

I will write this on here yet again: when a person's talk doesn't match their actions, believe the actions.

I notice you skipped the part about Mao.

[Dilip Panjwani]

...go see for themselves what has been done for the small entrepreneur...

Bob A

She did hit the bullseye...
And very likely she migrated to USA when this had not yet started...
As mentioned in a separate dedicated link here, the current Chinese government is not communist... it just values the common man without a capital of his own...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Tom:

Bob Holliman is a USA citizen who is a chess player (I think maybe expert level). He is not a member here on CT to my knowledge. He is a member of my Fb chess group: Chess Chat: A Project of Chess Companions of Caissa (https://www.facebook.com/groups/340524269771672/).

He is also an avid Trump supporter (I'm not sure if Trump's latest activities all meet with his approval).

I know a Canadian Chinese entrepreneur, successful in the restaurant/coffee shop business (two locations in Toronto, with a major renovation of one just completed), who is pro-Communist Chinese Government. She advised that those criticizing the regime should take a broader view (It is far from perfect), and go see for themselves what has been done for the ordinary Chinese worker and small entrepreneur. Don't know how many more Canadian Chinese are of this same opinion.

I am unsure the reason she originally came to Canada. I believe she was born in China and came to Canada as an immigrant (Not sure what age).

Bob A

[Tom O'Donnell]

Who is Bob Holliman?

I am sure you aren't defending the policies of Mao, who if there were a contest for the worst human of all time, would be a strong contender for the gold medal.

It is interesting that the number of people who emigrated from China to the West must surely dwarf the reverse. I wonder why is that?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Poverty Alleviation

Tom O'Donnell & Bob Holliman: "In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history."

Bob Armstrong: "The lifting of millions out of poverty has also been achieved in China from the time of the revolution under Mao Zedong to the present (Xi Jinping) - old-style USSR Communism (Now altered by some integration of capitalism within the new Chinese Communism).



Note: Capitalism's roots are not in the masses. It is the eventual creation of the era of Kings, the Lords, and finally Oligarchs - is it surprising that now the system provides the most benefit to the elite? Is it surprising that, of necessity, capitalism involves an ever-widening wealth/income gap.......wider now than ever in the history of capitalism!! It is inherently unsustainable.

Bob A

Students of History know very well that the Mao Zedong era, the 1950s-1970s, was a disaster for China's economy and society, with all the misery one always sees in Marxism. However in the 1980s, China started privatizing its economy, and wealth production began to improve. It was then that the USA had to resort to cheap imports from China in huge amounts, and that led to a great resurgence in Chinese economy. The especially good thing was that it happened in a Libertarian manner, in which the smart and hard working individuals even without huge capital of their own could privately increase production because of governmental policies valuing the common man.
The reason why Capitalism is unsustainable is that the holders of Capital are able to bribe the politicians into passing a myriad laws discouraging competition from those without their own capital, even when they are smart and hard-working, from starting businesses of their own. This gradually leads to huge and ever-widening wealth inequality and society's collapse. Libertarianism is the solution, as it provides easy access to capital and guarantees ease of starting businesses, thereby increasing wealth production with efficiency, and without price-gouging, given the huge competition...
So, to sum up, Marxism destroys the economy rapidly, making everyone poorer, Capitalism increases wealth production and makes many people rich for quite a while, but huge and ever-widening wealth inequality eventually takes its toll on the society, while Libertarianism is the best solution for permanent increases in the society's wealth...

[Bob Armstrong]

Poverty Alleviation

Tom O'Donnell & Bob Holliman: "In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history."

Bob Armstrong: "The lifting of millions out of poverty has also been achieved in China from the time of the revolution under Mao Zedong to the present (Xi Jinping) - old-style USSR Communism (Now altered by some integration of capitalism within the new Chinese Communism).



Note: Capitalism's roots are not in the masses. It is the eventual creation of the era of Kings, the Lords, and finally Oligarchs - is it surprising that now the system provides the most benefit to the elite? Is it surprising that, of necessity, capitalism involves an ever-widening wealth/income gap.......wider now than ever in the history of capitalism!! It is inherently unsustainable.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

1) Agreed about one world government. I think it is impractical. I also like the idea that people can choose from a variety of different cultural practices where they want to live.

I think it is also impractical to have a set of common norms that are acceptable to everyone, or even say 95% of people world-wide.

Take something like female genital mutilation (FGM). There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where a doctor was performing this. Should this be a crime? If that's a crime, what about circumcision?

Hi Tom,
'One World, One Nation' would be impractical if we let politicians dictate over the citizens (other than enforcing the Natural Law, which, incidentally, would cover the issue of FGM. Circumcision does have medical benefits, and hence does not violate the Natural Law).
It would work very well if citizens were free to do what they chose, and choose to join others with similar 'cultural practices', forming their circles, so long as they do not harm anybody...