Fidel Castro Dead at 90

[Ben No.3]

Oh, I don't wish to live in his utopia... It's a very autocratic system where the older wield power over the younger. Not a great fan in some pretty defining aspects.

[Ganrich]

 

 

 

 

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades.

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily.

 

Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government.

 

On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies.

Where does this small government you speak of exist?

They created it in 1789, but then a bunch of guys decided to star growing it in 1913 by allowing income tax on a federal level and ruined it. Then more guys came along and created a huge unregulated bank to create a fiat currency that caused massive inflation but allowed for a century of Wars to occur.

 

So, right now, it doesn't exist because a bunch of people expect the government to take care of them. So, year after year it keeps getting bigger. Eventually it will do what everything that is too top heavy for its foundation does, and it will topple. It's a sad story to be sure.

[Ben No.3]

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

[Ben No.3]

Also, what do you mean by allowing for a century of wars to occur? America has little to do with the causes of the First World War and while the financial crisis did play a big part in allowing figures as Hitler to rise to power, the crises was not caused by to many faces but rather by a huge stock market bubble. The Cold War wars were mainly due to fear of communism spreading.

 

So... How did taxes affect any those?

[Guard Dog]

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

[Ganrich]

 

 

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

This. It's no job of the government to take care of me. It is my life to do with as I please, and I am no more or less important than any other US Citizen. I have no right to demand them of their prosperity via the government and no one has the right to demand a piece of mine. Half our problem as a society is that people don't take responsibility for themselves anymore.

[Ganrich]

Also, what do you mean by allowing for a century of wars to occur? America has little to do with the causes of the First World War and while the financial crisis did play a big part in allowing figures as Hitler to rise to power, the crises was not caused by to many faces but rather by a huge stock market bubble. The Cold War wars were mainly due to fear of communism spreading.

 

So... How did taxes affect any those?

The world wars are an exception IMHO, because I think they were a necessary and morally justified fight. Maybe I should have said half a century.

 

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc are different. although, i dont condemn Afghanistan because of 9/11, and the paranoia of those attacks led to iraq 2.0.

 

Ironically the declaration of war is the job of Congress, and they haven't declared war since WW2. Which imho is BS.

 

Either way we have been in one conflict or another for the past 25-30 years, and im tired of footing the bill.

[Barothmuk]

 

 

Well I think if Marx was alive today he'd be pretty satisfied with Germany's state

Only a liberal would be able to toss aside a person's entire life's work and hijack them as one of their own.

But... I'm not taking it as my own, I'm spending it in ways that benefit society. And I think your expression is a bit... Well extreme. Take away all your life's earnings... No definitely not. More like a high income tax, at least for those with high income. And isn't free health care and education including university worth it?

 

Jesus Christ. You have to be a Bruce-alt because no one else could possibly misinterpret a post this bad.

[Ben No.3]

Nah, Bruce is a bit more centre than I am I'd say

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

This. It's no job of the government to take care of me. It is my life to do with as I please, and I am no more or less important than any other US Citizen. I have no right to demand them of their prosperity via the government and no one has the right to demand a piece of mine. Half our problem as a society is that people don't take responsibility for themselves anymore.

Let me give an example of why we need goverment intervention in the market that I hope you might agree on (so I won't give any ideological arguments, but rather an economic one):

 

All systems fail at one point or another. Capitalism is build in a way that the selfishness of the people helps society, which is an absolutely ingenious thought. However, the markets do fail, most prominently if the private interest in a certain good is higher than society's.

 

Take for example fossile fuels: It is in society's interest that these are used as little as possible. Fossile fuels lead to air pollution, which lower the efficiency of for example agricultural industries as well as lowering the people's health standard, making them less efficient members of society, because they're output is reduced. But, private interest in fossile fuels by firms, private consumers and even some states maintains a string market for these, although they are going against society's interest. This is a (one of many) classic scenario of market failure. So governmental intervention is needed here, because the market actually works against itself.

[213374U]

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

 

Hmm. What about those who _can't_ take care of themselves? Let's say, disabled veterans. Let's say, miners afflicted by silicosis from working towards *another's* "prosperity". Let's say, firefighters and ER personnel suffering from 9/11 sequels. Amputees? Retards? People with ALS? Autists?

 

It's great to blather on about one's hard earned success when one has only had to face a fraction of the obstacles others have. It's only human to be narrow minded and extrapolate one's experience to the rest. But it's also basic human decency to admit that you are privileged just lucky in that regard. The idea that everyone's survival must be predicated upon their "economic success" is an aberration of neoliberal-social Darwinist dogma. Please explain using your own words why this should be so.

 

 

I have no right to demand them of their prosperity via the government and no one has the right to demand a piece of mine.

 

Maybe when you look at how said "prosperity" is achieved, things aren't so clear cut. Once you realize that work is a scam, that private property is absurd and that the ability to sell money for more money is something that virtually guarantees that the effort-reward utopia you folks worship will actually never come to pass, the "prosperity" of others suddenly doesn't look so sacrosanct anymore.

 

Oh, look. It's Marxism rearing its ugly head again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited November 27, 2016 by 213374U

[Ben No.3]

Big beards cover our ugly faces

[Raithe]

[Ganrich]

I have no problem with government intervening in businesses growing too large. The US has done it with AT&T, MS, etc. They were right to do so, but that was then and today they don't bother. I think big corporations and big government are both something to be feared. The irony is big corps are paying to make your governent huge by buying your politicians. The difference between a company and a government is you can bargain with a company, or choose not to spend your money. Where the government takes through force, and you have little avenue for arguing the point. It's pay or enjoy your cell.

 

@213374U - All disabled vets should be covered by the government, but that's where they were injured. So it makes sense. However, the VA needs an overhaul, and anyone with friends/family that have used it (or used it personally) can attest how atrocious it is. Every government worker injured during their job should be covered this way IMHO. Police, FF, etc are covered by the state and not the fed though. If injured on the job working for private corps then that is where the aid should come from. Both from said company, it's insurance, and/or private non-profit aid foundations, and last but not least family. It doesn't "have" to be government.

 

On the note of work being a scam. I don't disagree, but until everything is automated then someone's got to do it. I make Ethernet cable at my job. So, you're welcome that we can communicate via the internet. Because if I, and others, didn't contribute to the scam then we wouldn't be debating this.

 

On Private property - things are mostly useless, but I've grown more into productive hobbies Vs toys. As long as I can own a PC and a guitar I don't really care about much else. However, I think that owning yourself a home is something everyone should be able to do. This is something we've lost sight of in America. And renting doesn't cut it for some of us. I play electric guitar, and I can't do that easily in an apartment.

 

Also, effort to gain reward- what's the point of life if you aren't being productive? It doesn't have to be at work either. It could be doing stuff you love. Learning, reading, developing a talent, seeing the world, fixing your home, etc. Too many people bury themselves solely in their electronics, media, and crap that they live a truly hollow life. That's a fault of capitalism that I do agree with, but it's more a fault of advertising constantly being in your face IMHO. People wouldn't constantly want the junk if it wasn't always in your face.

 

Anyway, the last one hundred years have been the first time where most people weren't killed in the name of God. They were killed in the name of giant governments. NAZI Germany, USSR, Mao's China, Fascist Italy... There's about 150,000,000 people. Let's keep growing these governments and bureaucracies though. What could go wrong by ignoring history and pretending it can't be repeated? I hate to be the pragmatist but if we lose a person here or there because of falling through the cracks then it is a necessary evil to allowing a dying gigantic government to go rogue and start dropping bombs. That's just me, though.

[Ben No.3]

I've said it before, but I feel like it really fits here, so here we go:

 

Problems with capitalism according to Marx:

 

- Alienation (Entfremdung) from the things you produce, even though specialisations is much more efficient. Marx argues the specialisation of production (everyone in a factory does one very specific thing to produce a good rather than simply do the entire thing) makes the workers disconnect with their work. It steals the creative aspect of production.

 

- Modern workers can be replaced: in modern work, every single human is just a small factor that can be replaced by other humans or machines if the need arises. But, we don't want to be let go. We want there to be a place for us. A human desire to be needed, to say so.

 

- Workers get paid little, while capitalists get rich. Marx calls this "primitive accumulation". (ursprüngliche Akkumulation). An known problem, Marx takes it one place further: He says profit means paying one person to produce something, and selling it at a higher price to another. Marx says this (making a lot of profit) is not being intelligent, profit is in his opinion simply a fancy term for exploitation, and what is being exploited is the labour of the workers.

 

- Capitalism is very unstable: Marx says that crises are not a failure of capitalism, but rather the product of it, and that they are caused by something somewhat weird: Before capitalism, crises were caused by having to little (for example to little food to feed the population). But capitalism produces far more than we need, leading to crises of abundance rather than crises of need. And here is what enraged Marx and gave him hope at the same time: We are so efficient as a society that we could easily dive every person on the planet a house, a car, decent education and healthcare. Going even further, Marx says unemployment is actually freedom. Because our own efficiency can support every life on the planet, Marx argues the goal should be for everyone to work as little as possible and enjoy their new free time. To support this lifestyle, Marx demands that the wealth is spread equally.

 

- Capitalism is bad for capitalists: Marx didn't say capitalists were evil, rather they were victims of their own system. For example, Marx was perfectly aware of the fact that many rich marry not because of love, but for financial reasons. Marx argues that capitalism puts economics at the heart of everyone's lives, so everyone loses their affection for deep emotions (such as love). He called this "commodity fetishism". (Warenfetischismus) and said it makes us value things that have no objective value. He said that without this mindset, the people could start making sensible choirs for nothing but their personal good (rather than financial reasons)

 

- Marx said that capitalism was a economic system that makes us adapt a few strange ideologies: That leisure is bad, that being wealthy makes us happy, that having free time essentially us a bad thing (aside from a few weeks a year) and that it should be the aim of people to make money. Marx said all of these were untrue.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

So we are making a huge connection between the vaccination of livestock and firing squads, blatant Human Rights violations, and huge amounts of poverty? That's a pretty huge mental leap. I will take the word of people who lived under this man's reign Vs someone who lived half a world away many times over. Particularly if those people on the other side of the world are politicians. Considering that politicians seem to have very little moral issue with causing large amounts of death and destruction.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades.

 

As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily.

 

Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government.

 

On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies.

Where does this small government you speak of exist?

They created it in 1789, but then a bunch of guys decided to star growing it in 1913 by allowing income tax on a federal level and ruined it. Then more guys came along and created a huge unregulated bank to create a fiat currency that caused massive inflation but allowed for a century of Wars to occur.

 

So, right now, it doesn't exist because a bunch of people expect the government to take care of them. So, year after year it keeps getting bigger. Eventually it will do what everything that is too top heavy for its foundation does, and it will topple. It's a sad story to be sure.

 

 

Lol, that "small" government also went on to all but obliterate Native Americans.

 

Writing in September 1864, the Reverend William Crawford reported on the attitude of the white population of Colorado: “There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together.’” - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302#sthash.YNcea894.dpuf

 

 

Paradise indeed

 

Why do Castro's acts against his political opponents disqualify his legacy but those of your ancestors do not?

Edited November 27, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guard Dog]

Rather than using a lot of words to drive home the points Ganich & I are tying to make, in true internet fashion here is a meme: 

 

[the_dog_days]

 

Wouldn't you say the government SHOULD in fact take care of its people?

No. The government should protect the people by securing the border, enforcing the laws and regulating and administrating in such a way that allows for a fair opportunity for economic success. It is incumbent on the people to take care of themselves.

 

 

As somebody who grew up a ward of the state, I can't tell you how much I agree with this.

[Hurlshort]

In regards to the whole "The US does bad things, too" response when criticizing Castro.  The big difference I see is that US Presidents only have 4-8 years to do messed up things.  Congress only has 2-6 years to do messed up things.  Then the people get to vote to remove them, and despite what the media likes to cling to, those elections are remarkably fraud free.  So you have a shared responsibility for the terrible things that the government does, and they face constant criticism while doing it.

 

Castro wielded absolute power and put himself above criticism.  That's an incredibly dangerous position for anyone to be in.  

[Meshugger]

Like the theory of Trudeau being the illegitimate son of Fidel Castro, that would explain so many things:

 

[Raithe]

In regards to the whole "The US does bad things, too" response when criticizing Castro.  The big difference I see is that US Presidents only have 4-8 years to do messed up things.  Congress only has 2-6 years to do messed up things.  Then the people get to vote to remove them, and despite what the media likes to cling to, those elections are remarkably fraud free.  So you have a shared responsibility for the terrible things that the government does, and they face constant criticism while doing it.

 

Castro wielded absolute power and put himself above criticism.  That's an incredibly dangerous position for anyone to be in.  

 

Presidents have limited time to cause issues, but from an outside perspective, it seems a whole bunch of the Senate and Congress have pretty much managed to turn them into nearly life long re-elections for them, and then in a fair few cases their kids as well...  The joys of established networks to work those voters into the right way of thinking.

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I'm all for term limits in congress too.

[Gorgon]

Castro is a response to the US invading and propping up a dictator, Batista. It doesn't get much more imperialist than that. So yeah, there's that. 

[Gorgon]

The British Empire begat Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin. In a sense Castro is your creation.  

[BruceVC]

Castro is a response to the US invading and propping up a dictator, Batista. It doesn't get much more imperialist than that. So yeah, there's that. 

Please tell me you not suggesting its the US  fault for the 50 year destructive rule of Castro?