RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake

RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 11:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.progressive.org/zinn070309.html Yes http://louderwithcrowder.com/liberals-now-say-american-revolution-a-bad-thing-15-reasons-theyre-wrong/ No What do you think? I think it was a high price to pay, but the payoff allowed others in the world to gain their freedom from their monarchs. The job isn't done throughout the world. But we started it. Reading the article, Ken, some of that is demonstrably true. The idea of Natural Rights is not an American invention, but is true that it was the first government that attempted to base a system around that principle. So, credit where it's due. It wasn't lost on people over here, and some, obviously radicals and the like, and the odd conservative such as Edmund Burke; were overjoyed that the United States had gained independence and termed it 'the next step in human liberty', albeit underpinned by English ideals. It is also true that Americans have generally enjoyed a higher material standard of living. What did raise an eyebrow was something about giving the world baseball and 'football'. There's only you lot who play these games, man! The rest of the world plays our games: football, cricket and rugby. what about the magna charta? and blackstone writes profusely about it in 1760s Blackstone on laws of nature OF PERSONS We are now, first, to consider the rights of persons; with the means of acquiring and losing them. Now the rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are to two sorts; first, such as are due from every citizen, which are usually called civil duties; and, secondly, such as belong to him, which is the more popular acceptation of rights or jura. Both may indeed be comprised in this latter division; for as all social duties are of a relative nature, at the same duties are of a relative nature, at the same time that they are due from one man, or set of men, they must also be due to another. But I apprehend it will be more clear and easy, to consider many of them as duties required from, rather than as rights belonging to, particular persons. Thus, for instance, allegiance is usually, and therefore most easily, considered as the duty of the people, and protection as the duty of the magistrate; and yet they are, reciprocally, the rights as well as duties of each other. Allegiance is the right of the magistrate, and protection the right of the people. Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposed of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic. The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons: relative, which are indigent to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, absolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter. By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it. But with regard to the absolute duties, which man is bound to perform considered as a mere individual, it is not to be expected that any human municipal laws should at all explain or enforce them. For the end and intent of such laws being only to regulate the behavior of mankind, as they are members of society, and stand in various relations to each other, they have consequently no business or concern with any but social or relative duties. Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like) they then become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them. Here the circumstance of publication is what alters the nature of the case. Public sobriety is a relative duty, and therefore enjoined by our laws: private sobriety is an absolute duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction. But, with respect to rights, the case is different. Human laws define and enforce as well those rights which belong to a man considered as an individual, as those which belong to him considered as related to others. For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could no be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies: so that to maintain and regulate these, is clearly a subsequent consideration. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and, then, such rights as are relative, which arising from a variety of connections, will be far more numerous and more complicated. These will take up a greater space in any code of laws, and hence may appear to be more attended to, though in reality they are not, than the rights of the former kind. Let us therefore proceed to examine how far all laws ought, and how far the laws of England actually do, take notice of these absolute rights, and provide for their lasting security. The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable, than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man, that considers a moment, would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power; and then there would be no security to individuals in any of enjoyments of life. Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and not farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.3 Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind: but every wanton and causeless restraint of the will to the subject, whether practiced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree to tyranny. Nay, that even laws themselves, whether http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/ I have a certain fondness for blackstone simply because he spells it all out but not as good as sir spelman. That said the laws of nature seem to have been well into effect in my estimation from the magna charta forward despite the norman conquest.

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 3:52:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That said the laws of nature seem to have been well into effect in my estimation from the magna charta forward despite the norman conquest. The King was certainly made subject to the law under the tenets of Magna Carta, but much of it was a response to land disputes between barons and the king. John Lilburne and the Levellers in the mid-1600s were on an altogether different level. Their arguments centred around what they believed were the inalienable free-born rights of the people and they wanted it written in a constitution, including freedom of religion. "For by natural birth all men are equally and alike born to like propriety, liberty and freedom; and as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, every one with a natural, innate freedom and propriety — as it were writ in the table of every man's heart, never to be obliterated — even so are we to live, everyone equally and alike to enjoy his birthright and privilege; even all whereof God by nature has made him free." "That no man for preaching or publishing his opinion in religion in a peaceable way, may be punished as heretical, by judges that are not infallible, lest upon pretence of suppressing errors, sects, or schisms, the most necessary truths, and sincere professors thereof, may be suppressed, as upon the like pretence it hath been in all ages." The Levellers were pretty radical in terms of what had gone before them and aimed to challenge the supremacy of Parliament and provide for universal franchise. According to the Levellers God had given all people the ability to come to faith through reason, and as all people inherently bore the ability to reason then they were able to make reasonable decisions about government and themselves. They debated this with Parliament, and the main area upon which they disagreed was universal franchise, which probably tells us that Magna Carta did not account for all men being imbued with certain rights.

Owner59 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 5:14:07 AM)
True,it was mainly written by and for men of means, not for the serf or peasant. However it was one of the 1st attempts at denying a king his tyrannical/total control. And for better or for worse,it happened,

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 6:54:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 True,it was mainly written by and for men of means, not for the serf or peasant. However it was one of the 1st attempts at denying a king his tyrannical/total control. And for better or for worse,it happened, Yes, and many of today's freedoms were guaranteed by Magna Carta, such as the right to trial by a jury of peers and having everyone subject to the law. But, it was really a document that landowners used to guarantee property rights. The Levellers argued from a completely different perspective, which had nothing to do with property and the landowning classes. The argument went that all men are free-born and as such hold certain inalienable rights, and consequently Parliament is not sovereign, i.e. the people are the supreme authority. It was a very Christian and philosophical argument centred around the people, as opposed to a few barons concerned with their land.

cloudboy -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 8:09:01 AM)
Yes, but the conception of money back then was the segue to human rights and natural law -- namely that those who produce wealth should keep it and should be unfettered from undo government interference. The wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was also strongly directed at eliminating class privilege in favor of economic competition. A lot of competing views went into the drafting of each document -- and the expansive wording made possible many of the advances we've witnessed today. What I don't like is how Americans want our principles of freedom to apply at home, but we don't want to extend them beyond our borders. Via "free trade" a lot of American commerce is now based upon slave labor, environmental degradation, and support of regimes with awful human rights records. The US really doesn't play nice abroad, and in some respects has mirrored the behaviors of Colonial England in our foreign policy. In IRAN, Vietnam, Cambodia, Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, IRAQ, and the The Philippines we have not followed "American Principles" one bit.

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 8:28:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The US really doesn't play nice abroad, and in some respects has mirrored the behaviors of Colonial England in our foreign policy. It is pretty much a mirror image. What sometimes is forgotten that the British Empire aimed to control nations through ideas rather than force, and it's pretty much the same for today's United States. Clearly, both countries have resorted to force but that's not really Plan A. Britain controlled tens of millions of people in India with 70,000 civil servants. Without doubt the British Empire was capable of the worst excesses, such as Amritsar, but these instances were few and far between. The United States is similar. And, there is a cultural understanding that the two countries need to win the battle of ideas. I forget which film it was now, either Star Trek or Star Wars, but the whole undercurrent and point of it is that the baton has been passed from old to young - with the same ideas and the same objectives. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy In IRAN, Vietnam, Cambodia, Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, IRAQ, and the The Philippines we have not followed "American Principles" one bit. This is the really interesting thing with the United States. The whole point was not to believe that the answer lay in imposing your will in order for people to agree with you. But, that's what they've become. The sort of Positive Freedom Isaiah Berlin thought was a real problem, i.e. the idea that you are justified in using force because they'll thank you for it later. It'll be interesting to see what happens from here. Not much will change in my lifetime but in a few hundred years it would be nice to be alive and be able to look back at how it all panned out. I suppose it appears that, to date, despite some noble ideas the United States hasn't been able to resist Missionaryism (if there is such a word).

DesideriScuri -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 9:06:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy What I don't like is how Americans want our principles of freedom to apply at home, but we don't want to extend them beyond our borders. I think we've done more than what we should have to "force" our principles of freedom abroad. quote: Via "free trade" a lot of American commerce is now based upon slave labor, environmental degradation, and support of regimes with awful human rights records. The US really doesn't play nice abroad, and in some respects has mirrored the behaviors of Colonial England in our foreign policy. You're blaming the US for the way other countries govern themselves?!? How the fuck does that work out? It's the fault of the US that wages are low in China, Pakistan, India, etc.? The wages our companies pay abroad are low, compared to in the US, but that's not the case relative to what they get paid by others. You bemoan the off-shoring of American jobs, but also bemoan those jobs going to countries where the economic benefits are greatly needed. How is it that providing work for those in impoverished nations isn't good for them? How is it that allowing them to work isn't spreading the opportunity to improve their lot? Isn't a guiding principle of the USA that it is a natural right for a person to pursue his/her happiness? What would the lives of those "poor workers" be if not for the US?

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 12:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You're blaming the US for the way other countries govern themselves?!? How the fuck does that work out? It would depend on which country it is, since US hegemony is strong in some areas of the world and no doubt can exert a great deal of influence on foreign governments when it wants to. There are definitely ways for the US government to enforce its will on foreign governments. Even if the US can't be directly blamed for the way other countries govern themselves, our government can be blamed for jumping into bed with governments with poor human rights records or any nation which is not considered "Free" by Freedom House standards. We may not be able to control what other nations do, but we (as a nation) can control what we do. And if our government does business with another government which is morally questionable, then US citizens are well within their rights to blame our government for choosing strange bedfellows.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 2:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You're blaming the US for the way other countries govern themselves?!? How the fuck does that work out? It would depend on which country it is, since US hegemony is strong in some areas of the world and no doubt can exert a great deal of influence on foreign governments when it wants to. There are definitely ways for the US government to enforce its will on foreign governments. Even if the US can't be directly blamed for the way other countries govern themselves, our government can be blamed for jumping into bed with governments with poor human rights records or any nation which is not considered "Free" by Freedom House standards. We may not be able to control what other nations do, but we (as a nation) can control what we do. And if our government does business with another government which is morally questionable, then US citizens are well within their rights to blame our government for choosing strange bedfellows. But, what about those poor people who's only other option is to continue to slave away for even lower wages? Are we not, then, preventing them from an opportunity to live their lives by choice, rather than by default? If you have to work and have a choice to work for X or to work for Y (with X>Y), isn't that better than to have to work and only have Y available? The conditions aren't better outside of US shops there. They're usually worse (lower pay). Part of the problem the US is having now, falls back on our exerting our influence on other countries. Mexico wants our help (actually, it would be more accurate to say that Mexico wants to help us) in cleaning up Mexico and the drug/gang situations. We can't (won't?) do that, which would have a direct positive impact on the US, but we think we can dictate the working conditions in China, India, Pakistan, et. al.?!? That's absurd!

Politesub53 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 4:14:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Q. Was the American Revolution a mistake? A. No. It's never a mistake for a people to exert their right to self determination. OTOH colonialism, and other forms of subjugating indigenous people is always wrong. I agree it is wrong but historically, it has always been the norm even in the worlds first democracies.

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 6:05:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, what about those poor people who's only other option is to continue to slave away for even lower wages? Are we not, then, preventing them from an opportunity to live their lives by choice, rather than by default? If you have to work and have a choice to work for X or to work for Y (with X>Y), isn't that better than to have to work and only have Y available? The conditions aren't better outside of US shops there. They're usually worse (lower pay). Well, for one, it's up to those countries' governments to make their lives better. It's not really up to America, and we're not "preventing" anyone from doing anything. I actually think that workers should be given better choices and opportunities, both in America and overseas. They should get better pay, too. Of course, my suggestion would be for the government to mandate a higher minimum wage and to cut off trade ties with all nations which don't have wages at least equal to or greater than US wages. quote: Part of the problem the US is having now, falls back on our exerting our influence on other countries. Mexico wants our help (actually, it would be more accurate to say that Mexico wants to help us) in cleaning up Mexico and the drug/gang situations. We can't (won't?) do that, which would have a direct positive impact on the US, but we think we can dictate the working conditions in China, India, Pakistan, et. al.?!? Well, no, I agree that we should fix our problems here closer to home. Mexico is our neighbor and a major trading partner, and it's certainly within our interests to make sure that their situation is stabilized. We wouldn't be dictating working conditions in China, India, or Pakistan. We can, however, decide who we do business with and trade with.

MrRodgers -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 6:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne it only gained the ability to control our own politics, but did nothing to the land ownership monopoly by the british in america. Immediately after the revolution land titles were issued as allodial but after 1812 soon changed 'back' to 'in fee' which is a 'feod' which is a usufruct tenancy absolutely no different and identical to land ownership under the king pre-revolution the revolution as far as I am concerned was meaningless in the larger scope since it changed nothing, we may as well fly the uk flag. Now show me allodial land titles which are titles of individuals not under feudal control and you will get my full undivded attention. In fact it took me several years and court cases to realize that article 14 of the wisconsin constitution where the land is claimed to be allodial was not intended for the individual but the 'sovereign' [king] state. Individuals in every state are issued land titles 'in fee' under the sovereign. quote: But as I've stipulated many times. what practical difference does it make ? The land isn't going anywhere, so it is agric. residence or commercial each with its corresponding attributes, benefits and burdens. I am very curious to know but quite specifically...not in general terms.

MrRodgers -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 6:47:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 At it`s core,the motivation for colonists to reject the king and England was money. Rightly so, the colonists were sick and tired of being fleeced and exploited financially by the system in place, that forced colonists to buy their goods only from the English Trading Company ,at inflated prices. Everything from linen to tea to gun powder to nails,had to be bought from the kings company. In turn,colonists were not allowed (under punishment by the king)to make there own iron, steel and lead ,etc. Beer and whiskey making was heavily taxed. At every turn and at every trade, the colonists were being hustled and screwed, financially. To top it off,the English Trading Company got huge tax breaks from the king. The Boston Tea Party was (one of) the 1st protests AGAINST corporate welfare. The whole American expedition was a business venture with investors, share holders and tight corporate control with boardrooms and records (that still exist BTW). From the shipping companies to the slave trading companies to the warehousing companies to the cloth and food trading companies, they were all owned and operated by the king or his rich friends and family members.......ALL set up to milk the colonies of the most profits and wealth possible, at the expense of the colonists. But as usual, the straw that precipitated the 'breaking of their backs' as it were was having to pay for British currency and being slave to the Bank of England which very much like our first two corrupt federal banks and the fed for the 20th and the start of this century...being in fact, the chief cause of inflation and precipitating bubbles, recessions, depressions and business failures. It wasn't just 'taxation without representation.' It was everything, taxation, monopolies even labor...without any input, subject to the bank and the king.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 7:26:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 We wouldn't be dictating working conditions in China, India, or Pakistan. We can, however, decide who we do business with and trade with. Thereby attempting to dictate working conditions in China, India, and Pakistan. Without the consumption in the US of stuff made in China, India and Pakistan, none of those countries' economies would be doing as well as they are now. That's not to say they would all be completely in the shit hole, but they'd not be where they are today. Would the Chinese be increasing their standard of living if not for the investments and trade we do with Chinese manufacturers?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 7:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers But as usual, the straw that precipitated the 'breaking of their backs' as it were was having to pay for British currency and being slave to the Bank of England which very much like our first two corrupt federal banks and the fed for the 20th and the start of this century...being in fact, the chief cause of inflation and precipitating bubbles, recessions, depressions and business failures. You must have missed the thread where I was told that it was business's greed that was the root of all bubbles, recessions, depressions, etc. My statements that they had to do with The Fed was summarily ignored. On this, however, you and I agree.

MrRodgers -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 8:28:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You're blaming the US for the way other countries govern themselves?!? How the fuck does that work out? It would depend on which country it is, since US hegemony is strong in some areas of the world and no doubt can exert a great deal of influence on foreign governments when it wants to. There are definitely ways for the US government to enforce its will on foreign governments. Even if the US can't be directly blamed for the way other countries govern themselves, our government can be blamed for jumping into bed with governments with poor human rights records or any nation which is not considered "Free" by Freedom House standards. We may not be able to control what other nations do, but we (as a nation) can control what we do. And if our government does business with another government which is morally questionable, then US citizens are well within their rights to blame our government for choosing strange bedfellows. But, what about those poor people who's only other option is to continue to slave away for even lower wages? Are we not, then, preventing them from an opportunity to live their lives by choice, rather than by default? If you have to work and have a choice to work for X or to work for Y (with X>Y), isn't that better than to have to work and only have Y available? The conditions aren't better outside of US shops there. They're usually worse (lower pay). Part of the problem the US is having now, falls back on our exerting our influence on other countries. Mexico wants our help (actually, it would be more accurate to say that Mexico wants to help us) in cleaning up Mexico and the drug/gang situations. We can't (won't?) do that, which would have a direct positive impact on the US, but we think we can dictate the working conditions in China, India, Pakistan, et. al.?!? That's absurd! Oh yes, we all know that Americans are to give up 'their cushy, high paying jobs' (Steve Forbes ?) as a form of after tax, foreign aid in order for the communist and authoritarian klepoctrats to become rich at our and their peoples' expense. Is their pursuit of happiness and wealth supposed to be at our expense ? Absurd !! They could always like us, create their own wealth. The repubs of the 19th century were by today's standards...the progressives and protected American business, labor and vital industries against just this kind of economic bastardization.

MrRodgers -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 8:29:39 PM)
Fuck it

MrRodgers -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/5/2015 8:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers But as usual, the straw that precipitated the 'breaking of their backs' as it were was having to pay for British currency and being slave to the Bank of England which very much like our first two corrupt federal banks and the fed for the 20th and the start of this century...being in fact, the chief cause of inflation and precipitating bubbles, recessions, depressions and business failures. You must have missed the thread where I was told that it was business's greed that was the root of all bubbles, recessions, depressions, etc. My statements that they had to do with The Fed was summarily ignored. On this, however, you and I agree. Well in a 'cost-of-capital' sensitive economy which the US is, the blunt instrument of interest rates (the fed) for short-term lending determines economic activity. The English (bank of England) had caused at least two deep recessions in the American colony in the 18th century and the colonial aristocracy and economic leaders (businessmen) had had enough of the British pound and the BofE. Ben Franklin said [they] revolted because the crown would not allow them a free and honest money system. Then of course the British (Europeans) did everything they could to prevent our federal treasury control and succeeded until the fed...with Lincoln's assassination. The US fed has just fulfilled the same role since, if one looks at the 20th century and it didn't take [it] long. After Lincolns's creation of a debt free dollar called the green back, an internal bank memo from European bankers to their American affiliates stated that: "Slavery is but the ownership of labor which carries with it, the care of the slave while the European plan...is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the greenback as we cannot control that." The Hazard Circular 1862 Oh, and was the American rev. a mistake ? Not only is that a very tough question to judge but if it wasn't...ok. If it was, tough titty...said the kitty. Oh also, business greed jumps right on the bandwagon and if anything...exacerbates the worsening conditions.

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/6/2015 8:13:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 We wouldn't be dictating working conditions in China, India, or Pakistan. We can, however, decide who we do business with and trade with. Thereby attempting to dictate working conditions in China, India, and Pakistan. Not at all. We would simply be exercising our options, just as we've refused to do business with Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and similar countries in the past. quote: Without the consumption in the US of stuff made in China, India and Pakistan, none of those countries' economies would be doing as well as they are now. That's not to say they would all be completely in the shit hole, but they'd not be where they are today. We don't know that for sure. China had pulled itself out of the shit hole all on their own, so they certainly don't need us to prop up their economy. And we certainly didn't need all the stuff made in China either. It was cheap and convenient, but not vital to our economy. To be honest, I can't even remember the last time I saw "Made in Pakistan" or "Made in India" written on anything. Not that I check for that very often, but how much stuff do we actually get from India or Pakistan? quote: Would the Chinese be increasing their standard of living if not for the investments and trade we do with Chinese manufacturers? They already had been increasing their standard of living long before the US even recognized them as a legitimate government. During the 1950s, the US government was actually quite embarrassed and frustrated that the Chinese communist government was so efficient and rapid in becoming a world power.

cloudboy -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/6/2015 8:40:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You're blaming the US for the way other countries govern themselves?!? How the fuck does that work out? It's the fault of the US that wages are low in China, Pakistan, India, etc.? The wages our companies pay abroad are low, compared to in the US, but that's not the case relative to what they get paid by others. You bemoan the off-shoring of American jobs, but also bemoan those jobs going to countries where the economic benefits are greatly needed. How is it that providing work for those in impoverished nations isn't good for them? How is it that allowing them to work isn't spreading the opportunity to improve their lot? Isn't a guiding principle of the USA that it is a natural right for a person to pursue his/her happiness? What would the lives of those "poor workers" be if not for the US? I'm saying that imperialism doesn't comport with the values we hold important for ourselves, and as Northern Gent pointed out, we've copied the behavior of our tyrannical father (England.) In honor of DC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02