<p>Argument from Morality</p>
<p>To understand the argument from morality better, see this article:
[A</a> Handout for Statists](<a href=“http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html]A”>A Handout for Statists | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty)
The video version of the article:
[YouTube</a> - A handout for statists…](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX1uPaTf2BA]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX1uPaTf2BA)</p>
<p>poetsheart & ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad - I’ve seen this poster before. He used to have the username of “confused23”, which is quite appropriate. I’m just positive it’s the same guy. He’s a hopeless wacko and not worth time time & energy it takes to respond & attempt to set him straight. Good prospect for the “ignore” button.</p>
<p>…other than that, your comments have been great.</p>
<p>Cheers! :)</p>
<p>@bz2010</p>
<p>That person is not me. That is quite dishonest of you to claim I was somebody else without proof.</p>
<p>Anyways, neither of them had bothered to prove the case for sovereignty. They expect me to take their opinions as fact, so they have not attempted to set me straight as of yet.</p>
<p>Sure. ;)</p>
<p>10 char.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/207639-honors-classes-ge-s.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/207639-honors-classes-ge-s.html</a></p>
<p>^^That person goes to UCLA. I am still a senior in HS (go through my posts). I hope you apologize for being dishonest and disrespectful.</p>
<p>EDIT: BTW, I’m still awaiting for the proof of sovereignty.</p>
<p>“The two are linked, unless you believe in the supposed “morality” of virtually inviting, even seducing, people to come here unprepared to earn the means to maintain a First World basic lifestyle.”</p>
<p>We didn’t “invite” or even “seduce” people from southern Mexico to come here; we (and our clients), with the leadership of Al Gore and the neo-liberals, kicked them off their land, and made it virtually untenable for them to do anything else. </p>
<p>They weren’t coming before then, and there is no reason to believe they would have otherwise. Picking peaches for someone else while living by the side of the river, or 20 to a trailer is not exactly particularly attractive compared with owning and working one’s own land, in a community in which your family has lived for many generations.</p>
<p>What prevents them from staying and working the land? And why are they entitled to making profits at any time from the land they work (assuming you are implying that they are entitled to profit which was undercut by competitors)?</p>
<p>Not undercut by competitors. Forced off the land in many cases by goon squads employed by corporations who sought to benefit from factory farming (and beef cattle raising) under NAFTA. Grew crops for the traditional economy undercut by reverse land reform, massive loans (often from the World Bank) made to multinationals to take over the land, loans and credit unavailable to small, self-sufficient farmers even if they wanted them. (You can find the same tale virtually everywhere in the Third World - in south India, where I work, World Bank loans to multinational shrimp producers pushed hundreds of thousands of people off the land to become migrant laborers - I take care of their children (some 240 of them) who the laborers can’t take with them.) Meanwhile, in 7-10 years, the land becomes a grey, chemicalized wasteland, polluted beyond recognition - and no land has EVER been restored. This is Al Gore’s and the neo-liberals’ legacy.</p>
<p>In Salvador, the same process took place, but via junta. </p>
<p>Could it have gone otherwise? Well, if there had been a Chavez-style leader who could withstand American-backed coup attempts (as Chavez did back in 2002), and where there was enough oil revenue to spread around, maybe. But impossible in Mexico’s situation. The lure of the United States was just not very strong in southern Mexico until life itself became untenable, because of the actions of the United States and its client state.</p>
<p>I agree that it is wrong that those people were forced off the land they had mixed their labor with (assuming you are telling the truth), but what do you mean by neoliberal?</p>
<p>Do you mean “progressivism” (e.g. democrats) or the Milton Friedman type person?</p>
<p>[Neoliberalism:</a> origins, theory, definition.](<a href=“http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html]Neoliberalism:”>http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html)</p>
<p>[Neoliberalism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism]Neoliberalism”>Neoliberalism - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[neoliberalDefined.html[/url</a>]</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207373721&sr=8-2[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207373721&sr=8-2](<a href=“http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html]neoliberalDefined.html[/url”>http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html)</a></p>
<p>Ah, just what I had thought. You read Shock Doctrine.
[YouTube</a> - Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s)</p>
<p>EDIT: I’d like to point out that places which have economic liberalism have better records for human rights. I don’t believe you can instill these values by force (e.g. military dictator Pinochet in Chile), but the fact remains that Chile is doing much better than its peer countries today and economic liberalization led to political liberalization (to some extent of course; democracy is not a fully liberal idea), whereas places with little economic liberty in the past have a high recurrence of human rights violations.</p>
<p>I am curious as to why there is a CC holiday in California, if immigration is only an issue since NAFTA? </p>
<p>Chavez in Venezuela fought off the US (in addition to our preoccupation with the ME) by socializing and stealing privately owned oil. I think it was Exxon Mobil. Much of EM is owned by individual share holders, not CEO’s. His reforms were unpopular, as evidenced by his recently lost election. Or was it an attempt to delete the Venezuelan Constitution?</p>
<p>Chile as an economic model? How about Chile as a model of conspiring with the US, murder and torture?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stand by that conviction.</p>
<p>@rubio</p>
<p>As I said before, I don’t think that the Chilean reforms are the way to go since you can’t force views upon people and expect them to understand. But it is dishonest to deny the long-term effects of economic liberalization. See my previous post.</p>
<p>@poetsheart</p>
<p>Since you have yet to even attempt an argument for proving sovereignty, I take it you wish to remain intellectually dishonest. This is now not a debate, and I share the same sentiments toward you as you do towards me, namely not wishing to engage you anymore.</p>
<p>I hope you don’t abuse your children, who know nothing other than what you say, the same way. “It’s right because I say so” cannot lead to a life of honesty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hip-hip, hooray!</p>
<p>Earler Mini and others were very adamant about
immigrants in Mexico being a post NAFTA phenomena. Others disagreed.</p>
<p>Caesar Chavez was active much earlier, which would seem to indicate the immigrant problem was much greater than claimed and much earlier.</p>
<p>How many immigrants did RR grant amnesty?</p>
<p>Those links to the Shock Doctrine don’t answer the question.</p>
<p>Yes, exactly. The sort of abject poverty is inherent in the political systems of Latin America (a mix of nationalism and socialism). The same sort of stuff happened with the Soviet Union. They didn’t fail because they were weak and needed outside help, but the whole system was falsely made. China almost got to the same stage as the Soviet Union, but has made significant reforms (even though it still calls itself Communist).</p>
<p>NAFTA may have aggravated conditions for some (I need some proof that land was stolen), but it is of no doubt that other factors caused these problems long before NAFTA.</p>
<p>Who taught you how to debate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you throw out a ridiculous point and the other person chooses not to even pick it up, then they didn’t pick it up. You initiated an ad hominem attack when you called poetsheart “intellectually dishonest.”</p>
<p>Here’s one for you: The earth is flat.</p>
<p>Now if you don’t argue with me, am I to respond to you that by refusing to pick up that point, you are “intellectually dishonest.”? NO. I’d be calling you a name at that point. That’s not what debates are for.</p>
<p>Yammer away about your ideas, but leave the ad hominem attacks off, please. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“I hope you don’t abuse your children…” ??</p>
<p>What kind of way is that to conduct an intellectual debate of ideas or political philosophies.</p>
<p>I’m completely uninterested in this topic, BTW, but am just saying I think your debating style needs much work.</p>
<p>“If you throw out a ridiculous point and the other person chooses not to even pick it up, then they didn’t pick it up.”</p>
<p>It’s not a ridiculous point. Your mind obfuscates the truth and fails to see the obvious: sovereignty does not exist. If it is such a ridiculous point, why not give an argument? I tried to start the debate, by asking how can one morally come into possession of something. I linked to an article showing how a government cannot own property (e.g. the basis for sovereignty) and I have no criticisms of any of the points.</p>
<p>All I can assume from this is that those who argued with me do not seek the truth and wish to make baseless attacks without backing it up.</p>
<p>"If you throw out a ridiculous point and the other person chooses not to even pick it up, then they didn’t pick it up. You initiated an ad hominem attack when you called poetsheart “intellectually dishonest.”</p>
<p>Here’s one for you: The earth is flat.</p>
<p>Now if you don’t argue with me, am I to respond to you that by refusing to pick up that point, you are “intellectually dishonest.”? NO. I’d be calling you a name at that point. That’s not what debates are for."</p>
<p>If somebody just says that the “earth is flat” and refused to show some evidence, I would ignore them as well. However, if they gave some evidence, then I would proceed to disprove their premises. I gave plenty of premises and evidence. I see nobody trying to disprove me and hence it is not an ad hominem attack; it is intellectually dishonest to make an attack without proof.</p>
<p>“What kind of way is that to conduct an intellectual debate of ideas or political philosophies.”</p>
<p>That is one of the ways people are corrupted: falsehoods taught to them form birht like “the state is not force”, “stealing from certain groups of peolpe are okay, but not for others”, etc., etc.</p>