BigBallinStalin wrote:What's so great about a small minority pushing out one set of exploiters for another set of exploiters? Why do so many possess that romantic vision of the vaguely defined 'democracy'?
why can't it be mutual exploitation? ie win-win or at least better than the alternative
If you can explain how those coercive exchanges will be positive-sum, I'd be interested in reading about it.
one manufacturer might pay more in one zone than in another. the worker makes more money, the manufacturer gets better employees on average and at least some better productivity, compared to another zone that might be far more corrupt and might value the buddy system in getting their friends jobs and not care too much about who is the better worker. I'm coming from the premise that everybody is exploiting everybody, it's just a matter of degree. It would be great of course if everyone operated purely by self interest and personal gain and only traded goods/services when it's mutually beneficial, but most of the time one person/thing gets the shorter end of the stick.
I'm sayin if someone wants to get higher on the stick and provide a better life for their families, I'm with them, even if their result is not perfect, or they are still being exploited but to a lesser degree. I say go for it whichever way they can.
BigBallinStalin wrote:What's so great about a small minority pushing out one set of exploiters for another set of exploiters? Why do so many possess that romantic vision of the vaguely defined 'democracy'?
"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion." -T. Jefferson
Why doesn't a revolution happen every 20 years? Should be easy enough for "the people" to pull that off, right?
We have cultural revolutions
Go on...
it takes the edge off the want/possibility of political/national revolution. If generations are at odds over culture, they aren't likely to unite on anything else.
P.S. I have my dictionary out and ready to interpret your responses, as I anticipate you are going to make this convo as difficult as possible
BigBallinStalin wrote:What's so great about a small minority pushing out one set of exploiters for another set of exploiters? Why do so many possess that romantic vision of the vaguely defined 'democracy'?
why can't it be mutual exploitation? ie win-win or at least better than the alternative
If you can explain how those coercive exchanges will be positive-sum, I'd be interested in reading about it.
one manufacturer might pay more in one zone than in another. the worker makes more money, the manufacturer gets better employees on average and at least some better productivity, compared to another zone that might be far more corrupt and might value the buddy system in getting their friends jobs and not care too much about who is the better worker. I'm coming from the premise that everybody is exploiting everybody, it's just a matter of degree. It would be great of course if everyone operated purely by self interest and personal gain and only traded goods/services when it's mutually beneficial, but most of the time one person/thing gets the shorter end of the stick.
I'm sayin if someone wants to get higher on the stick and provide a better life for their families, I'm with them, even if their result is not perfect, or they are still being exploited but to a lesser degree. I say go for it whichever way they can.
Oh, I'm talking about exploitation by government. That's what the thread is about.
BigBallinStalin wrote:What's so great about a small minority pushing out one set of exploiters for another set of exploiters? Why do so many possess that romantic vision of the vaguely defined 'democracy'?
"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion." -T. Jefferson
Why doesn't a revolution happen every 20 years? Should be easy enough for "the people" to pull that off, right?
We have cultural revolutions
Go on...
it takes the edge off the want/possibility of political/national revolution. If generations are at odds over culture, they aren't likely to unite on anything else.
P.S. I have my dictionary out and ready to interpret your responses, as I anticipate you are going to make this convo as difficult as possible
When were generations united enough for a revolution to occur?
I don't see how this is relevant to Jefferson's idea of 1 revolution per 20 years.
saxitoxin wrote:The bitch is back. Apparently "opposition leader" Yulia Tymoshenko has broken out of jail and is now in Kiev ready to take over the government on behalf of the "protesters."
Back in 2009 this is what Foreign Policy wrote about her brief term as Prime Minister ...
Tymoshenko is quite a different breed of politician -- a fiery speaker and a shrewdly manipulative populist, an avowed admirer of Eva Peron who seems to believe more in the force of her own theatrics than in the niceties of democratic give-and-take. One of her close advisors was fired when he refused to go along with her party's policy of using noisemakers to drown out opponents in parliament.
And yet this is the same woman who's known, at other times, to have created opaque structures that funneled profits from the lucrative energy sector to her cronies. During the privatization battles of the 1990s, Tymoshenko formed a close alliance with Pavel Lazarenko, who was later convicted of money-laundering in a U.S. court. At one point, thanks to her gas-related maneuverings, she may have controlled as much as 20 percent of the country's gross national product.
Whereas Yulia Tymoshenko was a leader of the Orange Revolution and was first elected as Prime Minister in 2005;
Whereas in the 2010 presidential election, incumbent President Viktor Yushchenko won only 5.5 percent in the first round of voting, which left former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and then Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to face one another in a run-off election;
Whereas Mr. Yanukovich defeated Ms. Tymoshenko by a margin of 49 percent to 44 percent;
Whereas, on October 11, 2011, Ms. Tymoshenko was found guilty and sentenced to seven years in prison on charges that she abused her position as Prime Minister in connection with a Russian natural gas contract;
Whereas, on January 26, 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) passed a resolution (1862) that declared that the articles under which Ms. Tymoshenko was convicted were “overly broad in application and effectively allow for ex post facto criminalization of normal political decision making”;
Whereas, on May 30, 2012, the European Parliament passed a resolution (C153/21) deploring the sentencing of Ms. Tymoshenko;
Whereas, on September 22, 2012, the United States Senate passed a resolution (S. Res 466, 112th Congress) that condemned the selective and politically motivated prosecution and imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko, called for her release based on the politicized charges, and called on the Department of State to institute a visa ban against those responsible for the imprisonment of Ms. Tymoshenko and the other political leaders associated with the 2004 Orange Revolution;
Whereas, on April 7, 2013, President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich pardoned former interior minister Yuri Lutsenko and several other opposition figures allied with Ms. Tymoshenko;
Whereas, on April 30, 2013, the European Court of Human Rights, which settles cases of rights abuses after plaintiffs have exhausted appeals in their home country courts, ruled that Ms. Tymoshenko’s pre-trial detention had been arbitrary; that the lawfulness of her pre-trial detention had not been properly reviewed; that her right to liberty had been restricted; and, that she had no possibility to seek compensation for her unlawful deprivation of liberty;
Whereas, on April 30, 2013, Department of State Spokesman Patrick Ventrell reiterated the United States call that Ms. Tymoshenko “be released and that the practice of selective prosecution end immediately” in light of the European Court of Human Rights decision;
However, one can not take into account the fact that the leadership of many states and world public perceive this entire judicial process as initiated for purely political reasons. Accusing Tymoshenko of abuse of power when signing a contract for the supply of Russian gas in 2009, Pechersky Court ignored compelling evidence that these gas agreements were designed in strict accordance with the laws of Russia and Ukraine and the applicable rules of international law.
In the US, one person controlling 20% of GDP would be preposterous. In the Ukraine, the 50 wealthiest people control 90% of GDP. This is the problem with the oligarchy system.
The problems with the Tymoshenko Prime Ministry were a)she is a populist, not a governor (think Ronald Reagan, except since she's a female instead of advisers she gets ego-hurt "allies"); b)there was no working agreement between her and Yuschenko, nor were there institutions to facilitate this working agreement c) rule of law was weak, and corruption was high - it takes a society to accept this, not one woman worried about elections.
As Steven Pifer said:
The Yuschenko administration criticized Prime Minister Tymoshenko. I asked "Why?" The answer was: "Because we want to destroy her rating as a competitor in elections."
That's exactly how Canadian politics works too. All the politicians make boneheaded moves and cost taxpayers money. The other parties start smear campaigns so they lose the next election. They don't throw their opponents in jail.
Which opaque structures did she create? Nearly all public works departments are now, and have been since the USSR days, totally opaque. How is this her fault? Maybe you can find one.
Maybe she is a bitch, I don't know her. I am still glad that she is out of prison as political prisoners are unethical. St. Augustine wrote "An unjust law is no law at all". Now that she is free, the no-law-at-all is finally repealed.
In a completely different defense, I will use the same cut-and-paste reporting that saxitoxin used (where I come from, we call it Academic Misconduct, but I will play by the playground rules).
Same article:
The winner is Viktor Yanukovych. Remember him? He was the bad guy in the Orange Revolution, back at the end of 2004. The voting masses rose up in protest against dirty tricks at the ballot box committed by Yanukovych and his pro-Moscow party and kept at it until their man, Viktor Yushchenko, ended up president.
The forward-looking choice is clear," Kuzio wrote, "and its [sic] not in the direction of Russia. Russian-American commentator Nina Khrushcheva delivered a glowing portrait of Tymoshenko's democratic attributes and prophesied that a Yanukovych win would mean "the last free vote Ukraine sees for a long time."
Ukrainians were absolutely correct to stand up and defend their democratic rights back in 2004. Yanukovych and his party were guilty of egregious election fraud.
Yanukovich hasn't changed much. For this campaign he relied on a stable of slick U.S. campaign advisors rather than the "electoral technologists" from the Kremlin who served him five years ago. But not even his K Street minders could smooth over his brutish way with words, his criminal record (he was convicted of burglary and assault back in the Soviet days), and his worryingly intimate ties with corporate bosses from his hometown of Donetsk in the country's industrial heartland.
Polls have shown that Putin consistently enjoys much higher ratings among Ukrainians than any of their own politicians do
"it takes a society to accept this, not one woman worried about elections."
Oh wow, there's that nonsensical "the people" reasoning budding up again. "It's not her fault! It's the society!" What kind of theory of social processes leaps to that conclusion?
Wow, the rest of the excuses in her defense are weak. "Corruption is already rampant, so so what if she's an opportunist who reinforces those institutions. At least she's out of prison!" Yeah, great.
BigBallinStalin wrote:"it takes a society to accept this, not one woman worried about elections."
Oh wow, there's that nonsensical "the people" reasoning budding up again. "It's not her fault! It's the society!" What kind of theory of social processes leaps to that conclusion?
Wow, the rest of the excuses in her defense are weak. "Corruption is already rampant, so so what if she's an opportunist who reinforces those institutions. At least she's out of prison!" Yeah, great.
So everyone in Ukraine should be in jail? I agree.
BigBallinStalin wrote:"it takes a society to accept this, not one woman worried about elections."
Oh wow, there's that nonsensical "the people" reasoning budding up again. "It's not her fault! It's the society!" What kind of theory of social processes leaps to that conclusion?
Wow, the rest of the excuses in her defense are weak. "Corruption is already rampant, so so what if she's an opportunist who reinforces those institutions. At least she's out of prison!" Yeah, great.
So everyone in Ukraine should be in jail? I agree.
