WashU protest and James O'Keefe interview

[firstatheist]

I love how O'keefe looks like a Morman missionary.

[travismays]

Some young idealists want to make a positive impact on the world, this asshole likes to distort the truth for a political agenda.

[00maharum00ma]

The Gulags were a product of SOCIALISM??? That's rather strange... how about you build a sweatshop on the quad to remember the horrors of capitalism?

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

The important difference here is that people were put into gulags involuntarily, whereas people work in sweatshops because they are a safer and better paying alternative to the other jobs that are available.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

that's not true. people work in sweatshops because the only other alternative is starvation. Death through starvation and death from a soviet gun are fundamentally the same. Here's an example of how sweatshops are just as bad as gulags:

laborrights(dot)org/news/10918­

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

So you admit that sweatshops prevent people from starving. If you protest a sweat shop and get it shut down, have you not just done those workers a disservice?

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

That is not my argument. My argument is that if we had a different economic model which had social enrichment as its primary motivation instead of the system that we have now, which has profit as its primary motivation, sweatshops would not exist.

And by the way, sweatshops don't keep people from starving. Workers and their families die all the time. It's just that working and possibly starving is preferable to not working and definitely starving. That's the real disservice.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

Capitalism has again and again proven itself to be the best economic model in terms of the quality of life it creates. Hong Kong was third world poor a few decades ago, and full of sweatshops. Yet through the free market the wages and quality of life have risen dramatically. If you are advocating wage controls, which it seems like you are, then it is the low-skilled workers who will be harmed because they won't be able to get a job at all.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

That is patently false. Hong Kong has one of the most state-run economies in the entire world. It only became a major market when the Chinese and British governments created a highly protectionized trade agreement that established Hong Kong as a market for foreign investment in China. Poverty decreased due to wealth redistribution measures and public sector growth in the 1980s.

Calling Hong Kong a free market is like calling North Korea a democracy; it is true in rhetoric only.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

You mean the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which states in section 3.2:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which, are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government.

And in 3.5:

the social and economic systems and lifestyle in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and mentions rights and freedoms ensured by law.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

I do not mean the Sino-British Joint Declaration. I am referring to the acts establishing Shenzhen as a special economic zone (Act for Regulations of The Special Economy Zone of Guangdong Province) and the subsequent trade agreements reached between China and the British over Hong Kong's status as a foreign investment center.

The SBJD, as you pointed out, maintained that massive amount of state intervention in the economy by insuring that Hong Kong remained autonomous.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

China created these SEZ's to allow the free market to work so they would have the revenue to fund the government. In reality, they were essentially acknowledging that socialism cannot sustain itself alone.

If you want to talk about what's "patently false" let's go back to your previous statement of "Hong Kong is one of the most state-run economies in the entire world." Hong Kong has far, far fewer economic regulations than most other nations.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

That is simply not true. Businesses in the SEZ's, specifically Shenzhen, are highly protectionized. Liberalization only occurred in policy regarding labor. The Chinese did not abandon a state-run economy, they simply restructured it to benefit corporate growth.

Your point about Hong Kong's state's role in the economy is only true if you are talking about regulations designed for the benefit of labor or consumers. The firms themselves have been highly protectionized

continued>

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

to avoid an influx of foreign competitors.

Now, none of that has much to do with why Hong Kong's quality of life is uncharacteristically high for southeast asia. That is due the fact that Hong Kong basically functions as a rentier state, since the government owns all land (sounds rather socialist if you ask me) and rents it out to private tenants. Land that hasn't been leased to private tenants is used by the government to establish free housing projects for

continued>>>

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

low income residents. Health care and other basic necessities are also provided for poor residents of Hong Kong.

Read Ching Kwan Lee. She's a chinese-american who has done extensive field research on the way China's economy is run, specifically in the SEZ's. You might be surprised to learn that they aren't as "free" as you'd think.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

I, along with everyone else, acknowledge that Hong Kong is under the rule of a socialist Chinese government. You don't have to prove that to me, or anyone else. The Frasier Institute ranks nations objectively on their level of economic freedom. Hong Kong is at the top of the list, with a score of 8.7 out of 10. China got a score of 5.7. Now which country do you suppose people are risking their lives to escape from?

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

A comparison between Hong Kong and China is nonsensical. Hong Kong functions as an autonomous area for shipping and investment. It produces next to nothing, and 90% of its GDP comes purely from its service sector. It is not a real economy, because it depends on foreign countries like China (where manufacturing is state supported) and Japan (an almost totally protectionized economy.)

Those rankings mean nothing, since Hong Kong is just a giant market for foreign traders.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

The rankings show a correlation between economic freedom and quality of life. What comparison would you deem adequate? East Germany vs. West Germany in the '80's? Which would you have rather lived in?

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

A comparison between China and other large developing nations like India and Indonesia would be appropriate. As for Hong Kong itself, it's really impossible to compare it with any other country, except perhaps Singapore. It's an anomaly in economic history.

As to your question about Germany, I would have rather lived in West Germany, where there was socialized medicine, free college education, joint ownership of factories by management and labor, and democratic institutions.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

So do you advocate complete government ownership of the means of production? Why do you think East Germany failed while West Germany did not? Will you at least acknowledge that market competition is absolutely essential to running an economy?

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

I support complete democratic ownership of the means of production. I think east germany failed because the soviet system was undemocratic and unsustainable. I really don't think market competition is essential to running an economy, I'm actually of the belief that competition inevitably leads to crises of capital, which are bad for the economy. I accept that competition is essential to capitalism, but I'm not a capitalist.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

That's great if you want to drive a Trabant, but the fact is that it is market competition that has allowed for a dramatic rise in the standard of living of millions of people, and indeed thousands more each day. Food is cheaper and more abundant, and technology and health care have been improved as a result of competition. How many people has socialism brought out of poverty? I'm guessing a lot fewer than it's killed.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

That's a terrible example. Volkswagen, the premier car company of West Germany, was state-run from it's inception until the 50s. It became successful mainly because the German state used it to drive the recovery from World War II, giving it a virtual monopoly over West Germany's manufacturing sector.

And that argument about the standard of living increasing is bullshit. the standard of living of slaves increased from the 18th to 19th century. That doesn't make slavery right.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

Government investment into industry is like throwing darts blind. No one can predict what people will want or need fifty years from now. What we need is individuals willing to risk their own money, not money that has been taken from other people, in the hopes of succeeding. Success and failure are extremely important, as they encourage risk and prudence, respectively. The difference here is that if the government fails we all fail.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

That makes absolutely no sense. The government is, in a democratic society, a collection of people. Those people can make decisions about what is needed for society, because they ARE society. And, in the case of volkswagen, the government absolutely knew what people wanted and needed 50 years later. The idea that individuals competing in a market will somehow produce positive innovation more efficiently than just making a collective decision about what to do defies logic.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

Governmental power is always captured by special interests. Milton Friedman used to say that very few individual Americans will tell you that they want to pay three times the market price for sugar, but it is so because a small minority has the incentive to lobby Congress to get that law passed. Whereas, the individual does not have the incentive because it seems like such a small sum. Thus, the majority loses.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

I agree. That's why I would like to see us establish a democracy, instead of the oligarchy we have now.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

You are forgetting the role of a judiciary in a democracy such as ours. Example: Prop 8 in California was DEMOCRATICALLY passed. I'm guessing you don't support it, but do you think that since people voted for it then it should be the law, no matter whose rights it violates?

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

First off, there's no such thing as a "democracy such as ours" because we don't have a democracy. It's designed to be an oligarchy and still is one. Now, as far as Prop 8 goes, you're right that I don't support it, and I would have voted no if I could. But I recognize that it exists, and it is the law. If an essential democratic right like free speech were taken away, I wouldn't recognize the majority, because that's undemocratic. You're confusing democracy with mob rule.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

We're a republic. Now that we're getting to the areas of what rights the government can and cannot take away, let's talk about property rights. If you contend that every American (or person) is entitled to housing, health care, etc., then you'll have to admit that the government will have to control prices, essentially robbing health care providers of their property (their time and money). The same goes for wage controls.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

We are not a Republic. A Republic implies indirect democracy, which we do not have. Power in this country is exercised by an elite few. It is an oligarchy.

No one has any "right" to property. Material objects are totally separate from human beings. Now, I do believe that in a civilized society, we should provide each other with property necessary for personal survival and comfort. But I don't accept the idea that anyone has a "right" to a piece of property more than anyone else.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

We were founded as a republic and that is what I am advocating. In my world view, people work for their money. You may advocate a system in which even if you contribute nothing to society, you get to enjoy all of the benefits provided by everyone else, but I see a problem in that this system takes from those who work hard, and in fact produces an incentive for people not to work hard. Society doesn't progress that way.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

In my world view, people are free to work for whatever reason they want. I don't believe in this whole idea that we need to bribe people with wages to succeed. I think that if people are left to their own devices, they'll contribute far more to society.

And I agree that a system that takes from those who work hard and rewards people who don't work is bad. That's why I don't like capitalism. Management profits from the fruits of labor that they didn't contribute to.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

Ben and Jerry's tried this approach. You can read up on how that worked out. It costs a lot of money and it takes a lot of time and hard work to obtain the education and experience required to run a company. CEO's do not pay themselves. Investors come together and determine how much of their money they want to pay. CEO's and corporations don't steal money from people, they entice them with products and services which make their lives better. Government steals.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

Besides, you admitted that "a system that takes from those who work hard and rewards people who don't work is bad," but that is the exact policy you have been advocating this whole time!

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

No I haven't. I've been advocating a system where workers, the people who produce everything, have democratic control of the means of production. I understand that it's difficult to start a company. But that doesn't make the people who run it entitled to profits gained from the labor of people that make it work. I have nothing against management, I just think that they unjustly profit from the hard work of others.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

Never in the history of the world has this system been applied with any success whatsoever. You can easily demonstrate that governments that model themselves around Marxist philosophy produce poverty and a lack of civil liberties. Places where Marxism and Capitalism are balanced go bankrupt, as we see in Western Europe. Even Cuba is rejecting Marxism now. How much more misery and death will it take to convince you people?

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

That is incorrect. In 1936, industry was collectivized in Republican Spain. Productivity in places like Zaragoza rose 20%. It only dropped when the Fascists took over. During the Second World War, American industry was nationalized, resulting in the largest growth in American history.

By the way, I'm not a marxist. Nobody really is. Marx himself thought the word was stupid.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

And Mao collectivized agriculture, resulting in the deaths of millions. But I want to get back to your idea of the government providing people with their basic needs. If, say, we get universal health care, and my medical bills are paid for by the government (the society as a whole), then that society suddenly has a reason to tell me how to live my life. This is how basic liberties start to crumble.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

You're confusing collectivization with nationalization but okay.....

First off, you are always going to be told how to live your life. You're a human being, and you need other human beings to survive. The decision is whether you want to part of a system that you have influence over, or a system where you are imprisoned by institutional obligations.

I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. That's socialism to me.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

I want a system that I have influence over, yet respects my freedoms. You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that the individual is sovereign, and as long as he does not violate the rights of others, he should remain sovereign from influence by the government or other individuals. It seems that you believe that the individual is at the behest of the government, not the other way around. I think we can both agree, though that America was founded my way.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

I don't believe that at all. I believe that every individual should be entitled to the maximum amount of freedom possible, and I think the only way to do that is to build a world based in democratic power structures. The difference between us is that you think that individuals are entitled to more rights than others, which I find immoral.

And I don't think anyone can say America was founded their way. It just is what it is.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

I was running out of characters and wanted it to be one reply, so I was trying to say that the United States, as it is described in its founding documents, is close enough to the style of government that I advocate to be used as an example.

Now, you said "you think that individuals are entitled to more rights than others." You must have a grave misunderstanding of my ideology, as I believe that all people should have the same rights.

Continued...

[Naufragus420]

As I have explained before, you cannot consider a good or service to be a right because you have to literally violate someone else's rights in order to obtain them. Also, I came across an interesting fact today: Never in the history of the world has a society which enjoys private property rights and the rule of law experienced a famine. You, meanwhile have still not made any attempt to defend the fact that 100,000,000 people died as a result of Communism.

Continued...

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

1. You only have to violate their rights if the action is involuntary, which I don't believe in.

2. What about Niger, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Kenya? There's a lot of private ownership of property there, and famines are going on all the time.

3. I haven't defended Communism because I'm not a Communist. I see it as Fascism under a different name

4. I know why Marx said that, it's because he believed in dialectal materialism. He only wrote a stack of books on it.

[Naufragus420]

@00maharum00ma

1. Something is not necessarily voluntary just because the majority votes for it. We have to protect peoples' rights even from a majority who wants to violate their rights.

2. In order for private property rights to function, one needs a judicial system capable of enforcing contracts between individuals and the means by which to enforce said contracts. Hence the part about law and order. Africa lacks the system to protect the rights of property owners and to allow them to

cont

[Naufragus420]

to use their assets such as their home to get loans and whatnot.

3. Socialism, Marxism, and Communism, while different, share in common the fact that they utilize government force to steal resources and redistribute them. It's a pretty critical flaw.

4. So do you agree that starting a Socialist or Communist society at a developing stage of an economy doesn't work? I would also argue that a rich country converted to socialism will eventually fail.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

1. It's the closest we can get. Life isn't perfect.

2. Oh, that's convenient. So if I name a country with property rights you don't like, it doesn't count.

3. First, socialism is democratic control of the means of production. That could come in any form, not necessarily through the government. Marxism, as I said, isn't a real thing. And Communism is a synonym for Fascism at this point, which isn't socialist.

4. I don't know. I'd like to try.

[Naufragus420]

The reason why neither works is because they don't respect individual rights. This is the same problem with Socialism.

4. Just because your exact fantasy of what you would like to see hasn't been tried yet doesn't mean there isn't plenty of existing evidence showing that it won't work. The perfect government does not exist and you can always find an excuse why it hasn't worked.

[00maharum00ma]

@Naufragus420

This is a beautiful country.

[Naufragus420]

Have you ever wondered why Karl Marx said that, in order for his ideal society to be achieved (I'm paraphrasing here, bear with me) you would first have to allow capitalism to build up the industrial sector and technology in general? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that not a single society has been been brought out of poverty by the policies you are advocating.

[davethehostage]

Lmao, "ACORN attempted to defame me." This little shit recorded and distorted the views of employees of ACORN by editing the videos beyond comprehension. He couldn't find the evil, so he created it. He's the spawn of two generations of corrupt, lying scumbags, and he's making damn sure to follow in their footsteps. "I question the value of a college education...you can educate yourself".

Yes, James. That way you won't ever have to listen to the opinions and concerns of other human beings.

[fabulousconnection]

DOUCHEBAG

This racist, woman hater is a scumbag just like his slumlord father and peeping-tom grandfather. All three JAMES O"KEEFES' (I, II & III) are manipulative, corrupt, hurtful liars who are guilty of criminal activity and should be jailed. Somehow through political connections or pay-offs they get to roam free to continue to terrorize the innocent.

ps: He's also a stalker, animal abuser & longtime psychiatric patient who's hopefully still on his meds! Why doesn't FOX report on that?!!

[vivace737]

o'keefe is a douchefag

[nondelsolo]

O'Keefe will be some prisoner fine a** bitch.

[joeyconservative]

His prison cellmates agrees, Okeefe has a real pretty mouth.