London gets oil aid from Venezuela

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Perhaps I'm confused? Where have we differed on theft? I've agreed that a) British tax money is stolen and b) lots of American property is stolen.

If you want my definition of theft, just ask:

Theft happens whenever property is coerced against the will of the owner.

farfromglorified wrote:

Do you want me to label America itself as stolen property? That's not going to happen either, since in order to do that you have to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities.

By this logic, taxes can't be considered theft, as it would require you to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. America has taken it from you. But maybe I'm confused.

You also seem - and I'm saying "seem" here - to believe in varying degrees of theft based not so much on the amount taken, but by how many hands what was stolen passes through.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

By this logic, taxes can't be considered theft, as it would require you to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. America has taken it from you. But maybe I'm confused.

You are confused. Societies aren't taxed. People are. People have individual and singular wills. Soceities don't.

Perhaps this might help: you want to pay taxes, right? If so, taxes aren't being stolen from you.

You also seem - and I'm saying "seem" here - to believe in varying degrees of theft based not so much on the amount taken, but by how many hands what was stolen passes through.

Not really, no. Theft is theft.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

You are confused. Societies aren't taxed. People are. People have individual and singular wills. Soceities don't.

Ah, so I got it backwards. I assumed you meant that America can't be considered stolen property because a society decided to take it - and a society has no singular will, so therefore can't steal. So you're saying a society can't be stolen from?

farfromglorified wrote:

Not really, no. Theft is theft.

farfromglorified wrote:

Assuming the government is paying for it, which it probably is, then yes. Theft did have to occur at some point. But you're comparing two thefts that are not equal. In other words, you've taken one core argument of mine and ignored the rest. It's a caricature. If Britain's actions were comparable, the British government would be walking into the advice-givers' offices here, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to participate. That's not the case. Yet in Venezuela, that's exactly what happened in the offices of those who produce the oil that Hugo Chavez is so graciously offering.

The British government is walking into British citizens' homes, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to pay taxes. Those taxes are then passed through the government, used to pay the salary of advisers, whose ideas are then traded to Venezuela. This stolen money was 'laundered' so to speak; therefore, it is "not equal" to Chavez's more direct thievery.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Ah, so I got it backwards. I assumed you meant that America can't be considered stolen property because a society decided to take it - and a society has no singular will, so therefore can't steal. So you're saying a society can't be stolen from?

Hehe...wow. I obviously need to be more specific.

America can't be considered stolen property because America wasn't owned by a single owner or stolen by a single theif. It wasn't a singular entity or property. In other words, if I steal an apple from the grocery store, you don't say "All apples were stolen". You say "that apple was stolen".

Much of America wasn't stolen at all and much of American wasn't claimed at the time. However, parts of America were certainly stolen from various individual by other various individuals. Make more sense now?

A society can only be stolen from when a society actually owns something. In the case of Native Americans, wherein a tribe owned a specific land as equal partners, yes we can certainly say that a "society was stolen from".

The British government is walking into British citizens' homes, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to pay taxes. Those taxes are then passed through the government, used to pay the salary of advisers, whose ideas are then traded to Venezuela. This stolen money was 'laundered' so to speak; therefore, it is "not equal" to Chavez's more direct thievery.

I actually agree with this in principle, but not in the terms you're speaking. The key is here -- the advisers, the primary element of the British trade here, are willing partners. Yes, some of the tax money is coerced, much as the oil is in Venezuela. I'm just not going to paint with a broad brush here and portray the British involvement as equal to the Venezuelan involvement. The economies and coersion of both nations are not equal, and therefore the governmental spoils and moral implications of those spoils are not equal.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...wow. I obviously need to be more specific.

Well, you know us plebeians. Speak slowly, please.

farfromglorified wrote:

America can't be considered stolen property because America wasn't owned by a single owner or stolen by a single theif. It wasn't a singular entity or property. In other words, if I steal an apple from the grocery store, you don't say "All apples were stolen". You say "that apple was stolen".

Much of America wasn't stolen at all and much of American wasn't claimed at the time. However, parts of America were certainly stolen from various individual by other various individuals. Make more sense now?

So we're back to my original point - though this time I know better than to specify you. People are living on stolen land that was sold to them by those who bought it from those who bought it from thieves themselves (actually, there should probably be a few more "those who bought it froms" in there). Hands and - a new element - time dilute the theft.

farfromglorified wrote:

I actually agree with this in principle, but not in the terms you're speaking. The key is here -- the advisers, the primary element of the British trade here, are willing partners. Yes, some of the tax money is coerced, much as the oil is in Venezuela. I'm just not going to paint with a broad brush here and portray the British involvement as equal to the Venezuelan involvement. The economies and coersion of both nations are not equal, and therefore the governmental spoils and moral implications of those spoils are not equal.

So theft isn't simply theft.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

So we're back to my original point - though this time I know better than to specify you. People are living on stolen land that was sold to them by those who bought it from those who bought it from thieves themselves (actually, there should probably be a few more "those who bought it froms" in there). Hands and - a new element - time dilute the theft.

Your original point was that I was living on stolen land, not "people". If that was your original point, I wouldn't have taken issue with it. Yes, people are living on stolen land. But, as I've said time and time again on this board, the dominant part of this society really has no issue with stealing things. So I wouldn't hold your breath on that "dilution" thing.

So theft isn't simply theft.

Why not? Theft is theft. The British are stealing. The Venezuelans are stealing. But, again, the mechanics and purposes of those thefts are both different in their extent and prevalence in this deal.

If you steal $1 and use it to buy something that's worth $50, you're a thief. But the dynamic is different than if you just went in and stole that $50 thing to begin with.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Your original point was that I was living on stolen land, not "people". If that was your original point, I wouldn't have taken issue with it. Yes, people are living on stolen land. But, as I've said time and time again on this board, the dominant part of this society really has no issue with stealing things. So I wouldn't hold your breath on that "dilution" thing.

My original point was that people are living on stolen land. My mistake was that I tried using one of the few people in this country that isn't as an example. But you already knew that.

farfromglorified wrote:

Why not? Theft is theft. The British are stealing. The Venezuelans are stealing. But, again, the mechanics and purposes of those thefts are both different in their extent and prevalence in this deal.

If you steal $1 and use it to buy something that's worth $50, you're a thief. But the dynamic is different than if you just went in and stole that $50 thing to begin with.

I hit "quote" when this post still just said "Why not" - and I got a lot more in the quote field than I saw in the thread. You worded differently a similar claim I was just about to post.

So in other words, we agree - theft isn't simply theft. Less tangible things like "dynamics" and "morality" play key roles.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

My original point was that people are living on stolen land. My mistake was that I tried using one of the few people in this country that isn't as an example. But you already knew that.

Few people? Most people in this country aren't an example of your original point.

I hit "quote" when this post still just said "Why not" - and I got a lot more in the quote field than I saw in the thread. You worded differently a similar claim I was just about to post.

So in other words, we agree - theft isn't simply theft. Less tangible things like "dynamics" and "morality" play key roles.

Of course, though I don't like the "less tangible" language. Morality and dynamics are quite tangible. But, if you mean harder to discern, then yes I definitely agree.

SundaySilence

farfromglorified wrote:

You are confused. Societies aren't taxed. People are. People have individual and singular wills. Soceities don't.

People aren't taxed. For the most part, transactions are taxed.

farfromglorified

SundaySilence wrote:

People aren't taxed. For the most part, transactions are taxed.

That's an awesome justification. Black people weren't slaves. For the most part, their efforts were.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Few people? Most people in this country aren't an example of your original point.

I'm going to have to differ with you there. Many Native Americans didn't have the same concept of ownership as the colonists; but I don't believe that because of this, there was no theft.

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course, though I don't like the "less tangible" language. Morality and dynamics are quite tangible. But, if you mean harder to discern, then yes I definitely agree.

I see. You're a veritible Mr. Spock to my Dr. McCoy there, far.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

I'm going to have to differ with you there. Many Native Americans didn't have the same concept of ownership as the colonists; but I don't believe that because of this, there was no theft.

I'm not making that case at all. You should know by now that I don't really pay much heed to a social "concept of ownership", at least as as any arbiter on morality.

A lot of Native land was stolen, but a lot of it was purchased, abandoned, traded, etc. Furthermore, Natives didn't hold claim to lots of places in America. Modern revisionist history that portrays all American land as stolen from the Natives is just as stupid as past history that portrays it as largely unoccupied or full of "savages".

I see. You're a veritible Mr. Spock to my Dr. McCoy there, far.

I don't have a vulcan emoticon here....so I'll just chuckle.

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/venezuela/index.do

And its even from a source that shares your views on Israel!

So a few people got roughed up at a demonstration. Welcome to Latin America!

angelica

RainDog wrote:

Well, you know us plebeians. Speak slowly, please.

haha.

I'm beginning to miss the good old days of unending debate with farfromglorified!

SundaySilence

farfromglorified wrote:

That's an awesome justification. Black people weren't slaves. For the most part, their efforts were.

Don't make any market transactions and you won't be taxed.

SundaySilence

farfromglorified wrote:

Caterina, in her excellent post above, referred to Chile. For those who aren't aware, you can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#Economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Chile's economic turn-around is both a wonderful and strange story. It's sad that their successes were marred by the some very disturbing non-economic actions by Pinochet and others in power. But for those looking for an interesting study in the effects of free market policies, Chile provides a fascinating example.

Chile is another example of how New Deal economic policies have been successful. The latin american countries which have embaced right wing laissez faire have been economic failures. This has led to the current desperate push towards socialism. The Chicago Boys destroyed Chile and it wasn't until their policies were recinded that the economic turn around of Chile began.

http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2/

farfromglorified

SundaySilence wrote:

Chile is another example of how New Deal economic policies have been successful. The latin american countries which have embaced right wing laissez faire have been economic failures. This has led to the current desperate push towards socialism. The Chicago Boys destroyed Chile and it wasn't until their policies were recinded that the economic turn around of Chile began.

http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2/

Hehe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast

I'll stand by the information I posted.

The "current desperate push towards socialism" is not the fault of lassez-faire economics. If that were true, Chile would be leading the march. It is not. The current desperate push is caused by exactly that, desperation by populations who have not produced, but still want what comes from production.

SundaySilence

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast

I'll stand by the information I posted..

Here is the information you posted:

In 1973, unemployment was only 4.3% time when the government employed many of Chile's citizens. Following ten years of junta rule in 1983, unemployment had risen to 22%. Real wages declined by more than 40%. In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. In 1990, in the last year of Pinochet's dictatorship, poverty doubled to 40%.[18] Between 1982 and 1983 during the worldwide economic slump, the GDP dropped 19%, largly as a result of a downturn in the copper market. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40 percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite the government's boast that the new economy would solve homelessness.[19] . In 1970, the richest one-fifth of the population controlled 45% of the wealth, after much of their wealth had been seized by president Montalva. In comparison the poorest one-fifth controlled 7.6%. In 1989, the richest one-fifth controlled 55% of the wealth while the poorest one-fifth controlled 4.4%[20]

farfromglorified wrote:

The "current desperate push towards socialism" is not the fault of lassez-faire economics. If that were true, Chile would be leading the march. It is not. The current desperate push is caused by exactly that, desperation by populations who have not produced, but still want what comes from production.

Of course it is because these countries have not produced. And they have been burdened with laissez-faire policies pushed by conservatives in washington.
Chile is not leading the march because after the chicago boys destroyed the economy it was rescued by basic New Deal legislation; progressive income taxes and protection of labor by minimum wages, workers comp, unemployment, child labor and protection of unionization. Perhaps this explains the relative economic success.