You can't mix "communism" and fascism. They are contradictory. Any change would require the elimination of the leaders. I suppose it can be done, but it hasn't been accomplished in modern history. Also, fascism places some element above others (eg. "race", ethnicity, religion, etc). What can China use to justify fascism? Without using such a concept, fascism won't materialize.
As far as countries becoming like Singapore, what do you expect from capitalism? CATO institute, the bastion of capitalism, even considers Singapore to be one of the best countries (for economic freedom).
I kind of alluded to the problem of humans getting confused--that's what you are talking about. I don't think there will be a prolbem. It'll just be a new system and memorizing things won't matter much. My rebuttal is that you are exaggerating the real nature of the situation. Yes, people are supposed to know the law but the reality is anything but. I'll bet that you don't know 95% of the laws that you encounter in one day of your life!!! Here are some examples (NOTE: my examples are for Canada and hopefully there won't be too many differences in other countries):
What is the difference between yellow lines and white lines on the road?
What is the difference between a speed limit on a yellow sign versus a white sign?
If the police asks you to show your driver's licence, do you legally have to? What if the police asks for your home address? What if they ask for proof of citizenship? What if they ask for internet websites you have visited recently?
Can the police secretly record your conversations or normal/public speech?
If the latest movie you rented has poor picture quality, are you legally entitled to a refund?
If the wheel of your car comes off and hits a pedestrian, killing the person in the process:( , are you liable?
Can you dump your garbage into one of those large garbage bins you see beside buildings?
Do you know how high the grass on your lawn must be?
Can you legally put an erotic picture on a billboard on your lawn?
Can you walk around naked in your property?
Can you claim to overthrow the government?
Can you have a tiger as a pet?
A typical person does NOT know the vast majority of the laws. In fact, even lawyers don't know the majority of the laws.
Therefore, your point is moot. Having an alternate system where knowledge is de-emphasized won't cause many problems. The reason is because of the following. Most laws are either "common sense" or have a moral basis (when I say morality, I'm not talking about religious morality; rather, I'm speaking about intrinsic human morality). In both cases, someone will get accustomed to the law even if they don't know it. Most people shovel the snow but how many actually know why?
Lastly, don't forget: even a dynamic system does not mean that ALL the laws will change ALL the time. On the contrary. If anything, MAJOR laws will change infrequently. The only ones that will change are the minor ones--the ones that impact your daily routines. For example, a law dealing withhuman rights likely won't change much but another dealing with traffic speed limits likely will.
That's a pretty inaccurate view given that China hasn't really been an interventionist country for the last few hundread years. The only cases are Tibet and Taiwan. Other cases such as war with India are questionable.
You may fear China more since you are American but to a neutral like me (Canadian:) ), interventionist countries (like USA) are far worse... Of course, China MAY choose a path of interventionism (once imperialists and various warmongers take hold) but let's hope not...
Only someone living in a cave (a typical home of a conservative) would not notice that the conservatives are the ones always waging wars. Who is killing innocent people, while losing their own soldiers in a bogus imperial quest of empire building and oil addiction?
I'm going to get flamed for this (maybe) but I'll say it anyway...
USA still has something no other country does. This building is not as tall as others; it isn't a symbol of prosperity; it doesn't generate much money; but it is more important. I'm talking about, none other than, the Statue of Liberty.... When USA ships the Statue of Liberty backs to France claiming it is undesirable, then'll it'll really lose its monopoly. At that rate that USA is going, it just might happen:(
What you are saying is a possibility but I HOPE no one militarizes space... Anyway, if you trusted the USSR, why wouldn't you trust China? USSR was far more ruthless than China...
I am not sure if you are interpreting the difference between an atheist and an agnostic properly (as a side note, some people claim there are no atheists since God cannot be proven not to exist). An athesist does not believe God exists; an agnostic does not believe in God but at the same time he/she does not rule out God because they cannot prove it. This characterization has nothing to do with what one "allows". I think you are really comparing religions vs spirituality (if one can even seperate the two). The whole notion of atheism does not really apply to spirituality BUT I think an theist would consider buddism to be fake too. In your example, I think an atheist would be against both on principle. God cannot be proven to exist and whatever buddism claims is fake too. Even though there is no God under buddism, it still relies on the notion of supernatural. If I'm not mistaken, buddists have an explanation for the creation of earth that is based on some supernatural element, which clearly is different from science. That will necessarily mean that an atheist would oppose buddism too.
So to go back to the original issue, I would not have any religion, including ones without Gods, in any schools, courts, prisons, etc.
I'm not a pragmatist but from a practical point of view, elimination of monarchy will not have any major impact on anything. Monarchy in Canada (or Britain; depends how you look at it) doesn't really do anything. All their power has been "lost". What they have is just the name. They still sign all the laws but it is just a rubber stamp; they still receive (I think) around $20million per year but nothing more; etc. Eliminating them will do nothing. Canada will simply have its own head of state (a president) like similar to countries like Isreal and India. Presidents under such systems have very little power.
That doesn't really touch on what your were alluding to. Now onto the man vs (static) law question...
I guess I would pick to be ruled by other humans. Your characterization of the situation is very simplistic in my opinion. For instance, there is nothing stopping a select few from overtaking a "law-based" republic like USA. Whether you have laws or not is irrelevant. One an always manipulate them. A classic way of doing this is to stack the courts with your allies (Hitler did this). Some conservatives in USA claim this has already happened. In other cases, you can circumvent laws by passing new laws. On top of all this, I have very little faith in the Courts. The courts have always served the elite, the wealthy, those than can afford lawyers.
My view is that laws are nothing more words written on a piece of paper--a bold claim I realize. The US constitution can be scrapped or ignored tomorrow. All that is required is for USA to revert to totalitarianism. The reason it hasn't happened in USA is because it is a young country with very few foreign threats (due to geographical isolation--no, Canada and Mexico aren't my idea of enemies:) ). What I am saying may seem foolish to an American, who in all likelihood believes the Constitution saves the country, but history of the world shows otherwise. Laws that one thought were rock solid came crumbling down as the dictators smashed it with their feet.
My utopia will have no laws* (anarchism) or a dynamic, continuously changing legal system (no static laws; laws changed within one lifespan of a human). In both cases, laws need to be dynamic. (in some sense, you may consider both to be the same). I think this is important because humans are evolving; we don't stand still. Since I am liberal (a radical in fact) I'm more in favour of rapid changes within one life time. I'm an atheist and only believe that I have ONE LIFE:( so I don't want to waste my life fighting against a system with antiquated and outdated laws.
There will be several problems with my system (that I haven't worked out:) ). I suspect conservatives will be totally against this so that will be the main problem. Getting conservatives to accept a dynamic system is very difficult--they don't even want to change anything written 10 years ago! Another problem is that having a dynamic system may confuse humans. I personally don't think this is a problem since we are quite capable of adapting. Another potential problem is that such a system may shift too much power to the judges (since they will be ACTING FOR THE SOCIETY instead of INTERPRETING as in modern day).
* Note that you can have laws under anarchism. The key thing is that the laws must all be VOLUNTARY. Anarchism does not permit non-voluntary laws, courts, whatever. In fact, I don't see key things like human rights changing under anarchism since it is a mutual view held by nearly all humans. We are against murder, not because the law says so but because deep WITHIN US, we FEEL it is wrong.
Maybe for practical reasons? Well I don't know any European country that does this, and we seem to be OK. We also don't display much fervent patriotism, except on sporting occasions:-) None of that weird flag waving and chanting that ironically the American news media so often associate with "evildoers".
At one time, not too long ago, Europe was exactly like that. Then something happened. Most people call it World War II. That horrible event pretty much put to end any nationalism. Before that though, nationalism was rampant with French, English, Germans, and Spanish all thinking they were at the top of the world...
Those that somehow bring slavery into this discussion lose site of the relative magnitude and importance of each of the issues--especially their impact on those "affected." They only thing they have in common is that they affect a minority. The similarity in the problem and the potential solutions end there.
The conservatives are the one who makes one resort to this valid comparison. Conservatives justify not changing the pledge, or anything for that matter, by claiming it has existed and shouldn't be touched. Others point out that NOTHING is sacred. The Supreme Court kept reaffirming that segregation was fine over and over again. Conservatives, as well as the courts and the government, used the EXACT same argument at that time. Many politicians argued that nothing should be changed because that is how it was all along. The situation here is similar. The impact might be less but the concept is similar...
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the God stuff added to combat communism?
Since I'm an atheist, I'm against having the concept of a fake entity, namely God as part of anything. I wouldn't want it on the money either. Then again, (i) conservatives hold static documents as ideals and will battle to the death on this issue, (ii) I'm not even American (so I should spend my time trying to eliminate the elitist monarchy in Canada, before getting rid of God)
That's a good point... I'm not sure what happens if a person happens to have data that is quite compromising, even though they didn't source it or obtain it illegally...hmmm..
I never heard that expression before:)... Either he is that, or he is a strongly pro-war. I've noticed that the pro-war crowd, not unable to meet any of their main objectives, often start claiming that everything is going well and they know EXACTLY where the hunted are...
I'll bet you are wrong on the first two (although I'm not too sure about the 2nd one (Saddam)). I highly doubt that Usama bin Laden is where everyone thinks he is. If he is as smart as he seems, he will be somewhere else. The area that you mentioned are being combed by US and Pakistani troops all day long. On top of that, there are drones hovering above, and I'm sure USA has one (if not more) spy satellites parked right on top. Add to this fact that Usama bin Laden travels in packs of 10 to 20 bodyguards and accomplices. It is very hard to hide in places on expects. I personally think he is in Afghanistan (parts not checked; perhaps near Khandakar) or he is in Africa.
I'm not too sure about Saddam Hussein. Since he don't have any allies, the only thing keeping him alive is money. A few thousand dollars, which is more than an year's salary, should be enough to bribe people. I'll bet he is in Baghdad.
If they TRULY intend to create an anonymous reporting system, people WILL have problems figuring out what is real from fake. However, like media, you should be able to verify with multiple sources, and/or logic.
If they do manage to create such a system, and attract enough contributors, I think it will end up behaving similar to conspiracy theories. Do conspiracy theories serve the public? Absolutely! Without them, how many people would dout the coverup by the US govt on the Keneddy assasination? Only a few moderate/centrist brainwashed still believe what the original inquiry said.
There will be benefits from this system... Filtering the information will be the difficult part...
I haven't used FreeNet but give it some time to improve its interfaces, GUIs, etc... Anyway my point was going to be... Kazaa is NOT anonymous. That totally defeats the purpose. Of course, compared to Napster, it is better...
The Branch Davidians were not exactly law abiding citizens. They illegally stockpiled weapons without a license...and treated children in a questionable if not outright illegal manner...they were killed because they took arms against the government, which sought a trial against them. the government did what it was supposed to do.
The government does not have the right to kill INNOCENT people. It is a highly contentious matter as to who set the fire, but the govt is party--if not fully--responsible for the deaths of many people.
Some of your observations are nothing more than government spin. The child incest stuff was most likely govt propaganda--or possibly disinformation. It never even came to issue until AFTER the attempted arrest. If you ask me, some govt official introduced the propaganda once things got out of hand. As far as the weapons charges are concerned, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND (WHICH ISN'T MUCH), the initial charge wasn't that they had illegal weapons but that they were SELLING them illegally. Basically, Koresh and his buddies were buying weapons and selling them at a profit. That part is illegal and the govt had the right to go in. But it is highly questionable of the stuff that happened afterwards. For instance, if I'm not mistaken, the govt deployed TANKS. Name a non-totalitarian or non-dictataorship that deploys tanks against citizens.
And no, I'm not a David Koresh sympathizer. I'm on the far-left and could care less about those right wingers. However, I claim that there was a massive government coverup!
You have a right to say the stuff you say--even if your country wasn't that great. Everything you say about China is true for the most part. BUT you are passing off USA like its some utopia. USA may not treat its OWN citizens badly but it has a horrible habit of killing innocent people all over the world. You need to look no further than your imperialistic pursuits and other non-sensical "freedom" wars in Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Panama, Chile, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc...
As far as local incidents are concerned, the only major one worth mentioning are Kent State, and Waco. Nowadays, I would only be concerned with the Guantanomo Bay issue. This is totally unacceptable since you are jailing someone FOREVER ("war" on terrorism is open-ended) without any charges. And I'll bet at least 20% of the people there are innocent (due to US tactic of rounding up anyone that falls into a profile).
You have the right to criticize regardless of the circumstances...and I accept your criticism. But don't for a moment assume that you are living on a plane above the rest...
The problem is... you can't have cooperation under captitalism. Capitalism is based on competition and intrinsically rewards it. Cooperation is always looked upon as suspect, undesirable, and ultimately inefficient. Even with so-called "government projects" like NASA, that is the case. For example, the vast majority of the construction, maintenance, and supplies to NASA are carried out by private companies. Can you see company X which supplies wing A work with another company, let alone a foreign one? Even in military projects, where the govt forces companies to work together, things don't fly well. For example, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing are the two big aerospace suppliers to the US military. They bid competitively on many things. THe US govt forces them work together on large contracts. So when they are "billing" the govt, they work "together" but once that's done, they are competing with each other. I suspect the CEOs, as well as many key employees of each firm, hate each other. How will this be any different for space exploration?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't mix "communism" and fascism. They are contradictory. Any change would require the elimination of the leaders. I suppose it can be done, but it hasn't been accomplished in modern history. Also, fascism places some element above others (eg. "race", ethnicity, religion, etc). What can China use to justify fascism? Without using such a concept, fascism won't materialize.
As far as countries becoming like Singapore, what do you expect from capitalism? CATO institute, the bastion of capitalism, even considers Singapore to be one of the best countries (for economic freedom).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Could we, like, stop treating the neocons as Gods for a while? Thanks...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA has more freedoms than Canada. For instance, USA grants "full" freedom of speech, whereas Canada does not.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
- What is the difference between yellow lines and white lines on the road?
- What is the difference between a speed limit on a yellow sign versus a white sign?
- If the police asks you to show your driver's licence, do you legally have to? What if the police asks for your home address? What if they ask for proof of citizenship? What if they ask for internet websites you have visited recently?
- Can the police secretly record your conversations or normal/public speech?
- If the latest movie you rented has poor picture quality, are you legally entitled to a refund?
- If the wheel of your car comes off and hits a pedestrian, killing the person in the process
:( , are you liable?
- Can you dump your garbage into one of those large garbage bins you see beside buildings?
- Do you know how high the grass on your lawn must be?
- Can you legally put an erotic picture on a billboard on your lawn?
- Can you walk around naked in your property?
- Can you claim to overthrow the government?
- Can you have a tiger as a pet?
A typical person does NOT know the vast majority of the laws. In fact, even lawyers don't know the majority of the laws.Therefore, your point is moot. Having an alternate system where knowledge is de-emphasized won't cause many problems. The reason is because of the following. Most laws are either "common sense" or have a moral basis (when I say morality, I'm not talking about religious morality; rather, I'm speaking about intrinsic human morality). In both cases, someone will get accustomed to the law even if they don't know it. Most people shovel the snow but how many actually know why?
Lastly, don't forget: even a dynamic system does not mean that ALL the laws will change ALL the time. On the contrary. If anything, MAJOR laws will change infrequently. The only ones that will change are the minor ones--the ones that impact your daily routines. For example, a law dealing withhuman rights likely won't change much but another dealing with traffic speed limits likely will.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Since I prefaced my comment with empire building and oil addiction, you are wrong :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's a pretty inaccurate view given that China hasn't really been an interventionist country for the last few hundread years. The only cases are Tibet and Taiwan. Other cases such as war with India are questionable.
:) ), interventionist countries (like USA) are far worse... Of course, China MAY choose a path of interventionism (once imperialists and various warmongers take hold) but let's hope not...
You may fear China more since you are American but to a neutral like me (Canadian
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Only someone living in a cave (a typical home of a conservative) would not notice that the conservatives are the ones always waging wars. Who is killing innocent people, while losing their own soldiers in a bogus imperial quest of empire building and oil addiction?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm going to get flamed for this (maybe) but I'll say it anyway...
:(
USA still has something no other country does. This building is not as tall as others; it isn't a symbol of prosperity; it doesn't generate much money; but it is more important. I'm talking about, none other than, the Statue of Liberty.... When USA ships the Statue of Liberty backs to France claiming it is undesirable, then'll it'll really lose its monopoly. At that rate that USA is going, it just might happen
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What you are saying is a possibility but I HOPE no one militarizes space... Anyway, if you trusted the USSR, why wouldn't you trust China? USSR was far more ruthless than China...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It may have something to do with US imperialist war raged by the neocons... Imperialism isn't new but the neocons are...
I am not sure if you are interpreting the difference between an atheist and an agnostic properly (as a side note, some people claim there are no atheists since God cannot be proven not to exist). An athesist does not believe God exists; an agnostic does not believe in God but at the same time he/she does not rule out God because they cannot prove it. This characterization has nothing to do with what one "allows". I think you are really comparing religions vs spirituality (if one can even seperate the two). The whole notion of atheism does not really apply to spirituality BUT I think an theist would consider buddism to be fake too. In your example, I think an atheist would be against both on principle. God cannot be proven to exist and whatever buddism claims is fake too. Even though there is no God under buddism, it still relies on the notion of supernatural. If I'm not mistaken, buddists have an explanation for the creation of earth that is based on some supernatural element, which clearly is different from science. That will necessarily mean that an atheist would oppose buddism too.
So to go back to the original issue, I would not have any religion, including ones without Gods, in any schools, courts, prisons, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not a pragmatist but from a practical point of view, elimination of monarchy will not have any major impact on anything. Monarchy in Canada (or Britain; depends how you look at it) doesn't really do anything. All their power has been "lost". What they have is just the name. They still sign all the laws but it is just a rubber stamp; they still receive (I think) around $20million per year but nothing more; etc. Eliminating them will do nothing. Canada will simply have its own head of state (a president) like similar to countries like Isreal and India. Presidents under such systems have very little power.
:) ). What I am saying may seem foolish to an American, who in all likelihood believes the Constitution saves the country, but history of the world shows otherwise. Laws that one thought were rock solid came crumbling down as the dictators smashed it with their feet.
:( so I don't want to waste my life fighting against a system with antiquated and outdated laws.
:) ). I suspect conservatives will be totally against this so that will be the main problem. Getting conservatives to accept a dynamic system is very difficult--they don't even want to change anything written 10 years ago! Another problem is that having a dynamic system may confuse humans. I personally don't think this is a problem since we are quite capable of adapting. Another potential problem is that such a system may shift too much power to the judges (since they will be ACTING FOR THE SOCIETY instead of INTERPRETING as in modern day).
That doesn't really touch on what your were alluding to. Now onto the man vs (static) law question...
I guess I would pick to be ruled by other humans. Your characterization of the situation is very simplistic in my opinion. For instance, there is nothing stopping a select few from overtaking a "law-based" republic like USA. Whether you have laws or not is irrelevant. One an always manipulate them. A classic way of doing this is to stack the courts with your allies (Hitler did this). Some conservatives in USA claim this has already happened. In other cases, you can circumvent laws by passing new laws. On top of all this, I have very little faith in the Courts. The courts have always served the elite, the wealthy, those than can afford lawyers.
My view is that laws are nothing more words written on a piece of paper--a bold claim I realize. The US constitution can be scrapped or ignored tomorrow. All that is required is for USA to revert to totalitarianism. The reason it hasn't happened in USA is because it is a young country with very few foreign threats (due to geographical isolation--no, Canada and Mexico aren't my idea of enemies
My utopia will have no laws* (anarchism) or a dynamic, continuously changing legal system (no static laws; laws changed within one lifespan of a human). In both cases, laws need to be dynamic. (in some sense, you may consider both to be the same). I think this is important because humans are evolving; we don't stand still. Since I am liberal (a radical in fact) I'm more in favour of rapid changes within one life time. I'm an atheist and only believe that I have ONE LIFE
There will be several problems with my system (that I haven't worked out
* Note that you can have laws under anarchism. The key thing is that the laws must all be VOLUNTARY. Anarchism does not permit non-voluntary laws, courts, whatever. In fact, I don't see key things like human rights changing under anarchism since it is a mutual view held by nearly all humans. We are against murder, not because the law says so but because deep WITHIN US, we FEEL it is wrong.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Maybe for practical reasons? Well I don't know any European country that does this, and we seem to be OK. We also don't display much fervent patriotism, except on sporting occasions :-) None of that weird flag waving and chanting that ironically the American news media so often associate with "evildoers".
At one time, not too long ago, Europe was exactly like that. Then something happened. Most people call it World War II. That horrible event pretty much put to end any nationalism. Before that though, nationalism was rampant with French, English, Germans, and Spanish all thinking they were at the top of the world...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Those that somehow bring slavery into this discussion lose site of the relative magnitude and importance of each of the issues--especially their impact on those "affected." They only thing they have in common is that they affect a minority. The similarity in the problem and the potential solutions end there.
The conservatives are the one who makes one resort to this valid comparison. Conservatives justify not changing the pledge, or anything for that matter, by claiming it has existed and shouldn't be touched. Others point out that NOTHING is sacred. The Supreme Court kept reaffirming that segregation was fine over and over again. Conservatives, as well as the courts and the government, used the EXACT same argument at that time. Many politicians argued that nothing should be changed because that is how it was all along. The situation here is similar. The impact might be less but the concept is similar...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the God stuff added to combat communism?
Since I'm an atheist, I'm against having the concept of a fake entity, namely God as part of anything. I wouldn't want it on the money either. Then again, (i) conservatives hold static documents as ideals and will battle to the death on this issue, (ii) I'm not even American (so I should spend my time trying to eliminate the elitist monarchy in Canada, before getting rid of God)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's a good point... I'm not sure what happens if a person happens to have data that is quite compromising, even though they didn't source it or obtain it illegally...hmmm..
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Remember: When the government dissimates propaganda and disinformation, it is perfectly ok; but if you do it, it is not ok...
Children should be taught that in school... oh wait, they already are...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I never heard that expression before :) ... Either he is that, or he is a strongly pro-war. I've noticed that the pro-war crowd, not unable to meet any of their main objectives, often start claiming that everything is going well and they know EXACTLY where the hunted are...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'll bet you are wrong on the first two (although I'm not too sure about the 2nd one (Saddam)). I highly doubt that Usama bin Laden is where everyone thinks he is. If he is as smart as he seems, he will be somewhere else. The area that you mentioned are being combed by US and Pakistani troops all day long. On top of that, there are drones hovering above, and I'm sure USA has one (if not more) spy satellites parked right on top. Add to this fact that Usama bin Laden travels in packs of 10 to 20 bodyguards and accomplices. It is very hard to hide in places on expects. I personally think he is in Afghanistan (parts not checked; perhaps near Khandakar) or he is in Africa.
I'm not too sure about Saddam Hussein. Since he don't have any allies, the only thing keeping him alive is money. A few thousand dollars, which is more than an year's salary, should be enough to bribe people. I'll bet he is in Baghdad.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If they TRULY intend to create an anonymous reporting system, people WILL have problems figuring out what is real from fake. However, like media, you should be able to verify with multiple sources, and/or logic.
If they do manage to create such a system, and attract enough contributors, I think it will end up behaving similar to conspiracy theories. Do conspiracy theories serve the public? Absolutely! Without them, how many people would dout the coverup by the US govt on the Keneddy assasination? Only a few moderate/centrist brainwashed still believe what the original inquiry said.
There will be benefits from this system... Filtering the information will be the difficult part...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I haven't used FreeNet but give it some time to improve its interfaces, GUIs, etc... Anyway my point was going to be... Kazaa is NOT anonymous. That totally defeats the purpose. Of course, compared to Napster, it is better...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The Branch Davidians were not exactly law abiding citizens. They illegally stockpiled weapons without a license...and treated children in a questionable if not outright illegal manner...they were killed because they took arms against the government, which sought a trial against them. the government did what it was supposed to do.
The government does not have the right to kill INNOCENT people. It is a highly contentious matter as to who set the fire, but the govt is party--if not fully--responsible for the deaths of many people.
Some of your observations are nothing more than government spin. The child incest stuff was most likely govt propaganda--or possibly disinformation. It never even came to issue until AFTER the attempted arrest. If you ask me, some govt official introduced the propaganda once things got out of hand. As far as the weapons charges are concerned, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND (WHICH ISN'T MUCH), the initial charge wasn't that they had illegal weapons but that they were SELLING them illegally. Basically, Koresh and his buddies were buying weapons and selling them at a profit. That part is illegal and the govt had the right to go in. But it is highly questionable of the stuff that happened afterwards. For instance, if I'm not mistaken, the govt deployed TANKS. Name a non-totalitarian or non-dictataorship that deploys tanks against citizens.
And no, I'm not a David Koresh sympathizer. I'm on the far-left and could care less about those right wingers. However, I claim that there was a massive government coverup!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You have a right to say the stuff you say--even if your country wasn't that great. Everything you say about China is true for the most part. BUT you are passing off USA like its some utopia. USA may not treat its OWN citizens badly but it has a horrible habit of killing innocent people all over the world. You need to look no further than your imperialistic pursuits and other non-sensical "freedom" wars in Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Panama, Chile, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc...
As far as local incidents are concerned, the only major one worth mentioning are Kent State, and Waco. Nowadays, I would only be concerned with the Guantanomo Bay issue. This is totally unacceptable since you are jailing someone FOREVER ("war" on terrorism is open-ended) without any charges. And I'll bet at least 20% of the people there are innocent (due to US tactic of rounding up anyone that falls into a profile).
You have the right to criticize regardless of the circumstances...and I accept your criticism. But don't for a moment assume that you are living on a plane above the rest...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The problem is... you can't have cooperation under captitalism. Capitalism is based on competition and intrinsically rewards it. Cooperation is always looked upon as suspect, undesirable, and ultimately inefficient. Even with so-called "government projects" like NASA, that is the case. For example, the vast majority of the construction, maintenance, and supplies to NASA are carried out by private companies. Can you see company X which supplies wing A work with another company, let alone a foreign one? Even in military projects, where the govt forces companies to work together, things don't fly well. For example, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing are the two big aerospace suppliers to the US military. They bid competitively on many things. THe US govt forces them work together on large contracts. So when they are "billing" the govt, they work "together" but once that's done, they are competing with each other. I suspect the CEOs, as well as many key employees of each firm, hate each other. How will this be any different for space exploration?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's not only the CEOs that are cashing in. The capitalists (i.e. owners of the corporations) are cashing in more.
Sivaram Velauthapillai