US want to join the EU Convention?

Chaos-Engine

Link to Article

OMG. Influencial US politicans such as Madelene Albright etc are actually telling europe that it is in our best interest to allow US officals be active "observers" in the Debate on the Future of Europe. Now I'm one of those Anti-US peeps and I'm some what EU-critical but an EU federalist at that.
Yes. The other ideas such as closer communication between US institutions and EU ones is a good idea. But telling us whats good for us isn't???
In that case the EU should sent observers to US presidental elections as the ppl of the US are being con-ed by evil dictator bush... narf

uberwolf

its crazy, my anti-american sentiment is at an all time high, how they can presume to lecture or impartially view anything with the level of corruptness over there is beyond belief. Messrs Moore, Chomsky and Palast would be the only americans i'd let enter these borders much less "actively" observe our decision making processes over here in Old-Europe

Hobbes

LOL funniest bit I've read in a while. This from a country that won't even comply with the UN.

Lemming

Dunno whether to laugh or vent!

"No disagreement should be allowed to disrupt our relations with our European allies," the declaration, 'Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership' states.

"Allies" ?? That's hardly the word I've had used a couple of months ago when the current administration showed its true colours on all things european :rolleyes:

the word 'subservient' springs to mind.

The Europeans are urged to do more to reassure Americans that "the union they are completing will continue to make the United States feel welcome in Europe" and the 18 warn against "Europe's new ability to challenge the United States".

Why should we be the ones assuring them when it was they who showed absolute contempt for us?

Also, that final line - is that a thinly veiled threat I see?

Imposter

The Europeans are urged to do more to reassure Americans that "the union they are completing will continue to make the United States feel welcome in Europe" and the 18 warn against "Europe's new ability to challenge the United States".

I'm sure the french and the germans feel very welcome in America! Or maybe that doesn't matter in the American's eyes.

My opinion is shifting very rapidly to an Anti US stance mainly because of this selfish attitude that's coming from America almost on a daily basis now. It seems things are ok once they favour America and on no condition can the same oppurtunites be afforded in the opposite direction. Also their complete ignorance to the fact that other states can have opinions that are contrary to theirs seem to be a problem for these bullies!

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
My opinion is shifting very rapidly to an Anti US stance mainly because of this selfish attitude that's coming from America almost on a daily basis now.

I'm as critical of US foreign policy as the next guy, but isnt this taking it a bit far?

Its not a selfish attitude. Its an attmept to consolidate and expand the US' sphere of influence. If you think this is somehow wrong, then consider why they are doing it - to try and limit the EU expanding its' sphere of influence.

If we criticise the US for doing this, we should equally criticise the EU if they refuse, as they are being just as selfish, and seeking only to increase their sphere of influence.

I would be critical of this move if, and only if, the US decides to exert pressure somehow on the EU (trade-based, or in other forms of diplomacy) to accept this, or punish them for declining the offer.

If you look at it from a different perspective, this presents the EU with a golden opportunity to look for reciprocal treatment for anything they are willing to accept. This puts the US in a delicate position - having offered a hand of friendship, will it publicly renounce it just because the EU asks for the same gesture - showing that it wasnt really about co-operation. If, on the other hand, they accepted such reciprocity, I fail to see how it is really in anyone's disadvantage.

jc

Sparks

I would be critical of this move if, and only if, the US decides to exert pressure somehow on the EU (trade-based, or in other forms of diplomacy) to accept this, or punish them for declining the offer.

Would the moving of US bases from Germany and the upcoming trade war over the EU not wanting to import US GM foods count?

xm15e3

Originally posted by uberwolf
its crazy, my anti-american sentiment is at an all time high, how they can presume to lecture or impartially view anything with the level of corruptness over there is beyond belief. Messrs Moore, Chomsky and Palast would be the only americans i'd let enter these borders much less "actively" observe our decision making processes over here in Old-Europe

Actually, she's not even from the same America as the Bush administration (or Planet for that matter). She's democrat, a pure international socialist. In fact I would put here in the same ideological grouping as Chomsky. If you liked Chomsky, you should love this old woman. She just isn't as intelligent as Nome.

Funny how so many "Old Europeans" loved Clinton, but now detest our "corruption". My guess is that most of you are very rational folks who have been fed a load of crap by the BBC and CNN. We get the same crap over here, but have a better point of refrence to catch their bias.

uberwolf

its prob the blatancy of their motivation that irks me so much, what does "active observer" mean? Surely EU exapnsion by democratic means is a purely internal issue which may affect others but gives them no right to meddle if they don't like the fact that Europe may now be developing the will to be economically and militarily dependent.

When i mentioned corruption i wasn't speaking about the politcal/business relationship more the disregard for democracy that moore and now palast are discussing. Active disenfranchisement in Florida and more recently Baltimore is disgusting and displays a disregard for democracy that ought bring a government down, why hasn't it? how can peolpe who come to power by such means presume to hve input in other groups internal affairs?

Sparks

My guess is that most of you are very rational folks who have been fed a load of crap by the BBC and CNN. We get the same crap over here, but have a better point of refrence to catch their bias.

Wow, there's a serious amount of irony or sarcasm or something in there...

Éomer of Rohan

Funny how so many "Old Europeans" loved Clinton, but now detest our "corruption". My guess is that most of you are very rational folks who have been fed a load of crap by the BBC and CNN. We get the same crap over here, but have a better point of refrence to catch their bias

I nearly wet myself at that one !!!
It is funny, in my opinion, how Bush supporters and the other hawks of Capitol Hill, who obviously do not appreciate the results of American foreign policy in the world, seem to say that it is US (ie Europeans) who have the distorted view when it is they who preach for further interventionism.
The USA is blatantly corrupt; the government does not represent the people - corporations sponsor the would-be President and in the end, the amount they can 'donate' to political causes - senatorial and congressional elections, gubernatorial elections, presidential elections etc etc dictates how much clout they have. As has been said by several POTUS's and many reformists within the USA, the government is a plutocracy, not 'government for the people' and sure as hell not 'of the people' given that the class barriers may have changed but the wealth distinction remains and from the foundation of the USA, an average of 72% of high elected posts in the USG are held by men with personal fortunes.

I am neither an old European (whatever the hell THAT means) nor did I like Clinton, given that he represented exactly the same sort of idiocy that all American politicians of modern times seem to personify (except for his charisma, something that I miss greatly since Bush came to power) but I do respect the BBC better than any US news corporations I have ever watched - and that is not bias. So I am asking you,

1) What point of reference do you have to 'catch their bias?'
2) What 'crap' have we been 'fed' that one cannot justify?
3) Do you deny that the US is corrupt, and before you give the old escape, I define it as 'as corrupt as if not more than' whatever 'old European' democracy you care to name.

xm15e3

Originally posted by uberwolf
its prob the blatancy of their motivation that irks me so much, what does "active observer" mean? Surely EU exapnsion by democratic means is a purely internal issue which may affect others but gives them no right to meddle if they don't like the fact that Europe may now be developing the will to be economically and militarily dependent.

What should bother us all is who invited this woman to the party. She has NO diplomatic status, she does not represent the US in an official capacity. She was an embarrassment when she did. She has no place in international affairs outside of the college lecture circuit.

However, someone in European government invited her, and therefore has an alliance with her. And that is some spooky sh!t.

When i mentioned corruption i wasn't speaking about the politcal/business relationship more the disregard for democracy that moore and now palast are discussing. Active disenfranchisement in Florida and more recently Baltimore is disgusting and displays a disregard for democracy that ought bring a government down, why hasn't it? how can peolpe who come to power by such means presume to hve input in other groups internal affairs? [/B]

Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh. This hanging chad crap is just that, crap. The reason why you cant re-count add infinitum, and therefore the recounts times out..is to limit ballet stuffing. Any study in American elections should involve the Daley Family and Chicago Machine Politics. Daley, a democrat, was overseeing the recounts. His family has pretty much mastered election fraud in this country. His father campaigned on the slogan "vote early, and vote often", they were blatant about it. IMO the Dems were stuff ballots again, and the recounts ended per state law which was upheld by the Fed Courts. Rule of Law won out that time.

Where it didn't was the Kennedy election in '63? And at least two Senator races in South Dakota, the one last year and the year Daschle got elected. Really, if you want to watch ballet stuffing in action, watch the 2004 S.D. Senate Races...it will be ugly, and a travesty for democracy.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
Wow, there's a serious amount of irony or sarcasm or something in there...

CNN is pro American Left. That is anti-Amercian from my Right Wing perspective. The last few years they have had to adopt a more center-right editorial slant to save ratings, but they are still Ted Turnners baby.

This is the same Ted that gave the UN $1.B, and was married to Hanoi Jane. Really, not only did this woman share a NVA tunnel with Eomer, but she actually named one of her kids after the freak who attempted to bump off Gerald Ford. And Ted married her, when she was old...on not all that hot. Nah, those two were an ideological item, and CNN walks the same line.

Sparks

What should bother us all is who invited this woman to the party.

It wasn't just Albright.
From the article:

The Declaration was endorsed by Madeleine K. Albright, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C. Carlucci, Warren Christopher, William S. Cohen, Robert Dole, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Stuart E. Eizenstat, Alexander M. Haig Jr., Lee H. Hamilton, John J. Hamre, Carla A. Hills, Sam Nunn, Paul H. O'Neill, Charles S. Robb, William V. Roth Jr., and James R. Schlesinger.

However, someone in European government invited her, and therefore has an alliance with her. And that is some spooky sh!t.

Incorrect again.
Also from the article:

The Centre for Strategic & International Studies Europe program is supported by the German Marshall Fund.

The German Marshall Fund is not a European government, at least not last time I looked.

Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh.

That's not what the investigations are saying.

This hanging chad crap is just that, crap.

Damn right. The problem was the irregularities in those voters who were allowed to vote and those that were prevented from doing so by some rather suspicious actions.

which was upheld by the Fed Courts.

And oddly enough, those that voted to elect Bush Jr. were put on the bench by Bush Sr.

Hobbes

Originally posted by xm15e3
Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh. This hanging chad crap is just that, crap. The reason why you cant re-count add infinitum, and therefore the recounts times out..is to limit ballet stuffing.

Recounting aside, how about the actual documented incidents of police stopping people from voting in Florida? Or how about all those voters who were mysteriously... no wait accidently put onto a "Can't vote because they are a felon" list (when they weren't) and who looked after that list and was funded by the Bush administration (before you ask, they settled out of court afair).

It all boils down to that Bush got voted in based on 12 guys. Not the people. If it had happened in any other country everyone would be claiming it was a dictator taking over. Especially if that same president then brought in laws that protected him from legal action (ref: Repealed a law that was put in after watergate) and added laws which basically stripped the rights of the population and allow you to jail people without rights for as long as you want.

By Bonkey
If we criticise the US for doing this, we should equally criticise the EU if they refuse, as they are being just as selfish, and seeking only to increase their sphere of influence.

Criticise them for what? It's an EU summit. Only EU people. Does the US have "Active Observers" on say the Arab League? Or does the EU have "Active Observers" in the whitehouse (equating States to countries in size). I don't think so.

Anyway most EU summits have their reports posted afterwards. They can read that, or tap the summit like they normally do.

US is only pissed because it looks like (from what I could find about it) what is being discussed is the breaking off/scaling down of military union with the US. TBH I can understand why a few countries are pissed off. You disagree next thing you know the Whitehouse is spreading libel about you.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan


1) What point of reference do you have to 'catch their bias?'
2) What 'crap' have we been 'fed' that one cannot justify?
3) Do you deny that the US is corrupt, and before you give the old escape, I define it as 'as corrupt as if not more than' whatever 'old European' democracy you care to name.

1. When CNN reports BS on a societal group, technology, or industry I'm familiar with, it is easy to see the inaccuracies. If CNNi reported a blatant lie about the Dublin nightlife, I would have a clue if it true, half truth, or pure unadulterated crap. Sometimes viewing a group from the outside gives you perspective, sometimes it just makes you gullible.

2. I would infer the coverage of the 2000 elections did not leave the Irish people, with a working knowledge of the Electoral College, it's purpose, or the purpose of state election laws setting a freeze date on all recounts.

2a. Eomer, didn't you make a statement on this board to the effect that in all transactions someone get's "Screwed". Implying a zero-sum game in ecomics? That would lead in well to a further discussion of #2.

3. I absolutely do not deny the US is corrupt. I'd say the corruption is rampant in both parties, however, I do not buy into any moral equivalence between the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
It wasn't just Albright.

That's not what the investigations are saying.


Damn right. The problem was the irregularities in those voters who were allowed to vote and those that were prevented from doing so by some rather suspicious actions.

And oddly enough, those that voted to elect Bush Jr. were put on the bench by Bush Sr.

Yah, it looks like a political has-been version of Jurasak park.

Uh, what investigations are you talking about? Most of those whent away quitely when they concluded the FC ruling was legal. Had the Florida SC done their jobs this would never have seen the light of day in a federal hearing. The SC violated their state constitution in an attempt to continue the re-counts/ballot stuffing. Oddly enogh they were all Democrats or Janet Reno's ilk.

Éomer of Rohan

I absolutely do not deny the US is corrupt. I'd say the corruption is rampant in both parties, however, I do not buy into any moral equivalence between the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration

I'd say they are as bad as each other - and given that I think you are a republican, whereas I hate both parties equally, I reckon I am probably less biased.

Eomer, didn't you make a statement on this board to the effect that in all transactions someone get's "Screwed". Implying a zero-sum game in ecomics? That would lead in well to a further discussion of #2

Back this up or rescind it.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I'd say they are as bad as each other - and given that I think you are a republican, whereas I hate both parties equally, I reckon I am probably less biased.




Back this up or rescind it.

I'm registerd and vote Republican, so yes, I have a definate biased political opinion. Eomer, Your a socialist, how can you call yourself less biased.

We have conflicting political opinions. That's why we have a dabate.

Now as far as I remeber you made a point about economic transactions being zero sum (my words not yours). It's not an attack, but I am tying in a prior debate to this one. I'll find your exact quote over the weekend.

It's an interesting point, and cuts to the heart of much of the Capitalist/Socialist and America vs. Everyone debates on this board.

But ease up man, I don't understand your hostitlity to that questions.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Back this up or rescind it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=797035#post797035

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan:

Originally posted by Meh:
Why do you assume that every economic transaction involves someone being "ripped off"? That's the exception rather than the rule.

No meh, it is the rule rather than the exception. Ultimately someone in every transaction loses.

*waits for Éomer to try and weasel out of this statement*

Éomer of Rohan

*waits for Éomer to try and weasel out of this statement*

You what? This is not about weaseling despite what you may think. My second point to which he related this was that

Posted by Éomer of Rohan

2) What 'crap' have we been 'fed' that one cannot justify

to which he said...

Eomer, didn't you make a statement on this board to the effect that in all transactions someone get's "Screwed". Implying a zero-sum game in ecomics? That would lead in well to a further discussion of #2

which to my mind implies that what I said - which he quoted - is 'crap' that some audience was being 'fed' - which it obviously isn't given that ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain; and as I recall, I later made the point that this is generally the LEDC's. Anyway, the reason for my hostility as he put it was that I felt quite insulted by this reference when it was he who was calling the information from a respectable news agency, crap and then comparing my views to this reference.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain

This statement is utterly wrong, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of economics would know. Please, educate yourself about basic economics before you make statements like this. You're a student, so you have no excuse for ignorance -- go check some first-year economics textbook out from the college library.

This page is also a good introduction to price theory and trade.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You what? This is not about weaseling despite what you may think. My second point to which he related this was that

Posted by Éomer of Rohan


to which he said...


which to my mind implies that what I said - which he quoted - is 'crap' that some audience was being 'fed' - which it obviously isn't given that ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain; and as I recall, I later made the point that this is generally the LEDC's. Anyway, the reason for my hostility as he put it was that I felt quite insulted by this reference when it was he who was calling the information from a respectable news agency, crap and then comparing my views to this reference.

I still don't understand why you wanted me to withdraw a paraphrase that you agree with. Don't matter though.

As Meh pointed out, "ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain" is wrong. The entire concept of the zero sum game, the idea that ones gain must be at another's detriment is exactly the type of crap that fuels envy politics world wide, including in the US. However, it is much less prevelent in the US then elsewhere (IMO). I suspect the Euro media, which the BBC is a large part of, has played a key roll in spredding this misconception. The BBC could be completey innocent, I just get the filtered NPR version here.

xm15e3

The Glory of the Red and Gold?

That's the funny thing about socialists, they claim it's never been tried, but every time it has been tried it turns into a totalitarian hell. Insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result (everyone does it one time or another).

Human nature is unchangeable, that is the only reason Socialism won't work, it will always degrade into little N. Koreas. It puts to much power in the hands of to few. Finding leaders good enough for a socialist state is like finding honor in a pimp.

If humans can't be trusted running multiple corporations, why would you want to change the world into one big corporation?

Sparks

You know I've been accused of sniping at things without providing alternative solutions myself, but so far never without me being able to show the other guy isn't correct.

So xm15e3, your turn. What system do you propose that will solve the problems that capitalism produces?

ps.

Human nature is unchangeable

That's utter tripe, and even a few minutes contemplation of it will show you why.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks


So xm15e3, your turn. What system do you propose that will solve the problems that capitalism produces?

ps.

That's utter tripe, and even a few minutes contemplation of it will show you why.

I wouldn't propose an alternative system. I like capitalism. I would like to see some changes in they way large corporations are run, I think they tend to get a little "penny wise, pound foolish". This is a result of poor capitalism, rather than a problem with capitalism it's self.

I'd like to see an end to Kensian economics. Debate is great, but some ideas don't work. Von Mises was right, time to acknowlege it and move on.

What problems do you attribute to capitalism?


No, human nature is pretty much unchanging. We can alter our behavour, but not our nature. People are, by nature, better at tending to there own needs then to strangers. (that doesn't mean charity is a bad idea).

Sparks

Human nature is unchangeable

That's utter tripe, and even a few minutes contemplation of it will show you why.

No, human nature is pretty much unchanging. We can alter our behavour, but not our nature. People are, by nature, better at tending to there own needs then to strangers. (that doesn't mean charity is a bad idea).

Well, I guess nine minutes of contemplation is more than I expected... :rolleyes:

Here's why it's tripe.

1) You have to be able to define human nature and observe it directly for a period of time while trying to change it to say that it is unchangeable.
2) To be able to say "people don't change", you have to first assume that all people are the same, and then observe their behaviour throughout their lives.
3) You also have to discount any and all historical incidences of people exhibiting a fundamental change in behaviour.

If you're thinking, by the way, of the psychological theory that says our basic character is set by age 30 and doesn't change, you may want to note that there is new evidence disproving that.

What problems do you attribute to capitalism?

Poverty is the first one that comes to mind.
Capitalism is great fun if you're on top. But frankly, it sucks when you're not, and it's set up to try to prevent you getting to the top.
It's also never actually been tried in it's full form because it wouldn't be a livable system.

xm15e3

Sparks, it's Friday Night. You're Irish, you live in the land of great pubs and legendary beer. Freaking A man! Go get a cold one and chase women!

I'll type you in the morning!

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by xm15e3
What should bother us all is who invited this woman to the party. She has NO diplomatic status, she does not represent the US in an official capacity. She was an embarrassment when she did. She has no place in international affairs outside of the college lecture circuit.

Er, that's crap. Jimmy Carter, Bush Sr., former presidents and cabinet members have every right to get involved in domestic or world affairs as they see fit. I mean heck- look at some of the names there: Will Cohen, Lawrie Eagleburger, even a couple of PNAC wackos.

However, someone in European government invited her, and therefore has an alliance with her. And that is some spooky sh!t.

Spookier than Jed Bush being governor of FL during the election? Or spookier perhaps, than Donald Rumsfeld, the guy who sold Iraq billions of dollars of weapons telling Syria not to do the same 10 years later? How about Haliburton industries(former CEO Dick Cheney) and Chevron (Condi's former meal-ticket, they even named a tanker after her)- how about those two companies being solely awarded contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil infrastructure. Those to me are a hell of a lot spookier than a former Secretary of State pursuing US interests in Europe. The days of the Cold War are over, it's time its relics like Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz wake up and smell the coffee.

Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh.

And that law is a load of 19th century crap. As is the electoral college itself...for all our government's whiny criticism of the French, freedom fries & all that other bullsh1t- they actually have a more democratic system than we do. One man, one vote for a President. Novel idea huh. Here is one simple reason why the electoral college is retarded beyond belief: the guy with less of the people's votes can win. That's not democracy, it's a farce.

This hanging chad crap is just that, crap. The reason why you cant re-count add infinitum, and therefore the recounts times out..is to limit ballet stuffing. Any study in American elections should involve the Daley Family and Chicago Machine Politics. Daley, a democrat, was overseeing the recounts.

Partisan politics has no place in a presidential recount. Moreover, it illustrates why election reform is so badly needed. A presidential mandate should be a firm one, not decided by a recount in one state. If anything, the popular vote should take precedence over the college in the event of a tie.

Where it didn't was the Kennedy election in '63? And at least two Senator races in South Dakota, the one last year and the year Daschle got elected. Really, if you want to watch ballet stuffing in action, watch the 2004 S.D. Senate Races...it will be ugly, and a travesty for democracy.

You're not answering the allegations of voter tampering, you're merely slinging mud at the Democrats - "Aha! They do it too guys, we're not so bad!" I'm neither Democrat nor Republican incidentally, but I'm sure as hell not in favour of letting Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of that corporate corrupt PNAC neoconservative chattel of monkeys ruin my country and its reputation. Our economy is approaching dire straits, that tax credit will bankrupt our treasury, our foreign debt is approaching levels not seen since WWII. We sacrifice American lives and billions of dollars of "defense money" in the name of an overseas war fought over WMDs, weapons that haven't even been found, and we're buying all of it. We should be ashamed of ourselves xm15, f*cking ashamed.

Éomer of Rohan

Well said Bob.

XM15e,

The Glory of the Red and Gold?

That's the funny thing about socialists, they claim it's never been tried, but every time it has been tried it turns into a totalitarian hell. Insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result (everyone does it one time or another).

Human nature is unchangeable, that is the only reason Socialism won't work, it will always degrade into little N. Koreas. It puts to much power in the hands of to few. Finding leaders good enough for a socialist state is like finding honor in a pimp.

If humans can't be trusted running multiple corporations, why would you want to change the world into one big corporation?

It is comments like this make me wonder why myself and the other Socialists who can see that capitalism is wrong bother talking to the other side at all.
You say the only reason that Socialism won't work is that human nature is unchangeable; well then, having read the discussion you had with Sparks, I am unsatisfied. Consider the people who sign up to charities and Médécin Sans Frontieres and so forth and go to Angola and the Congolese Democratic Republic and many other countries. Are they doing that for a profit? That is human nature; the ones who lead giant corporations that pass laws in the USA allowing greater gas guzzling engines, that open the exploitation of Alaska (one are of the world I would say rivals Ireland in beauty - and I have no higher compliment; I took a cruise up that way), that take the ideas of indigenous people's from across the world and patent them in developed countries - making it illegal for the original users to use them under the WTO TRIP Agreement which does not include indigenous peoples, that bankroll governments who ethnically cleanse their people and buy weapons to suppress civil liberties, who employ companies who use child labour, that bribe politicians worldwide in order to secure the destruction of harmful pieces of legislation (an excellent example is the roads industry in the UK; every year they have a party for the Minister of Transport and certain under the table deals go on so that no real government initiatives into public transport get under way) and so on and so on and so on - all those are the minority; a very powerful minority but still a minority. And those too are the problems with capitalism. That it can be run by the minority when even with regard to our government we have accepted that a minority cannot rule - it must be the whole people. That is the foundation behind democracy.

You compare a communist/socialist government to a corporation; go and learn about the posited ideas for future communist/socialist models of government; the point it that all the power is not in the hands of a CEO and a couple of men in the Board - ie the President and his Cabinet. The power is in the hands of the people, and I feel some people, having been used to such a politically stagnant environment where popular protest encourages derision rather than interest, will simply fail to see how this can manifest; that particular aspect has been very successful before - it was called Athens. Admittedly that system had flaws characteristic of all ancient governments ie lack of universal suffrage blah-di-blah but direct democracy can work - and has a few supporters on these boards as I recall. Bonkey asked once why capitalism and democracy could not co-exist and that is an argument for another day BUT I will say that an initial repudiation of such a co-existence is bribery which is rampant in many MEDC's today.

I'd like to see an end to Kensian economics

I am guessing you mean Keynesian Economics, and working from that basis, I am a little surprised. It was ol' John Maynard who saved FDR's ass when it came to the great depression was it not? Keynes predicted that governments would often have to spend their way out of a recession/depression, correct? And this is what governments do - create jobs, small booms start to revive the economy style thing? Now you will forgive my limited knowledge on this topic, on which Meh and yourself are obviously experts I am sure

Meh

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
And that law is a load of 19th century crap. As is the electoral college itself...for all our government's whiny criticism of the French, freedom fries & all that other bullsh1t- they actually have a more democratic system than we do. One man, one vote for a President. Novel idea huh. Here is one simple reason why the electoral college is retarded beyond belief: the guy with less of the people's votes can win. That's not democracy, it's a farce.

Actually, the original point of the electoral college was that it wasn't democratic. The writers of the US Constitution were afraid that direct democracy would lead to mob rule, where elections were decided by soundbites and spin-doctors. Good thing we managed to avoid that, huh? </sarcasm>

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
the ones who lead giant corporations that pass laws in the USA allowing greater gas guzzling engines, that open the exploitation of Alaska (one are of the world I would say rivals Ireland in beauty - and I have no higher compliment; I took a cruise up that way), that take the ideas of indigenous people's from across the world and patent them in developed countries - making it illegal for the original users to use them under the WTO TRIP Agreement which does not include indigenous peoples, that bankroll governments who ethnically cleanse their people and buy weapons to suppress civil liberties, who employ companies who use child labour, that bribe politicians worldwide in order to secure the destruction of harmful pieces of legislation (an excellent example is the roads industry in the UK; every year they have a party for the Minister of Transport and certain under the table deals go on so that no real government initiatives into public transport get under way) and so on and so on and so on - all those are the minority; a very powerful minority but still a minority. And those too are the problems with capitalism

Bribery, ethnic cleansing, child labour, unrestricted arms sales and environmental pollution are not an inevitable part of capitalism. Plenty of socialist countries have had these problems as well -- in many cases worse than capitalist countries. And plenty of capitalist countries don't have these problems.

I am guessing you mean Keynesian Economics, and working from that basis, I am a little surprised. It was ol' John Maynard who saved FDR's ass when it came to the great depression was it not? Keynes predicted that governments would often have to spend their way oututf a recession/depression, correct? And this is what governments do - create jobs, small booms start to revive the economy style thing? Now you will forgive my limited knowledge on this topic, on which Meh and yourself are obviously experts I am sure

Actually, Keynesian economics have been discredited since they failed to explain "stagflation" in the 1970's. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Éomer of Rohan

Bribery, ethnic cleansing, child labour, unrestricted arms sales and environmental pollution are not an inevitable part of capitalism. Plenty of socialist countries have had these problems as well -- in many cases worse than capitalist countries. And plenty of capitalist countries don't have these problems.

Name one in which bribery does not exist. Name one capitalist country that has banned TNC's from using factories which employ child labour and give evidence that they enforce this rule, name one capitalist country that has banned trade emanating from Burma, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia (I mean good grief, the USA deliberately helped the massacres that went on here in the name of trade), India, Turkey, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe - the list here is endless. And one of those you would probably regard as a socialist country. Well stop it because you know damn well it isn't. The most defining point about any country, the one that every attempt has failed at is the equal division of everything that nation produces among the citizens of said nation. China doesn't do it, Russia didn't, North Korea didn't, Cuba didn't, no backwater-half-assed-excuse-for-an-African-dictatorship-that-called-itself-communist-to-get-Soviet-Aid did it, Vietnam, the Eastern European nations....etc etc etc etc. [/I]They were not communist! Even consider the timeline; everyone of those nations bar the USSR itself was based on the ideas of Stalin who himself was a nationalist (to his adopted country)! And the USSR was corrupted, with bureaucracy and nepotism and an elite, but as Marx said 50 years before the Russian Revolution, the beginnings of communism must be in the developed nations - today that is France, the USA, the UK and Germany. Of the countries back in Marx's day, Russia was the least developed - the most rural. So stop trying to insinuate that Socialism has failed when in fact a hundred years before you were born, a man predicted that every hitherto revolution would fail. I regard every single one of these countries as pseudo capitalist, albeit some of them looked after the health and social welfare of their citizens better than the openly capitalist nations did but the point remains, yes they exploited the environment, sold arms to morally corrupt regimes and so forth - but they were capitalists too. And name me a serious arms producing capitalist country that hasn't sold weapons to a dictatorial or illegal or oppressive regime.

All capitalist countries are infected with the same virus and all countries are capitalist - and the end and definite result of capitalism is exactly as I have described.

Éomer of Rohan

And I would also like to point out what the rejection of Keynesian economics brought us to; monetarism aka Free Market Economics and the open and rampant exploitation of almost every nation outside of the developed world and even a few in it. Not to mention the smashing of the trade unions, the enshrinement of the destruction of tariffs protecting local employment and some of the most effective methods of blackmail in economic terms; used by three groups; Japan, the EU and more than the other two, the USA.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
name one capitalist country that has banned trade emanating from .....

Because as we have seen with the nation's where trade embargos have been put in place, the best way to deal with these despotic regimes is to force them to deprive their population back into the stone-age while we sit by safe in the knowledge that wer're not supporting their regime at all......just starving their people to death.

t is comments like this make me wonder why myself and the other Socialists who can see that capitalism is wrong bother talking to the other side at all.

Dead right. There's no point in having discussions with people who make sweeping generalisations about the unsolveable flaws in systems of governance that they disagree with.

Comments like this one for example :

All capitalist countries are infected with the same virus

Maybe if you climbed down off your cross of righteous indignation about capitalism, your criticism of others treating socialism in an identical manner would have some weight and credibility.

As for all your "they're not pure communist" tirades.....
show me one nation that has implemented pure capitalism, and I'll concede that you have a valid point.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

As for all your "they're not pure communist" tirades.....
show me one nation that has implemented pure capitalism, and I'll concede that you have a valid point.

Depends on what type of capitalism you classify as pure I suppose; all nations at present strive towards the ultimate in laissez faire trade - what then I would call pure capitalism - which marks them as different from the so called socialist nations who did not strive towards Marx's dream; while you argue that neither side has been experienced in it's pure form, I would argue that one side is fighting to achieve that pure form and the other didn't bother; because the pure form of communism was not even what they (being the many of the people who engaged or later joined the extremely un-Marxist 'revolutionary elite') were aiming at. I would therefore make the point that one side was still capitalist and that all capitalism is bad - and when considering what FME tries to achieve; a world exposed to trade whether it wants it or not, I'd say that that pure form will be more hurtful than the present form.

Because as we have seen with the nation's where trade embargos have been put in place, the best way to deal with these despotic regimes is to force them to deprive their population back into the stone-age while we sit by safe in the knowledge that wer're not supporting their regime at all......just starving their people to death.

So allow me to clarify; it is alright for companies to trade with despotic and anti-humanitarian regimes in order to make a profit, nay, they have a humanitarian duty to do so because if they don't then this despotic regime will allow it's people to perish?

right. There's no point in having discussions with people who make sweeping generalisations about the unsolveable flaws in systems of governance that they disagree with

Was it not you Bonkey that went to great pains in order to show that capitalism is not a form of governance? As for the sweeping generalisations, show me the point at which I make a mistake.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Depends on what type of capitalism you classify as pure I suppose;

Where have you clarified what type of communism you classify as "pure"? All I've seen you do is complain that we cannot use nations X, Y, and Z to ctiricise communism because they are not pure communism.

So I'm asking you to name one nation which embodies pure capitalism. If someone can point to a single facet of that nation which is not based on the pure ideals of capitalism, then your criticism of such a nation must fail using the exact same defence that you are using to defend communism or socialism from criticism - that its implementation was not "pure".

So...name one nation which we can't show is not a pure implementation of captialism, and your defence of communism and condemnation of capitalism carries some validity.

I would argue that one side is fighting to achieve that pure form and the other didn't bother;

Whereas I would argue that one side has realised that the pure form cannot and will not ever exist, because implementing any such system would be so open to abuse that it would fail, and instead have come up with a series of compromises to allow the fundamental principles of the ideal to survive, whilst having checks and balances to try and stave off the worst of the abuses.

The other side would appear to be lacking this degree of realism and instead advocating a pure system without really explaining how it will manage to resist the same "corruptions" or "failings" of mankind which have necessitated compromise from teh ideal in every system of governance ever implemented to date.

So allow me to clarify; it is alright for companies to trade with despotic and anti-humanitarian regimes in order to make a profit, nay, they have a humanitarian duty to do so because if they don't then this despotic regime will allow it's people to perish?

Thats not a clarification. You havent addressed the point I made. How do you propose that the violence and despotism be stopped? By walking away and isolating the nation so that the leaders can just do what they want? Bear in mind you opposed the US invasion of Iraq, so going in and sorting out the despots isnt a solution either.

By trading with people, you offer the possibility of being able to induce change through encouragement. Isolationism does not do this, it simply leaves them to their own devices.

I'm not saying that the current system is correct...I'm saying that your proposed "solution" is no better - it has been tried, and it has failed. Unless of course what we have implemented is not "pure" isolationism or something.

Was it not you Bonkey that went to great pains in order to show that capitalism is not a form of governance?

If by great pains you mean one sentence making the assertion, then yes. However, I dont recall seeing me using the word "governance" in association with capitalism here. I said it was implemented...not implemented as a sytem of governance.

As for the sweeping generalisations, show me the point at which I make a mistake.

Well, I'd be interested in seeing the Captialism Virus as identified by medical science.

I also don't recall saying you made a mistake. I said you are making the same type of sweeping generalisations that you are holding others up to ridicule for making.

Maybe you could show me where thats not what I said, rather than trying to divert the point because you dont want to answer it, but somehow I doubt it.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Well, I'd be interested in seeing the Captialism Virus as identified by medical science.

I also don't recall saying you made a mistake. I said you are making the same type of sweeping generalisations that you are holding others up to ridicule for making

The 'virus' of capitalism is not an idea I simply invented; obviously it is not a medical condition. However, many writers, politicians and other experts in the field - not to mention several former executives of the WTO - have compared to a virus. As for generalisations, something is only a generalisation if the body referred to is too big for the aspect named in the so called generalisation to have any possibility of being correct.

Where have you clarified what type of communism you classify as "pure"? All I've seen you do is complain that we cannot use nations X, Y, and Z to ctiricise communism because they are not pure communism......(etc)

Well then, not being perfect, my terminology might be flawed - though I am sure I have said this - the nations that claimed to be socialist were capitalist. Not pure communism, not impure communism, not diet communism not communism lite. Therefore asking me to name a pure capitalist country is somewhat onesided - there are no semi-communist nations to compare a semi-capitalist nation to in order to defend my defence of communism. Good grief I just said defend my defence. Hmmm.

I would typify capitalism as a system where the people work - ie wage labour - but do not own what they produce. Which is a classic Marxist definition for capitalism of the 19th Century and is slightly outdated, so, modern day capitalism is one of no trade tariffs, is irrespective of nations states and borders (socialist geopolitical experts define it as a capitalist attempt to expand outside what capitalism was designed for - ie the nation state which they theorise must ultimately fail since at some point or another, this will hurt the rich elite in a given nation which will take steps to protect itself, reaffirming trade tariffs and so on) so would you allow me to say that the WTO is the closest thing to a pure capitalist ideal - given that Neo-Liberal Capitalism is trying to outgrow the nation-state?

So...name one nation which we can't show is not a pure implementation of captialism, and your defence of communism and condemnation of capitalism carries some validity.[/B

Having attempted to work with a vague definition of pure capitalism while at the same time having given a bottom line definition of communist government, I would like you to define what you consider pure capitalism - and if it differs from mine, then forgive my mistake if you consider I have erred and I will try and base my next answer on your terms.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Depends on what type of capitalism you classify as pure I suppose; all nations at present strive towards the ultimate in laissez faire trade

Not exactly correct, all nations strive towards an economic system that needs a minimum of state involvement. That's the goal of every government, whether "capitalist" or "socialist" in nature. After all, if a large percentage of the population is dependent on state mechanisms to keep them employed or financed, the economy cannot be successful.

- what then I would call pure capitalism

JC is right, there never can and never will be such a thing. The free market cannot provide any of the so-called "5 functions of government(tm)". The free market cannot provide a judicial system, nor keep order, nor can it reasonably provide for social decision-making.

Fact is, "pure laissez-faire" is no more a practical possibility than a pure command economy. Neither has ever existed in actual fact, so arguing their benefits or detriments as pure ideals has little value in a debate I'd wager.

which marks them as different from the so called socialist nations who did not strive towards Marx's dream;

You do realize that Marx's "dream" in its purest form was anarchy? Don't get me wrong, some of the most important and central values of labour law owe their existence to Karl Marx, as do proper unions and trade organizations. But the system he advocated was utopian madness in its pure form. There would be no concept of personal ownership in Marx's society- people would drive to the store in one car and come back in another- they'd not purchase anything, just take exactly what they need.

Now some of his ideas might have been crucial to how we view employment today- a system of mutual empowerment rather than the slavery it used to be for example. But to say that no one ever tried Marx's ideas out to the full- I can't say I blame them. Any more than I could blame someone trying to stamp existentialist values on any society to "see if it works". I believe in an inclusive society, where education, healthcare and human rights are seen to by the state, but in all other matters of the economy, they leave us the hell alone. The state should only be an employer or an investor when it has to be, never throw its weight around in the marketplace or try to control the marketplace. Becauset that's the philosophy of dictatorship. You can't have elected representatives in politics and then deny freedom of choice to consumers- that's a system at conflict with itself.

I would therefore make the point that one side was still capitalist and that all capitalism is bad - and when considering what FME tries to achieve; a world exposed to trade whether it wants it or not, I'd say that that pure form will be more hurtful than the present form.

Forgive me for saying so, but it is a little naive to say *all* capitalism is bad isn't it? Remember, in the "pure laissez faire" model, there is no provision for international trade. That's right, none. So globalization and capitalism as ideals have almost zilch to do with one another. In fact, it's perfectly possible to argue that the aggressive export of communist militias to say, Southeast Asia by the Soviet Union was just as globalizing an influence than Coca-Cola, if not more so. After all, Coca-Cola didn't contribute to the death of 4 million people. "Noble sacrifices" they may well have been, but it brings home how globalizing influences need be neither capitalist, socialist or any 'ist'

So allow me to clarify; it is alright for companies to trade with despotic and anti-humanitarian regimes in order to make a profit, nay, they have a humanitarian duty to do so because if they don't then this despotic regime will allow it's people to perish?

Cuba is many socialists' model for a working state partnership economy, but that and any other "socialist" nation you could point to have been just as guilty of this as any other. I wouldn't call the Khmer Rouge particularly nice or caring folk- yet their main source of arms was always Peoples' republics or socialist republics. Power corrupts in any system, it's possible to argue that it may corrupt more in some systems in some areas than in other systems in the same areas. But that's a fairly futile exercise, because both systems in their pure form are fundamentally unworkable.

Was it not you Bonkey that went to great pains in order to show that capitalism is not a form of governance? As for the sweeping generalisations, show me the point at which I make a mistake.

When you say all capitalism is bad, that's a sweeping generalization and a mistake. Now I believe in the idea of an inclusive society, but that idea and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, no other economic system has brought greater equality of wealth in history. No command economy has ever narrowed the gap between rich and poor save by reducing the wealth of the wealthy without significant increases to the pocketbooks of the poor. And here's a rather unpleasant truth for pure communists- command economies are not exclusive province of the left. Hitler's National Socialist party ran a command economy, as did Mussolini- most nationalist parties in any nation believe in a heavily protected command economy as the centerpiece of their fiscal policy.

In fact, in command economies the wealthy tend to be a ridiculously small elite. No, capitalism is not a bad idea in itself, but no one ever said it is a form of governance, not even the purest capitalist. It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that capitalism has a conscience- that is the lesson left to us by socialist revolutions, and it is one we would do well to learn. Discarding capitalism is cutting off our nose to spite our faces, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The system has overwhelming benefits, but a few flaws when it comes to international trade. Is the solution to bury our heads in the sand and raise tariffs? Well if you want a return to the myriad of trade blocs that lead to WWI, be my guest. But if you want an inclusive interdependent world in which economic co-existence bites into political considerations- if you want a stronger UN, a stronger international community- well then you have to find growing solutions for growing problems within globalization. Oh they're there no doubt, but we should sit down and solve them instead of running & hiding from them.

The onus is not on the economic system (capitalism, communism, monetarism, etc etc etc). The onus is on nation-states, their leaders and where applicable their people. It is unrealistic for example, to expect a poor nation to develop, or to protest against globalization that harms a nation- when that nation's people have almost no say in their own government or its policies. Rather than smashing up a McDonalds or two, how about actually lobbying through powerful NGOs and actually seeking to put the fate of their country back into their hands.

I know it's easier to carry a placard and shout boisterously about globalization- but in trying to resolve the big picture, let's not forget about the harsh reality.

Ok that's my rant for today, flame away etc.

Sparks

Wow. I've seen threads wander off the point, but this one appears to have fled from it...

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
name one capitalist country that has banned trade emanating from Burma

I can name 16:

http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/BE25Ae01.html
EU toughens sanctions against Burma

BRUSSELS - European Union (EU) foreign affairs ministers and the EU Commission have agreed to implement a range of ''restrictive measures'' against Burma, including strengthening an existing visa ban and freezing assets held abroad by persons to whom the ban applies.

The so-called General Affairs Council has adopted a regulation prohibiting the sale, supply and export to Burma of equipment ''which might be used for internal repression or terrorism'' and the freezing of the funds of ''certain persons related to important governmental functions in that country''.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DC27382B-18CA-4875-BD859D77279949BB
US Renews Burma Sanctions

President Bush has renewed sanctions against the Burmese government, saying the country is a threat to U.S. national security.

The White House issued a statement Friday, saying Mr. Bush granted a one-year extension to limits first imposed against Burma in 1997. The measures prevent U.S. direct investment in the country, which has been under military rule since 1988.

And one of those you would probably regard as a socialist country. Well stop it because you know damn well it isn't. The most defining point about any country, the one that every attempt has failed at is the equal division of everything that nation produces among the citizens of said nation. China doesn't do it, Russia didn't, North Korea didn't, Cuba didn't, no backwater-half-assed-excuse-for-an-African-dictatorship-that-called-itself-communist-to-get-Soviet-Aid did it, Vietnam, the Eastern European nations....etc etc etc etc. [/I]They were not communist! Even consider the timeline; everyone of those nations bar the USSR itself was based on the ideas of Stalin who himself was a nationalist (to his adopted country)! I regard every single one of these countries as pseudo capitalist, albeit some of them looked after the health and social welfare of their citizens better than the openly capitalist nations did but the point remains, yes they exploited the environment, sold arms to morally corrupt regimes and so forth - but they were capitalists too.

So now you're arguing that the USSR was a capitalist country? OK, now you've gone beyond being merely wrong, you've crossed over into lunacy.

Éomer of Rohan

Not exactly correct, all nations strive towards an economic system that needs a minimum of state involvement. That's the goal of every government, whether "capitalist" or "socialist" in nature

Wrong. Socialist governments as you point out strive towards the eradication of 'state' as we understand it but in its place institute a new state - one of all the people which in effect is exactly the opposite of laissez faire; it is complete control of trade by every single person; modern laissez faire economics puts the fantastic resources of world trade into the hands of an elite.

JC is right, there never can and never will be such a thing. The free market cannot provide any of the so-called "5 functions of government(tm)". The free market cannot provide a judicial system, nor keep order, nor can it reasonably provide for social decision-making.

What are the 'five functions of government'?
All that I can see that Free Market does is generate fantastic wealth which mainly goes into the hands of those already at the top and which is then used to pervert democracy.

Fact is, "pure laissez-faire" is no more a practical possibility than a pure command economy. Neither has ever existed in actual fact, so arguing their benefits or detriments as pure ideals has little value in a debate I'd wager

But the point I was making here is that the Uruguay Accord and nation states in general are attempting to build pure LF economy whereas no nation has ever attempted build a command economy on the clichéd but accurate Marxist phrase from each according to their ability to each according to their needs - which is only the first part of the system which Marx predicted would gradually develop into from each according to their ability to each according to their wants. Really to say that both are impractical is unfair given that really all we have are predictions - some based on more evidence than others however.

You do realize that Marx's "dream" in its purest form was anarchy?

Not quite; a state without the type of government we recognise today is still not anarchy.

Remember, in the "pure laissez faire" model, there is no provision for international trade

Is this not because all trade acts like it is in fact internal?

In fact, it's perfectly possible to argue that the aggressive export of communist militias to say, Southeast Asia by the Soviet Union was just as globalizing an influence than Coca-Cola, if not more so. After all, Coca-Cola didn't contribute to the death of 4 million people

Not quite clear what you are referring to here; if it is Vietnam, the company responsible was America Inc; that the USSR was involved at all was more than likely a reaction to US Imperialism in a so called 'communist' area of influence; something like the US and the Monroe Doctrine regarding South America.

many socialists' model for a working state partnership economy, but that and any other "socialist" nation you could point to have been just as guilty of this as any other. I wouldn't call the Khmer Rouge particularly nice or caring folk- yet their main source of arms was always Peoples' republics or socialist republics. Power corrupts in any system, it's possible to argue that it may corrupt more in some systems in some areas than in other systems in the same areas. But that's a fairly futile exercise, because both systems in their pure form are fundamentally unworkable.

How is this relevent to the point being made about the morality of trading with certain regimes? And all the above nations are capitalist, of somewhat moderated in social policy. What I was going to say to Bonkey regarding not trading with certain nations who are illegal etc was that it should not be companies trading with such regimes in order to make a profit - such as subsidiaries of Halliburton with Iraq, despite it's vehement denial - it should be state based aid rather than trade - kill them with kindness. If the people in such regimes see that there is power beyond that which their dictator/corrupt regime wields, they will not be long in overthrowing such a regime. No matter what the regime, all regimes govern by consent. If a people as a collective refuse to obey, the government falls, so long as the people do not waver.

As to the last piece of polemic, Bob, I am going to leave well alone; you have your views, and I, mine and most are not relevent to this thread;)

Éomer of Rohan

typical I think that the US sanctions - from the snippet I have read - are interested in protecting 'national security' rather than are aimed at helping the people in said country. I will concede the EU sanctions however, often such an attitude is tossed out in favour of political or economic expedient. So if you can find one of the capitalist nations who have done this to a major trading partner, I will wholly concede the point. There are other points after all.

As for saying I am entering the realms of complete lunacy, don't you think you should substantiate that? I am sure it contravenes the rules somehow.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Ok, old-fashioned Occy rant coming up, brace yerselves sound-bite lovers

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Wrong. Socialist governments as you point out strive towards the eradication of 'state' as we understand it but in its place institute a new state - one of all the people which in effect is exactly the opposite of laissez faire; it is complete control of trade by every single person;

I haven't a clue what you're talking about here I'm afraid. Trade by its very nature is a collective activity, an individual can no more control trade effectively or fairly any more than an individual can run a country. In a society of free choice, people will demand a product, and others should be free to supply it. A state that involves itself beyond those functions is nanny state, one that plays God with its citizens.

modern laissez faire economics puts the fantastic resources of world trade into the hands of an elite.

Well for the alternative to rewarding hard work with success, I highly recommend reading Harrison Bergeron, a fantastic short story by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

What are the 'five functions of government'?

The 5 functions of a government responsible to its economy are:

1) Redistribution of wealth: The free market will not naturally correct social inequity, it therefore behoves the government to do it. Taxation and government spending on social welfare are the current means of distributing wealth. Gone is the day that the poor downtrodden peasants guillotine those fat greedy aristo' pigs. Our fiction for posterity may be less exciting, but hey, I'll take that
If opportunities are lacking, the state should provide a leg up for people to get on their own two feet again, but not support those who have no interest in supporting themselves

2) Maintain competition: Most countries have anti-trust laws of one kind or another in place. This is to prevent a natural or artificial monopoly in an industry- the Anti-Trust act of the United States was created in response to Rockefeller's domination of the global energy market. With a monopoly over such an inelastic good as oil, it's disruptive to a free and open market.

3) Provision of public services: There will be essential services not necessarily provided by a free market. It may not be profitable for example, to build a school in a poor & deprived area, yet all citizens should have a right to basic education. Services like these are the duty and responsibility of a government.

4) A stable monetary and fiscal system: The free market will not provide a currency beyond barter, interest rates or spending programmes that provide a framework for free and open trade. That provision of a stable environment in which businesses and employees can thrive on the basis of an equitable standard is the duty of the state. The standard is almost arbitrary, yet it will evolve into a naturally accepted system over time.

5) A stable and functioning security policy, maintenance of law and order: A society that has no means to keep its own order will disintegrate- you only need to look at Baghdad after the war to see the costs of an absence of law and order. In the absence of that, no economy can hope to function. Crime destroys the balance of the free market, it's the state's responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens so that they may contribute to the economy without fear.

All that I can see that Free Market does is generate fantastic wealth which mainly goes into the hands of those already at the top and which is then used to pervert democracy.

That's a naive and simplistic view of a free market. Here's a simple and basic truth- a society that does not have a free market can never be truly free. It is indisputable that without a free market, medicine would still be in the dark ages. Also indisputable is that you wouldn't be reading my comments or I reading yours on an internet messageboard. Innovation would be dead, since in a controlled and suffocated market, innovation only serves the goals of the state. Example: The USSR/The Third Reich's military innovation served the state's goals, yet gave nothing to their people. The ultimate empowerment is the freedom to succeed, and the freedom for that success to help everyone, not merely the select few in power.

You say that wealth goes into the hands of those already at the top? Well did those people start at the top may I ask? Of course not, they got there through hard work, dedication and taking the opportunities presented to them. Rags to riches through honest hard work, or through a brutal military revolution at the cost of human life? Which of those two paths to success is more moral Eomer?

But the point I was making here is that the Uruguay Accord and nation states in general are attempting to build pure LF economy

That's a lie, pure and simple. I'll say it again just so everyone understands: A pure LF system is completely and utterly unworkable. It neglects all of the 5 functions of government, and without those, societies and economies crumble to dust. The Uruguay accord was established to encourage free and open trade, and competition on level terms. Now what pray is wrong with that? An abiding moral stance of fairness is central to every decent human being...how peeved would you be for example, if a brilliantly skilled tennis player were forced to wear handicap mitts to allow a less skilled player to win?

Artificial levelling of the playing field, tariffs, restrictions, barriers to freedom of labour and trade- those were the goals of the Montevideo accord. I don't see anything wrong with that myself- anything that levels the playing field is good news for freedom, fairness and decency. Furthermore, it encourages nations to develop and streamline their economies that they too may receive the benefits of this trade.

(cont'd next post)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Rant continues:

whereas no nation has ever attempted build a command economy on the clichéd but accurate Marxist phrase from each according to their ability to each according to their needs -

Because command economies cannot possibly work in a pure form. No system can. Every command economy that has attempted to approach a pure state...collapses as it tries to diversify. If a system like that cannot even support itself in relative infancy, then no matter what its underlying ideals are, no matter how utopian its objectives, it is doomed to failure.

Of course that's not the end of the story- if you or anyone else of similar mind Eomer, can start a political party and convince enough people to vote for you, you'll have earned the right to give it a go. Of course, if you actually did that, you'd realize the responsibility for the well-being of all the citizens of a nation is far too weighty a thing to throw away in a social experiment. Social experiments don't exactly have a rosy history either- Pol Pot's is the most chilling in my mind. Eradicate the knowledgable and rebuild a society from the ground up- that is essentially what you propose on a political level- and the risks are just too big to take with so many peoples' lives. Talk is cheap though.

Really to say that both are impractical is unfair given that really all we have are predictions - some based on more evidence than others however.

Is it unfair to say that if I load a bullet into a 6-shooter and spin the chamber, point the gun at my head and pull the trigger...that I'm taking unreasonable risks with my life? I think it's fair to say that. And that risk is a tiny tiny fraction of the risk a government takes in a social experiment, the impure forms of which have resulted in pogroms, purges, famine, disease, poverty and death. That's like seeing an infected pneumonia patient and injecting yourself with SARS- chances are you'll survive, but the odds say it's a risk not worth taking.

Not quite; a state without the type of government we recognise today is still not anarchy.

As I said, if you can convince individuals to vote for that system of their own free will, you're welcome to try. Persuading people to sign away freedoms is rather harder than it sounds though, believe me. Still, it's a free country, good luck to ya.

Is this not because all trade acts like it is in fact internal?

Of course not...trade knows no boundaries! "Internal and external trade" is a concept that went out with Bretton Woods. If you do your research on this, trade only behaves with attention to supply, demand and scarcity. Other factors have subtle influences, but those rarely add up.

Not quite clear what you are referring to here; if it is Vietnam, the company responsible was America Inc;

Ever read Ho Chi Minh's diaries? It wasn't America that initiated military operations in Vietnam, the NVLA wasn't even funded by the Vietnamese. The origins of the NVLA and the VietCong were devised at the offices of the NKVD and the KGB in 1957, at the infamous Drashdenko Dacha, near Moscow. If you're going to be vitriolic about who provoked the invasion of South Vietnam, I'd advise having your facts straight first.

Was the response proportional? Not a chance in hell. Did we have any business in Vietnam? Probably not- at the time though, given the intelligence on the table, and direct Soviet involvement in the invasion of one country by another- there was considerable pressure, and the action taken was ultimately hasty and ill-considered. Rather like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan really. One thing is indisputable though- without direct Soviet involvement, North Vietnam would not have been military aggressors against South Vietnam. The direct influence of the Soviets in that manner is globalization, there's no other way to put it. The Iron Curtain was miles away, and the USSR certainly thought it had a lot to gain by globalizing the conflict.

that the USSR was involved at all was more than likely a reaction to US Imperialism

That's crap. How on earth were the US being imperialistic before North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam? I think it's easy for people to forget, but in 1962, Kuruschev saw fit to park a cluster of nuclear warheads 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Now if that isn't a bellicose aggressive imperial act, I don't know what the hell is. Historians today call the naval exercise involving 2 ships (HMS Victoria & HMS Triumphant) off the coast of Hong Kong an act of "bellicose imperialism".

Try the same with enough destructive power to wipe out the continental US, and you have an idea of who the real imperialists were. Think back to the Soviet sattelite states- Hungary in 1958, Czechoslovakia in 1962- burning bodies being dragged behind Soviet tanks through Prague. Don't even try to paint Soviet involvement as an act of "reaction to imperialist dogma"- the very fact you and I are sitting in front of our comps today in relative freedom is testament to the values that collapsed the Iron Curtain without a shot being fired. That Eomer, is the power of the free market, choice and free will- the power of the consumer collapsed a string of command economies. The reverse has never happened in history, nor is it likely to.

How is this relevent to the point being made about the morality of trading with certain regimes?

Because socialist regimes have been shown to be thoroughly corrupt, probably more so than most "capitalist" states. Provide me an example of a socialist state not riddled with corruption and favouritism and you get a cookie. My point was that all states have played with morality in a fickle manner, regardless of political ideology.

And all the above nations are capitalist, of somewhat moderated in social policy.

Cuba is capitalist? The PRC, North Korea and Kampuchea were capitalist?? Ok, now I've seen everything...if you'd call those nations capitalists, I begin to wonder if you even know what capitalism is, or what the basic principles of laissez-faire and freedom of market choice are.

What I was going to say to Bonkey regarding not trading with certain nations who are illegal etc was that it should not be companies trading with such regimes in order to make a profit -

Do you have a job? Do you work for an organization designed to make a profit? Do you indeed, turn out a positive income? If the answer to any of those is yes, then you have no business being critical of the idea of profit-making. Your point about Haliburton is one I agree with, but not for the reasons you seem to outline. They have no business trading in Iraq because of a clear conflict of interests- their former CEO was involved in the decision-making of a war. Clearer laws regarding conflicts of interest need to be brought to bear certainly.

it should be state based aid rather than trade - kill them with kindness.

Explain to me again why taxpayer's money should be used to rebuild a nation thousands of miles away from home. Now I don't believe that money should have been used to fight a war over there, but by the same token, tax dollars are paid to my government so that my citizens may benefit. Not another country's. If private companies are awarded contracts based on oil exports to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure, that to me is a fair and acceptable way of putting Iraq on its feet without the American taxpayer footing the bill.

As to the last piece of polemic, Bob, I am going to leave well alone; you have your views, and I, mine and most are not relevent to this thread;)

You see, they are extremely relevant. Identifying the problem isn't even half of the problem- the devil is in the detail of a solution. It's all very well protesting the wrongs in a system's flaws, but that's no good if there is no solution proposed. There is no incentive for change if no path of change is proposed. But I must emphasize this- change of a system as complicated as a social apparatus has to be slow, deliberate and calculated.
Let me put it this way- can you name a school system that works to perfection?

Chances are you can't, no one can. Does that mean you scrap schools as we know them? Of course not- it means you reform them carefully and prudently over time as you see fit. Societies grow and change, destroying a social order means bloodshed, turmoil and poverty, throwing the baby out with the bathwater- changing it gradually means real hard work. It's a shame so many preferred the former as a means of change rather than actually trying to convince people with legitimate argument.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- let's hear the solutions and debate those Eomer- because if people have grievances persuasion is the key. Start a political party, win votes, garner support from ordinary people- that is the challenge of democracy, and to persuade you need something to persuade people with. So uh, let's hear it

Sparks

It is indisputable that without a free market, medicine would still be in the dark ages. Also indisputable is that you wouldn't be reading my comments or I reading yours on an internet messageboard. Innovation would be dead, since in a controlled and suffocated market, innovation only serves the goals of the state. Example: The USSR/The Third Reich's military innovation served the state's goals, yet gave nothing to their people. The ultimate empowerment is the freedom to succeed, and the freedom for that success to help everyone, not merely the select few in power.

All of those are highly disputable, bob. Medicine, in it's modern form, is an arabic invention - and they did not experience the Dark Ages, those being a european phenonomen. The internet was invented in academic research, not commercial research, and most of those doing the invention were fans of marxism and other "left-wing" ideals. The military innovation of any nation is not shared with it's population without significant delay, at least not directly. And the germans under hitler did exhibit tremendous innovation in civil technology. (Damn shame they couldn't show the same innovation in morality )

Well did those people start at the top may I ask? Of course not, they got there through hard work, dedication and taking the opportunities presented to them.

That's either highly naive or blatent propaganda!

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
All of those are highly disputable, bob. Medicine, in it's modern form, is an arabic invention

Really? The Arabs invented heart transplants, antibiotics, the germ theory of disease and vaccination?

The internet was invented in academic research, not commercial research, and most of those doing the invention were fans of marxism and other "left-wing" ideals.

The Internet was invented by a project run by the US Defence Advance Research Projects Agency. I've never heard anyone accuse the US military of being "fans of Marxism" before...:p

Éomer of Rohan

*roles up his sleeves*
Right me old matey.
I am going to leave Free Market economics and hope Sparks deal with it - he seemed keener.

Vietnam
I felt like a long tirade here but I think I can cut it down to a bottom line. If the US had not interfered in the Vietnamese war with what eventually amounted to half a million troops, then 4 million people would not have perished in said war. It was that action that caused such casualties, it was US napalming that left lasting scars on the countryside in Vietnam, it was US troops; the so called defenders of freedom that raped Vietnamese (some South!) women and children and butchered so many other civilians.

The Cuban Missile Crisis
Oh I laughed when you brought this one up. It is alright for the US to base nuclear weapons and nuclear capable bombers in and around the Soviet Union but not vice versa is that it? What about Japan, Turkey, Germany, the SLBM deterrent deployed at American expense on UK subs? The USSR had every right to take steps to defend itself; America could reach the Soviets but the Soviets could not reach American soil at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This evened out later when Soviet rocketry improved but hell, in Khruschev's position, I absolutely would have done the same thing but I would have done it quieter and out of sight of US reconnaisance.

Redistribution of wealth: The free market will not naturally correct social inequity, it therefore behoves the government to do it. Taxation and government spending on social welfare are the current means of distributing wealth

This five point crap has fallen at the first hurdle. Let us take the nation most in favour of having this level playing field that you claim is so necessary; the USA. It fails to do this at almost every level...some examples:
Since this administration came to power -
39m USD cut from the budget of public libraries.
35m USD cut from the training of advanced pediatricians.
Delayed rules that would reduce 'acceptable' levels of arsenic in drinking water.
Cut funding for 'Girls and Boys Groups of America' housing program by 60m USD.
Cut 200m USD from the budget of training dislocated workers.
Cut 200m USD from the Childcare and Development program which is aimed at low income families.
Cut 700m USD on repairs for Public Housing.
Cut half a billion USD from the EPA budget.
Overturned workplace ergonomic rules designed to protect workers and enforce standards of safety in the workplace.
Banned college students from recieving financial aid if convicted of drugs charges (they can still get it if they are a murderer though).
Pushed through Tax Cuts, 43% of which go to the richest 1% of people in the USA.
Cut 15.7m USD from programs dealing with child abuse.
Eliminated the 'Reading is Fundamental' program which gives free books to poor children.

And this is the administration, I would like to point out, that recieved millions in donations from TNC's - the very groups that would ultimately control this so called Free Market; which is sure as hell not synonymous with Fair Market; I have outlined twice before how the components of this free market are ripping the piss by exploiting people in the right-wing designated 'less free' part of the global market and even going so far as to patent ideas which existed before capitalism was even invented. A free market is under the control of corporations, not the people. These corporations do (and you called this simplistic) bribe well placed people left, right and centre in so called democracies - something you actually acknowledged earlier in this thread! You want some examples? How about the campaign donations from Microsoft to the present Attorney General of the USA - John Ashcroft - who then decided not to split up the company! - oh and this same guy recieved big donations from AT&T, Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Monsanto (another of the companies that really take the piss out of the TRIP agreement - coincidence?).

Cuba is capitalist? The PRC, North Korea and Kampuchea were capitalist?? Ok, now I've seen everything...if you'd call those nations capitalists, I begin to wonder if you even know what capitalism is, or what the basic principles of laissez-faire and freedom of market choice are.

You question my knowledge of capitalism, but yet you fail to acknowledge that Free Market Economics is not the only form of capitalism - it is simply the one that the first world adopted in the 1980's. Have we ruled out diversity in this fair free market world of yours?

Think back to the Soviet sattelite states- Hungary in 1958, Czechoslovakia in 1962- burning bodies being dragged behind Soviet tanks through Prague. Don't even try to paint Soviet involvement as an act of "reaction to imperialist dogma"- the very fact you and I are sitting in front of our comps today in relative freedom is testament to the values that collapsed the Iron Curtain without a shot being fired. That Eomer, is the power of the free market, choice and free will- the power of the consumer collapsed a string of command economies. The reverse has never happened in history, nor is it likely to.

Well, darn, I can hear the Stars and Stripes in the background too! Oh the American way and American values provoked the Soviets on hearing those stirring words "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall' to do so. I THINK NOT
Do not lecture me on what the Soviets did and how the values of their enemies proved that capitalism works - and here is a list that might interest you.
South Dakota; Massacre of 300 Lakota Indians by US troops. 1890.
Argentina; US Troops land in Buenos Aires to protect US economic interests, 1890.
Chile; US Troops open fire on a workers protest, 1891
Haiti; US attack a black workers revolt on US-claimed navassa Island. 1891
Idaho; US Army suppresses silver miners strike; strikers barricaded in their homes and starved out. 1892
Hawaii; US naval troops overthrow the independent kingdom, Hawaii annexed 1893
Chicago; US troops break rail strike, 34 workers shot dead. 1894
Nicaragua 1894, Troops occupy the Bluefields.
China 1894-5; Naval bombardment, Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.
Korea 1894-6; Marines occupy Seoul.
Panama 1895; Marines occupy Columbian province.
Nicaragua 1896; Marines capture port of Corinto.
China 1898-1900; US troops crush the Boxer Rebellion against the Imperial state.
Philippines 1898-1910; Invasion - 600,000 filipinos slaughtered.
Cuba 1898 - 1902; Invasion, conquered from Spain and naval base kept.
Puerto Rico 1898 - ?; Occupied.
Guam 1898 - ?; Occupied.
Minnesota 1898; Army slaughter of the Chipewa at Leech Lake.
Nicaragua 1898; Port of San Juan del Sur captured.
Samoa 1899; US troops intervene in accession row.
Idaho 1899 - 1901; Army occupies the Coeur d'Alene mining region.
Oklahoma 1901; Army suppresses Creek Indian revolt.
Honduras 1903; Army intervenes in revolution to protect US economic interests.
Dominican Republic 1903-04; same as Honduras.
Korea 1904-05; Marines land in Russo Japanese War.
Cuba 1906-09; Marines curtail democratic elections in US interests.
Nicaragua 1907; US Army sets up 'dollar diplomacy' protectorate.
Honduras 1907; Marines land during US war with Nicaragua
Panama 1908; US intervene to curtail democratic elections.
Nicaragua 1910; Troopsw reoccupy Bluefields and Corinto.
Honduras 1911; US Army lands to protect US economic interests.
......skipping to the interesting ones.....
Nicaragua 1912-33; US 20 year occupation, war against guerrillas fighting for independence.
...
Colorado 1914; Breaking of Miners strike.
...
Haiti 1914-34; 19 year occupation.
Dominican Republic 1916-26; 8 year occupation.
Cuba 1917-33; US Military junta occupies Cuba.
...
Russia 1917-18; Invasion of Russia to support White Russians.
Panama 1918-20; Martial occupation.
...
WWII 1945; Use of nuclear weapons
...
Detroit 1943; Army breaks black rebellion
Iran 1946; USG issues Nuclear threat to USSR.
Yugoslavia 1946; Naval response to shooting down of US spy plane over Yugoslavian territory.
Uruguay 1947; US issues nuclear threat - bombers deployed as a show of strength.
Greece 1947-9; US high command directs the extreme right in civil war.
Germany 1948; Nuclear capable bombers guard Berlin airlift.
...
Korea 1950-3; US issues threat to China in 1953 that any further military operation will result in nuclear war.
Iran 1953; CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
...
Guatemala 1954; Nuclear bombers on standby as CIA directs an exile invasion after new government nationalises US (and all other nationality) company lands.
Egypt 1956; Bombers on standby to prevent Soviet intervention in Suez Crisis - threat sent to Soviet Government.
...
Iraq 1958; Iraq threatened with nuclear war if Kuwait is invaded.
China 1958; China threatened with nuclear war if move on Taiwan.
...
Vietnam [enough said] 1960-75.
...
Panama 1964; Troops open fire on a protest demanding the nationalisation of the canal.
Indonesia 1965; CIA directs coup. One million killed.
...
Cambodia 1969-75; Up to 2 million killed in bombing, starvation and US instigated political chaos.
...
Panama 1989-90; 27,000 soldiers intervene to oust nationalist government. Bombing. 2000+ civilians killed by US troops.
Sudan 1998; Missile attack on Pharmaceutical plant alleged terrorist chem plant - later proven not true.
...
I have omitted precisely 31 engagements from this list so don't give me some sob story about how the US values brought down the Soviet Union because given a choice in terms of record of violence, I choose the Soviets.

As I said, if you can convince individuals to vote for that system of their own free will, you're welcome to try.

Relevence? I had this plus half again but I think I have said all I will say. I am thoroughly tired of this.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
This five point crap has fallen at the first hurdle. Let us take the nation most in favour of having this level playing field that you claim is so necessary; the USA. It fails to do this at almost every level...some examples:
...budget cuts...

And still, after all those cuts, the US federal government still spends a massive $882 billion on redistributive policies like Medicare and Social Security -- more than twice as much as it spends on defense (source). And this doesn't even include state spending on social welfare. Not to mention the fact that most other capitalist countries have a far higher level of income redistribution.

You question my knowledge of capitalism, but yet you fail to acknowledge that Free Market Economics is not the only form of capitalism - it is simply the one that the first world adopted in the 1980's.

Uh, no. The free market is an essential part of capitalism. And the idea of the free market has been around a lot longer than since the 1980s -- go read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

here is a list that might interest you.
...massive cut and paste spam expunged...

You know, Ctrl-C+Ctrl-V isn't really a very persuasive debating tactic.

Éomer of Rohan

You know, Ctrl-C+Ctrl-V isn't really a very persuasive debating tactic

Actually I had to type by hand; most of my resources are books rather than the internet. I find books far more reliable as a source of information than something that changes from minute to minute.

Sparks

Meh,

Really? The Arabs invented heart transplants, antibiotics, the germ theory of disease and vaccination?

No Meh, they just invented hospitals. This was during the period called the Dark Ages in Europe.

The Internet was invented by a project run by the US Defence Advance Research Projects Agency. I've never heard anyone accuse the US military of being "fans of Marxism" before...

Quick history lesson.

In 1962 ARPA opened a computer research program and appointed to its head an MIT scientist John Licklider to lead it. Licklider had just published his first memorandum on the "Galactic Network" concept... a futuristic vision where computers would be networked together and would be accessible to everyone. Within ARPA, Leonard Klienrock was already developing ideas for sending information by breaking a message up into 'packages', sending them separately to their destination and reassembling them at the other end. This would give more flexibility than opening one line and sending the information through that alone. For example, the system would not be reliant on a single routing and, if files were broken-up before transfer, it would be more difficult to eavesdrop... both useful security advantages. The inadequacy of the telephone network for running programs and transferring data was revealed in 1965 when, as an experiment, computers in Berkeley and MIT were linked over a low speed dial-up telephone-line to become the first "wide area network" (WAN) ever created.
By 1966/67 research had developed sufficiently for the new head of computer research, Leonard Roberts, to publish a plan for computer network system called ARPANET**. When these plans were published it became clear that independently of each other, and in ignorance of each others's work, teams at MIT, the National Physics Laboratory (UK) and by RAND Corporation had all been working on the feasibility of wide area networks, and their best ideas were incorporated into the ARPANET design. The final requirement was to design a protocol to allow the computers to send and receive messages and data, known as an interface message processor (IMPs). Work on this was completed in 1968, and the time was ready to put the theory to the test. In October 1969, IMPs installed in computers at both UCLA and Stanford. UCLA students would 'login' to Stanford's computer, access its databases and try to send data. The experiment was successful and the fledgling network had come into being. By December 1969 APRANET comprised four host computers as with the addition of research centres in Santa Barbara and Utah. In the months that followed, scientists worked on refining the software that would expand the network's capabilities. At the same time, ever more computers were linked to the net. By December 1971 ARPANET linked 23 host computers to each other.

In other words, the closest the military got to developing the internet was funding the initial research on ARPANET, which was never, ever intended by them to be anything other than a damage-resistant C&C network. And since most of the work that makes the internet (that thing you're using to get to read this right now) was developed in Xerox PARC, Berkley and CERN, I doubt the US military gets the credit - and those who do are known to be (by and large) liberals.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
In other words, the closest the military got to developing the internet was funding the initial research on ARPANET

Incorrect. DARPA contributed a lot more than this. They also funded the development of TCP/IP and its integration into UNIX.

DARPA let three contracts to Stanford (Cerf), BBN (Ray Tomlinson) and UCL (Peter Kirstein) to implement TCP/IP (it was simply called TCP in the Cerf/Kahn paper but contained both components). The Stanford team, led by Cerf, produced the detailed specification and within about a year there were three independent implementations of TCP that could interoperate.

...

As the Internet evolved, one of the major challenges was how to propagate the changes to the software, particularly the host software. DARPA supported UC Berkeley to investigate modifications to the Unix operating system, including incorporating TCP/IP developed at BBN. Looking back, the strategy of incorporating Internet protocols into a supported operating system for the research community was one of the key elements in the successful widespread adoption of the Internet.

Without DARPA, the Internet as we know it wouldn't exist today.