what is the difference between a militant and a civilian? A civilian is a citizen of a state, so perhaps a better term is militant civilians. Do you categorize child soldiers as children killed, or as militants?
The catch 22 of war. It is impossible not to resist.
From an article critiquing the philosophy of israeli warfare "concerning the difference between combatants and non-combatants, justifying it thus:"
[Israeli war manual]
'We reject such conceptions, because we consider them to be immoral. A combatant is a citizen in uniform. In Israel, quite often he is a conscript or on reserve duty. His blood is as red and thick as that of citizens who are not in uniform. His life is as precious as the life of anyone else (p.17).'"
So is a militant. The difference i see is that soldiers are sent to kill, that is why the distinction has historically been made. That supposedly the fight should be between willing parties. (although mandatory conscription has made this arguement less relevant as does modern warfare which expertly targets civilians)
After having finished reading the article I think his words say it better than mine:
"The moral distinction is based on the fact that combatants have intentionally embarked on acts of violence and are actively seeking to endanger others, whether they are conscripts or not, thereby forfeiting their right to security and to be left in peace. In addition, combatants are armed, prepared for combat, and capable of defending themselves militarily."
Welfare:
In reading Globalization and its discontents' side by side with milton friedmans book there seem to be a point both miss. friedman says ' you cannot do good with other people's money'. stiglitz uses the term 'spread' the wealth or re-allocate it etc. I agree with friedman. The point these interpretations miss is WHOSE wealth has been stolen. When a corporation, or single individual takes over a river to build a dam, they are stealing the resources of the community. the water for the farmers, the land from the people who live there. Land allocation shows the history of collective theft all over the world. They are not doing good with other people's property. When Stiglitz uses the term 're-allocation' it buys into this same idea that you are giving people hand outs of something that does not belong to them. welfare. free money. pity. When in fact, this ideology is better attacked head on. Stolen land, stolen wealth, give it back.
Unionization fails in the sense it does not challenge the idea of ownership. A corporation cannot have entitlement to a communities' wealth. so just as the person who does no work is not entitled to the earnings of the hard working man, an individual has no right to take away someone's means of being able to do work. Namely resources. ideologically it seems friedman would agree. He says he is suspicious of concentrated power. and that ownership breeds productivity. (main critique of communism). So let the people own their own land!!
domingo, 17 de mayo de 2009
martes, 12 de mayo de 2009
milton friedman chapter 1
'capitalism and freedom'. it seems that there is the inherent contradiction between "the preservation of freedom is the protective reason for limiting and decentralizing government power" and then advocating for state militarism and absolute control. One might even say these are opposites. 'Contradictions don't exist.' Is it like the perversion of communism under totalitarianism pretending it is marxism? did he actually see Chile in its form as being free? on to chapter two. no. not yet.
Questions and critiques. Perhaps chapter 2 will make more of a case that capitalism is PRO freedom rather than using the law of negatives. Totalitarian communism limits freedom. capitalism apparently is the exact opposite because it is NOT communism, (stalinist) therefore, it is free.
Question: why is freedom important? eg - what do you get out of it? ayn rand would say it is for the expression of the ego. But he states that in a "society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom... leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with.." Briefly used an example of amazing writers as a product of nongovernment interference, but did not equate freedom with being amazing. (also did not include space exploration, or government funding in research, including his own school...)
- i am also looking for a better definition of coercion
I agree: the market place should be: "both parties to an economic transaction is bilaterally voluntary and informed...individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary"
- however, he seems to define involuntary as explicit state violence. does not address other types of involuntary transactions such as forced labor (poverty, child labor, etc)
"Economic power can be widely dispersed...But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? There seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed."
what??? no comment. democracy... (true democracy)
"historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market." he backs this up with "i know of no example". he doesn't use any historical evidence, so one must trust that him not knowing is equivalent and better than backing up statements with facts. He uses this "not that i know of" to back up similar wild statements.
he critiques socialism: "in order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living". precisely. This is one of the biggest critique of the free market!! because it leaves most the population unable to earn a living. therefore, unfree. right on, miltie.
This one had to be quoted in its entirety:
"In a capitalism society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institution with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful.."
- does this not then advocate that capitalism is irrational? quality need not be important in the free market. the only obstacle is you need to persuade a rich person. At what point does the idea change from 1. working in the area one wishes to work, 2. pandering to what the population will consume 3. pandering not only to the population but to the rich financier. there are inherently less millionaires than poor people.
when Hollywood people were blacklisted (by Hollywood, not the government..) and says "Their appeal to the fifth amendment would have been a hollow mockery without an alternative to government employment."
I agree. however, he fails to recognize the same goes true when there is no alternative to exploitative employment. And by using the Hollywood example he plainly shows that private enterprises indeed discriminate. the free market, just like government is made up of people.
"To the liberal, the appropriate means are free discussion and voluntary co-operation, which implies that any form of coercion is inappropriate."
one word. Pinochet. Why did he advise the dictatorship and draw up plans for its economy? I don't understand. I had been wondering if he did believe that the ends justified the means, but he says he doesn't. So what then explains for this glaring contradiction?
Questions and critiques. Perhaps chapter 2 will make more of a case that capitalism is PRO freedom rather than using the law of negatives. Totalitarian communism limits freedom. capitalism apparently is the exact opposite because it is NOT communism, (stalinist) therefore, it is free.
Question: why is freedom important? eg - what do you get out of it? ayn rand would say it is for the expression of the ego. But he states that in a "society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom... leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with.." Briefly used an example of amazing writers as a product of nongovernment interference, but did not equate freedom with being amazing. (also did not include space exploration, or government funding in research, including his own school...)
- i am also looking for a better definition of coercion
I agree: the market place should be: "both parties to an economic transaction is bilaterally voluntary and informed...individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary"
- however, he seems to define involuntary as explicit state violence. does not address other types of involuntary transactions such as forced labor (poverty, child labor, etc)
"Economic power can be widely dispersed...But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? There seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed."
what??? no comment. democracy... (true democracy)
"historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market." he backs this up with "i know of no example". he doesn't use any historical evidence, so one must trust that him not knowing is equivalent and better than backing up statements with facts. He uses this "not that i know of" to back up similar wild statements.
he critiques socialism: "in order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living". precisely. This is one of the biggest critique of the free market!! because it leaves most the population unable to earn a living. therefore, unfree. right on, miltie.
This one had to be quoted in its entirety:
"In a capitalism society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institution with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful.."
- does this not then advocate that capitalism is irrational? quality need not be important in the free market. the only obstacle is you need to persuade a rich person. At what point does the idea change from 1. working in the area one wishes to work, 2. pandering to what the population will consume 3. pandering not only to the population but to the rich financier. there are inherently less millionaires than poor people.
when Hollywood people were blacklisted (by Hollywood, not the government..) and says "Their appeal to the fifth amendment would have been a hollow mockery without an alternative to government employment."
I agree. however, he fails to recognize the same goes true when there is no alternative to exploitative employment. And by using the Hollywood example he plainly shows that private enterprises indeed discriminate. the free market, just like government is made up of people.
"To the liberal, the appropriate means are free discussion and voluntary co-operation, which implies that any form of coercion is inappropriate."
one word. Pinochet. Why did he advise the dictatorship and draw up plans for its economy? I don't understand. I had been wondering if he did believe that the ends justified the means, but he says he doesn't. So what then explains for this glaring contradiction?
lunes, 27 de abril de 2009
market challenges
My responses to my worker self management class. hopefully i can get an awesome responses to my internal contradictions between socialism and individuality.
I read the article by Lebowitz and I am having a hard time grasping worker self management as applied generally, rather than to the specific enterprises we have looked at. I liked the quote from the bolivarian constitution that ¨developing the creative potential of every human being and the full excercise of his or her personality in a democratic society¨ . My question is - what happens when there is a conflict between ones own creative interests and that of society. Or between the desires of the workers and the needs of society. For example, a hospital exists to care for the sick. But there are many sick people, and not enough qualified doctors and nurses, nor funds to pay the staff. Society requires that the staff work longer hours, for less pay, but this is at the expense of the time the nurse wishes to spend with her family, or other needs of the worker. Who´s needs are more important. In the model community, maybe they wouldn´t clash?
the article seems to also suggest that people work for the benefit and for the needs of the community. I see this as partly true, but that this is somewhat ignoring the creative potential, which may be serving only our own needs, rather than someone elses. goals and ambitions in general are self interested, and no one can realize them for us. For me, it seems that the worker cooperatives are the structures that allow people to become individuals, rather than existing only for the benefit for the community. Maybe i am not understanding the article correctly, but it seems to contradict the final point of the bolivarian constitution if everything we did was to benefit someone else. And that working in a cooperative is in a way self interested because we want our community to benefit, we want our families to benefit, we want to work with dignity, and most importantly this type of community enables us to realize our creative potential. Because this situation is a means to an end. But if there is conflict between the needs of society and our creative potential, and the needs of society take precendence, what then is the purpose of it?
As you can see, i am trying to reconcile my individualistic upbringing with what i see as a fantastic model for working with dignity. Sorry for the long rant.
I read the article by Lebowitz and I am having a hard time grasping worker self management as applied generally, rather than to the specific enterprises we have looked at. I liked the quote from the bolivarian constitution that ¨developing the creative potential of every human being and the full excercise of his or her personality in a democratic society¨ . My question is - what happens when there is a conflict between ones own creative interests and that of society. Or between the desires of the workers and the needs of society. For example, a hospital exists to care for the sick. But there are many sick people, and not enough qualified doctors and nurses, nor funds to pay the staff. Society requires that the staff work longer hours, for less pay, but this is at the expense of the time the nurse wishes to spend with her family, or other needs of the worker. Who´s needs are more important. In the model community, maybe they wouldn´t clash?
the article seems to also suggest that people work for the benefit and for the needs of the community. I see this as partly true, but that this is somewhat ignoring the creative potential, which may be serving only our own needs, rather than someone elses. goals and ambitions in general are self interested, and no one can realize them for us. For me, it seems that the worker cooperatives are the structures that allow people to become individuals, rather than existing only for the benefit for the community. Maybe i am not understanding the article correctly, but it seems to contradict the final point of the bolivarian constitution if everything we did was to benefit someone else. And that working in a cooperative is in a way self interested because we want our community to benefit, we want our families to benefit, we want to work with dignity, and most importantly this type of community enables us to realize our creative potential. Because this situation is a means to an end. But if there is conflict between the needs of society and our creative potential, and the needs of society take precendence, what then is the purpose of it?
As you can see, i am trying to reconcile my individualistic upbringing with what i see as a fantastic model for working with dignity. Sorry for the long rant.
jueves, 16 de abril de 2009
there is far too much to think about. started reading `¨shock doctrine, rise of ...capitalism`` on the plane. Some of it i knew already, but it does answer some of the questions on latin america concerning the economy that i needed some facts and figures on. such as that pinochet practically killed the economy and had to re-nationalize industries to keep it from going under. My main thoughts concern milton friedman. Is he the economic voice of ayn rand? it made me thoroughly disappointed to think this might be true. I am interested in reading his writings, he sounded intriguing. Initial thoughts= does the free market have an end in an of itself besides being a free market? supposedly it is in the defense of liberty, but if this is the case then it should be measured. The right to one´s life is the most fundamental freedom and liberty. So does friedan thought truly justify this? I also see poverty as limiting freedom, but that is for another day. also, private ownership. how can one company lay claim to a lake? how is this resolved? what about when two people have different goals within the free market structure '- such as short term goals and longterm ones. short term contradicts long term since less money goes towards sustainability and health of the factory / etc. and.. why does the free market call for privitizing everything BUT security? is this due to the idea that there exists certain enterprises where there should be no profit to be made? blackwater does it better! I see a fundamental contradiction between privitizing something for the government to then pay for, vs. going directly to the consumers. It seems that if the market were truly free the government would not be an intermediary. This is why i find charter schools problematic. The government is still paying for it - even though it is not providing it, thus losing all incentive to make it more cost effective. although, perhaps strangely comforting is to think that there actually exists an ideology behind all of this rather than blind hatred for people, and love of money. I still fail to see why certain people`s liberty are held above others in the campaign for liberty. I believe no ideas should be surpressed. the only way to defeat an idea is by an idea. if you can only eliminate the thought by killing the body, the idea didn´t win.
Currently i am staying in 'gringolandia'. it is strange. looking forward to getting out of here soon. people were very helpful during my bus escapades as usual. and of course they would come up to me and speak english which drives me almost insane. And... i didn´t hyperventilate attack on the plane! first time in years. literally.
Currently i am staying in 'gringolandia'. it is strange. looking forward to getting out of here soon. people were very helpful during my bus escapades as usual. and of course they would come up to me and speak english which drives me almost insane. And... i didn´t hyperventilate attack on the plane! first time in years. literally.
miércoles, 25 de marzo de 2009
Guatemala!
who has plane tickets to Guatemala... Cassie does! spanish immersion, as well as first independent project on unions. exciting and scary all at once. my new internship is with the International Labor Rights Forum, and I have been accepted into grad school (yay!) so I actually have a title, per se, rather than 'concerned citizen'. I already contacted some people saying i was interested in writing an article on their work and would like to set up an interview. Easy as pie! I want to do justice to the project though rather than just an experiment, so I have been frantically trying to research the latest news with labor unions, etc. I will be there May 1st... workers of the world unite! So my labor rights focus happens to be timely with my cheap tickets, and long held desire to visit Guatemala. I am torn between devoting my efforts to the historical memory project, or the effects of CAFTA and rise in union member violence. Obviously, as beginner I cannot be expected to report new news, but rather to amplify the voices.
And, I can always fall back on reality - conduct an interview simply as a concerned citizen, and ask questions such as 'what significance does May 1st hold... what do you see for the future...?
I am reading on what Cato has to say about CAFTA to get a sense of measurement. The higher Cato rates it - the more bullshit it is.
Of other importance, but no less significant: I am taking two online courses 1. worker factory takeovers in Argentina, and the other on the economic crisis, its roots, and how it is affecting the global south. The latter is beyond my comprehension to contribute to the discussions, but interesting nonetheless. Thoughts of 'fictitious capital' keeps me awake at night. They answer my questions such as...can someone explain the housing bubble in baby babble please! and lovingly and gently, the radical leftist intellectual community has taken me under its wing. initial responses...
"You have put your finger on a fundamental difference between a materialist/Marxist analysis and a mainstream one. Marx argued that value was objective – the value of something was determined by the amount of labour time that it took to produce it. Mainstream economists say its all subjective – the value is what someone says its worth. It makes the interpretation of the current crisis quite different."
This reminded me instantly of Dostoyevsky - the man underground, and the ice castle. That no matter how silly our desires our, we still may want it. I believe that worth is extremely subjective. Whether its a house, a candy bar, or a jar of nutella that sells quite expensively in Colombia to an exclusively foreign crowd. A house for some is worth more than a house for others, regardless of the actual labor time it took to complete it. A better example might be coin collectors - why pay $20 for an old nickle? its only worth that much if someone is willing to pay that much. So the problem is not with the houses alone, per se, but with the idea behind them. That the mortages are what are not worth what they are then being packaged off and sold for. hmmm. i do not hold myself responsible for any statements made, as they will be changed probably within the week...
And, I can always fall back on reality - conduct an interview simply as a concerned citizen, and ask questions such as 'what significance does May 1st hold... what do you see for the future...?
I am reading on what Cato has to say about CAFTA to get a sense of measurement. The higher Cato rates it - the more bullshit it is.
Of other importance, but no less significant: I am taking two online courses 1. worker factory takeovers in Argentina, and the other on the economic crisis, its roots, and how it is affecting the global south. The latter is beyond my comprehension to contribute to the discussions, but interesting nonetheless. Thoughts of 'fictitious capital' keeps me awake at night. They answer my questions such as...can someone explain the housing bubble in baby babble please! and lovingly and gently, the radical leftist intellectual community has taken me under its wing. initial responses...
"You have put your finger on a fundamental difference between a materialist/Marxist analysis and a mainstream one. Marx argued that value was objective – the value of something was determined by the amount of labour time that it took to produce it. Mainstream economists say its all subjective – the value is what someone says its worth. It makes the interpretation of the current crisis quite different."
This reminded me instantly of Dostoyevsky - the man underground, and the ice castle. That no matter how silly our desires our, we still may want it. I believe that worth is extremely subjective. Whether its a house, a candy bar, or a jar of nutella that sells quite expensively in Colombia to an exclusively foreign crowd. A house for some is worth more than a house for others, regardless of the actual labor time it took to complete it. A better example might be coin collectors - why pay $20 for an old nickle? its only worth that much if someone is willing to pay that much. So the problem is not with the houses alone, per se, but with the idea behind them. That the mortages are what are not worth what they are then being packaged off and sold for. hmmm. i do not hold myself responsible for any statements made, as they will be changed probably within the week...
domingo, 1 de marzo de 2009
quotes:
"There is something worse than death, and that is the end of birth itself." - Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca Council
"To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. It is what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul, would you understand why that’s much harder" Ayn Rand (Roark - Fountainhead)
americorp website:
"White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Really? we really are a colorblind society... the whole world is white!
"To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. It is what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul, would you understand why that’s much harder" Ayn Rand (Roark - Fountainhead)
americorp website:
"White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Really? we really are a colorblind society... the whole world is white!
Cato vs. truth: FTA
For my speech at the dc People's Media Center I had five minutes to write a coherent speech on unions and collective organizing. It was recorded onto a cd which i get next week to critique myself. Not sure if i want to listen to it... but it should be interesting none the less. The idea that has been on my mind is one of poverty, unionizing, labor in general. I couldn't help but to order a new bok about female immigrant labor in the U.S. and the fight for living wages. This struggle is intimately connected cheap labor in other countries as well. Yes, a Honduran worker can make more off two dollars per hour here than in their home country, but does this justify it? What kind of system allows this to exist? continuing with my on going project in search of rejecting these ideals of human rights on the basis of logic and facts, I have been reading the Cato Institute publication in support of the Colombian Free Trade agreement. I was hoping for a challenge...
General contradiction: If free trade agreements are supposed to embody less government restrictions and more liberty - if the majority of the people in a country oppose it - isn't this the pinnicle of Big Government? To styfle free speech, protests and dissent, the government signs an agreement that is overwhelmingly opposed by its citizens. Sounds suspiciously like a dictatorship. -not support of liberty...
Problem One: Factually incorrect
1.Graphs of trade unionists killed. Stats from "colombian military and defense" and "Colombian military of social protection" but these two government sources don't even give the same numbers. The government shouldn't be so obvious when it is lying. example - first graph attempts to show that the number of trade unionist killings have gone down since uribe took office: listing 196 killed in 2002. Graph two shows that 205 were killed rather than 196 -because it makes the percentage drop larger. Amnesty International reports that in 2005 73 trade unionists were killed - Cato says 49.
False: "In the early 1990s, right-wing paramilitary groups were formed by landowners to battle the left-wing guerrillas." Fact: They were created in 1980.
-False: "In the mid 1990s, once the drug cartels were dismantled, both guerillas and paramilitary groups moved into the narcotics business." Fact: US war on drugs began in the 1980's which was also a counterinsurgency operation. The drug cartels partnered up with paramilitaries to fight the guerrillas. FARC also at this time began instituting 'taxes' on farmers who grew it in exchange for their protection. The idea that neither were involved until mid 1990's even contradicts US propaganda from the 80's. Lieing about a lie? That's a new one.
-Even if just one single fact is false it discredits the arguement. Since almost every single political claim is either an outright falsehood or a distortion I think it suffices to say that Cato is bullshit.
Allow us to continue.
"Furthermore, it would increase unemployment by 1.8 percentage points, representing a net loss of 460,000 jobs. GDP would go down 4.5 percent, and the poverty level would rise by 1.4 points"
"It is not in the U.S. interest to inflict this kind of economic punishment on an ally in the Andean region. Left-wing populism is fueled by poverty and lack of opportunities, as can be easily seen in neighboring Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia." Interesting that poverty and lack of opportunity is cited. Given that the stat that povery would go down is rejected by almost all human rights and labor groups.
"Then we also have the political significance of rejecting the FTA, which has already been approved by the Colombian Congress and is supported by a majority of Colombians."
- What do Colombians say? from the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca:
"To declare that the popular consultation on FTA is not a rejection of 'free trade' but of the form and content of this process and of the proposed treaty for its anti-democratic character, its lack of transparency, and its intention of annexation, displacement, and impoverishment of the population of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru."
- In Cauca:
"Ninety-eight percent of the people responded NO to the following question: "Are you in favor of the FTA between Colombia and the United States?" The people expressed their sovereign and conscious decision. Since that first consultation, others have been carried out throughout Colombia, all with the same result."
- one of the largest marches in Colombian history took place against the FTA
- "In Bogota, a million and a half people marched in what was described as the popular referendum against the FTA."
Although the point of this is not to present the case against it, which would take many many more pages, but to show once again that Cato is presenting false information -that the majority of Colombians support it and that Democrats are rejecting the wishes of the Colombian people.
tidbits;
"More than half of our $9.3 billion in imports from Colombia in 2006 were petroleum and coal."
America’s most competitive exports to Colombia in 2006, comprising more than 40 percent of U.S. goods sold there, were manufactured products such as drilling and oil-field equipment, excavating machinery, computers and computer accessories, telecommunications equipment, and medical equipment."
Amnesty says:
"Colombia’s wealth in water and mining, oil and gas, coupled with increased privatization of important parts of these industries, has attracted major transnational corporations to the country. Trade unionists in these sectors have faced repeated human rights violations, often because of their opposition to privatization. "
Cato says:
(CUT)"Free trade is killing us as much as bullets are."8 Equating peaceful, voluntary trade with murdering bullets is a gross comparison that shows the ideological agenda behind much of the opposition to an FTA" Free trade IS the bullets. This is the crux. This is the ideological difference I have with Cato. I don't believe you need to murder people to make money. It is not by chance that trade unions are targeted. They represent opposition to not only the trade policies, but the industries that thrive off it. Such as taking people's land, murdering the leadership of the mining union, and then giving a contract to a large multinational mining company. Or oil company. Or flower corporation. same scenario. Free trade thrives and survives through coercion and the lack of freedom. Trade is not peaceful when people are killed. Cato, do you understand this?
- to be edited at some point in the future
General contradiction: If free trade agreements are supposed to embody less government restrictions and more liberty - if the majority of the people in a country oppose it - isn't this the pinnicle of Big Government? To styfle free speech, protests and dissent, the government signs an agreement that is overwhelmingly opposed by its citizens. Sounds suspiciously like a dictatorship. -not support of liberty...
Problem One: Factually incorrect
1.Graphs of trade unionists killed. Stats from "colombian military and defense" and "Colombian military of social protection" but these two government sources don't even give the same numbers. The government shouldn't be so obvious when it is lying. example - first graph attempts to show that the number of trade unionist killings have gone down since uribe took office: listing 196 killed in 2002. Graph two shows that 205 were killed rather than 196 -because it makes the percentage drop larger. Amnesty International reports that in 2005 73 trade unionists were killed - Cato says 49.
False: "In the early 1990s, right-wing paramilitary groups were formed by landowners to battle the left-wing guerrillas." Fact: They were created in 1980.
-False: "In the mid 1990s, once the drug cartels were dismantled, both guerillas and paramilitary groups moved into the narcotics business." Fact: US war on drugs began in the 1980's which was also a counterinsurgency operation. The drug cartels partnered up with paramilitaries to fight the guerrillas. FARC also at this time began instituting 'taxes' on farmers who grew it in exchange for their protection. The idea that neither were involved until mid 1990's even contradicts US propaganda from the 80's. Lieing about a lie? That's a new one.
-Even if just one single fact is false it discredits the arguement. Since almost every single political claim is either an outright falsehood or a distortion I think it suffices to say that Cato is bullshit.
Allow us to continue.
"Furthermore, it would increase unemployment by 1.8 percentage points, representing a net loss of 460,000 jobs. GDP would go down 4.5 percent, and the poverty level would rise by 1.4 points"
"It is not in the U.S. interest to inflict this kind of economic punishment on an ally in the Andean region. Left-wing populism is fueled by poverty and lack of opportunities, as can be easily seen in neighboring Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia." Interesting that poverty and lack of opportunity is cited. Given that the stat that povery would go down is rejected by almost all human rights and labor groups.
"Then we also have the political significance of rejecting the FTA, which has already been approved by the Colombian Congress and is supported by a majority of Colombians."
- What do Colombians say? from the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca:
"To declare that the popular consultation on FTA is not a rejection of 'free trade' but of the form and content of this process and of the proposed treaty for its anti-democratic character, its lack of transparency, and its intention of annexation, displacement, and impoverishment of the population of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru."
- In Cauca:
"Ninety-eight percent of the people responded NO to the following question: "Are you in favor of the FTA between Colombia and the United States?" The people expressed their sovereign and conscious decision. Since that first consultation, others have been carried out throughout Colombia, all with the same result."
- one of the largest marches in Colombian history took place against the FTA
- "In Bogota, a million and a half people marched in what was described as the popular referendum against the FTA."
Although the point of this is not to present the case against it, which would take many many more pages, but to show once again that Cato is presenting false information -that the majority of Colombians support it and that Democrats are rejecting the wishes of the Colombian people.
tidbits;
"More than half of our $9.3 billion in imports from Colombia in 2006 were petroleum and coal."
America’s most competitive exports to Colombia in 2006, comprising more than 40 percent of U.S. goods sold there, were manufactured products such as drilling and oil-field equipment, excavating machinery, computers and computer accessories, telecommunications equipment, and medical equipment."
Amnesty says:
"Colombia’s wealth in water and mining, oil and gas, coupled with increased privatization of important parts of these industries, has attracted major transnational corporations to the country. Trade unionists in these sectors have faced repeated human rights violations, often because of their opposition to privatization. "
Cato says:
(CUT)"Free trade is killing us as much as bullets are."8 Equating peaceful, voluntary trade with murdering bullets is a gross comparison that shows the ideological agenda behind much of the opposition to an FTA" Free trade IS the bullets. This is the crux. This is the ideological difference I have with Cato. I don't believe you need to murder people to make money. It is not by chance that trade unions are targeted. They represent opposition to not only the trade policies, but the industries that thrive off it. Such as taking people's land, murdering the leadership of the mining union, and then giving a contract to a large multinational mining company. Or oil company. Or flower corporation. same scenario. Free trade thrives and survives through coercion and the lack of freedom. Trade is not peaceful when people are killed. Cato, do you understand this?
- to be edited at some point in the future
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)