RE: Korean meat processor wins bid to buy U.S. chicken company
July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am
(This post was last modified: July 31, 2011 at 6:00 am by theVOID.)
(July 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Last I checked, right wing means both social and economic decisions. Here, let's take a look at definitions, using Google as Adrian has:
Define:
right wing
Noun: The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.
Adjective: Conservative or reactionary: "a right-wing Republican".
By your statement Void, it looks like socially, they are not "right wing".
By that definition then sure, they aren't. What I was intending to mean by "right wing" was more referring to the 1 dimensional political spectrum where ideas that are fiscally conservative or more free market are considered to the right, regardless of their social position, in that sense general libertarian parties are right wing, as are the centre-right parties such as the National or ACT parties here, but by that definition of right wing neither of them would qualify either, a notion that the majority of political pundits would reject. South Korea's system of government is very similar to that of our current ruling party both socially and economically, it was by that notion that I considered them "right wing".
Quote:Look at the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_South_Korea
Hmm, it appears that they are moving away from being conservative with regards to such. That's not right wing, that's defined as left wing. Or progressive.
Then North Korea are not Left Wing? They are after all as socially conservative they come. I also disagree that progressives are left-wing, they are as I understand it much more centrists, some kind of democratic capitalism with socially liberal attitudes. You would likely consider our government "progressive" by that standard, yet they are very clearly a centre-right party in my view.
I'm ultimately not too concerned about definitions, as long as we understand what each other mean it wouldn't matter if we called it 'floob'.
Quote:Let's look at the libertarian wankfest topic -- drug freedom. Oops, there isn't. In fact, Korean laws regarding personal usage of drugs are quite strict, a model more strict than the US (they based their policy on the DEA's policies and decided to dial it to 11).
Yeah, they are strict on drugs. I did say they were "right wing" and not libertarian, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Quote:Yep, that is soo right wing.
So wait, when they are socially liberal on one issue you say they're necessarily not "right wing" but when you raise an issue on which they are conservative you ignore it?
So far you've raised one issue in which they are liberal and one issue which they are conservative, and this to you seems a good enough argument to ridicule me for calling them "right wing"?
Quote:A casual glance around only convinced me, that in attempting to beat up Minimalist for his bigotry, you made a fool of yourself.
He said that a Korean company shouldn't be allowed to operate a chicken plant because Koreans eat dog meat! That is blatant bigotry. Are you saying you're also going to judge all Koreans because of what a few of them have done, something that isn't necessarily any worse than eating pork from an ethical perspective? What if you were in charge of their ability to run a business? Would you prohibit them for something present in their culture, even when it is minority participation? From what Min has said I'd assume he'd do exactly that and that's something I take issue with.
And yet I bet you'd still happily buy a Korean cellphone, right?
Quote:Finally, with money, comes the ability to subvert existing laws. So this "right wing" paradise has managed to ban things for the little people, but there is little doubt that the richer folks can get whatever they want.
And do you think a "progressive" system with more laws and bureaucrats will be less subvertable? I genuinely don't buy it, it's nothing more than wishful thinking that you can elect a bunch of experts free from greed and temptation to have more authority over the resources of the people, in practice the politicians are often incompetent, power hungry, greedy or self-righteous, so much so that the ones who are genuinely capable, humble and caring can't make a dent - In reality you end up with endless laws, licenses and regulations that drag down small business while their corporate counterparts get given massive advantages ensuring that there is a disproportionate allocation of capital and thus wealth.
Quote:Congratu-fucking-lations, you outlined my idea of a hell -- a place where things are backwards enough to restrict your personal liberty and ability to buy/gain protection restricted to whatever sexual orientation you profess but forward enough to gain money!
You should already know by now that I am against any restriction in personal liberty exercised without thwarting the liberties of others, so there is no excuse for that straw man. I am also a strong advocate of tougher sentencing and a police system focused on victims, that includes crimes committed via markets and the environment or any action where another person is forced/coerced into an action - Strong deterrents, tough sentences and a focus on victims of crime will be a much more effective system in my view. Put as succinctly as possible; Any person should be free to do anything they like with their mind, body or property so long as they force no others to do that which they do not wish to. People aren't cogs in a machine, they aren't a resource at the disposal of some strategist, they are individuals who should be free to pursue whatever pleasures in life they wish so long as it is consensual.
Quote:Did it ever occur to you that money is justice-agnostic? It will flow into a hell hole or paradise, depending only if demand and supply can be met (with the usual dependent variables of quality, quantity et al).
Money is a measure of purchasing power, nothing more.
(July 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm)bozo Wrote: I think it is beyond debate that socialism is fundamentally different to capitalism.
It depends on your definitions evidently, some would say they can co-exist, the idea of "social capitalism" comes to mind. The private ownership of the means of production is I think the most important consideration in calling something "capitalist".
Wikipedia Wrote:Social capitalism (Socio-capitalism), as a theory or political or philosophical stance, challenges the idea that the goals of socialism and the existing system of capitalism are inherently antagonistic.[1] The essence of social capitalism is that markets work best and output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy. Social capitalism posits that a strong social support network for the poor enhances capital output. By decreasing poverty, capital market participation is enlarged. Social capitalism also posits that government regulation, and even sponsorship of markets, can lead to superior economic outcomes, as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet or basic securities regulation
Quote:The idea of a maximium wage is to put a limit on what the top earns at the expense of the bottom. In a word, exploitation.
What authority do you have to tell someone how much they can earn from their business?
Quote:Thanks for letting me know what theVoid is
Letting you know what I am? Well aren't you self righteous! What I do to relax doesn't affect anyone else, it's nobodies business but my own.
.