Korean meat processor wins bid to buy U.S. chicken company

[Autumnlicious]

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".

Granted. However, Adrian's definition fits better with regards to collectivism and individualism.

However, the past elections in South Korea show that they elect both liberal and conservative parties,

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pre...outh_Korea

So for being "right wing", they're more or less centrist with a older bias towards conservative parties that is not reflected in newer elections.

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'.

I think most liberal and conservative parties can agree that North Korea is about as liberal as Iran is secular. It would be more fair to characterize North Korea as a authoritarian dictatorship akin to the Junta in Burma.

Last I checked, 'liberal' economic philosophy would involve massive safety nets, welfare and payouts to the bottom of society.

If you are trying to frame North Korea as 'left wing', I think we will be unable to hold a discussion and best terminate this one, as you are demonstrating an inability to match 'left wing' with your 'ass'.

If this is a misunderstanding, however, then I apologize.

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.

A large body of right wing ideology involves similar to the liberal version of the nanny state a desire to control what their population may imbibe or use.

I was attempting to lay out what I perceived as your admiration of the 'right wing'ed ness of South Korea with an issue that I know is close to both your interests and mine of which they have taken certain 'right wing' policies from the US and used it as something distinctly anti-democratic.

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?

If they we're "right wing" as you laid out, their social issues would most likely match up with it. It doesn't.

They're similar to the United States. If you wish to claim the US is 'right wing', then that is another debate entirely.

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"?

Well, I bothered to pull up at least some of my sources and call you out on titling them as "right wing". Your post made it out to seem as if the "right winged" nature of South Korea is responsible for their current living conditions today, but a look at their history and progress on LGBT rights, for example, show more than a simplistic picture of their political status.

He said that a Korean company shouldn't be allowed to operate a chicken plant because Koreans eat dog meat! That is blatant bigotry.

And I admitted it was his 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?

Had you bothered to read my posts:

I don't see any other reason why Minimalist would mention dogs in a thread about Koreans buying chicken companies...

Maybe the Harim Holdings Co. also sells dog meat in Asia? That would also be legit as that is part of their business.

To be frank, a lot of people eat dogs though.

I don't see in my other posts opposition to such. What I did see from Min's post was a statement of fact. I referenced the Wikipedia page on the consumption of canine meat, in which "a fair number of South Koreans (anywhere from 5 to 30%) have eaten dog meat at least once in their lifetime, only a small percentage of the population eats it regularly." This shows that the statement of them eating canines is accurate to a degree in which at most 30% of the population has done such.

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.

See above. You ascribed what I didn't write.

And yet I bet you'd still happily buy a Korean cellphone, right?

Happily.

And do you think a "progressive" system with more laws and bureaucrats will be less subvertable?

Perhaps. Laws are only as strong as the authority that enforces it, and the ability to enforce it can be corrupted.

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

Yes, and what stops those powerful people from simply paying off those they hurt, lying and subverting such? Nothing.

A governing body works best when the population critically examines them. In practice, critical thought seems to fail more often than not.

But I ask you this, what possible feed back system do you think will allow for the appropriate divvying of resources et al?

Your solution invites anarchy and no accountability, choosing to trust in the all powerful unit of currency to rectify such. But as I pointed out, money is justice-agnostic.

- 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.

You are seriously arguing against regulations? Against licenses? Really?

So you'd argue against gun permits because a determined criminal can subvert them? You'd argue against driving licenses because it infringes on your personal freedom?

I don't know where you stand on those issues, but one thing I do feel strongly is this -- the extreme you presented is just that, an extreme.

At least with a democratic government, at least there is a chance for people to use critical thought and elect better policies and politicians. At least with regulations, you have a basic form of restrictions that can do something, however ineffective and small.

Explain to me how else will people be able to rigorously and economically test and hold their local factories and businesses accountable, given the economic incentive to hide damage and cheat?

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.

You've had no excuse for the strawman you rendered against me, and yet it still happened. It is a given that I have misinterpreted your statements, for that I am sorry.

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

What about the dumping of PCB's into the ocean? It doesn't directly affect people, but it has been linked to declining fisheries and toxins in human consumed food that can act as a mental retardant for developing adolescents. It took years to figure out, and who is directly to blame may never be discovered.

The point is, finding out who is responsible can never be in some cases. The regulations posted afterwards, at least in the US, prohibit PCB dumping in US territorial waters.

And because there is no 'responsible' entity, in your system, nothing would be done. At least for your local area.

- Strong deterrents, tough sentences and a focus on victims of crime will be a much more effective system in my view.

It has been shown that the death penalty gives no deterrence to committing homicide. It has been shown that the deterrent of prison time against drug use hasn't deterred drug use one bit.

So I disagree with your simplistic solution that we simply need strong and tough deterrents.

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.

And I agree with that. But I also think that people who do well in our communal society, the same communal groups that we fucking evolved from as cooperative apes, should help support a base, a base I repeat, quality of life so that our broken and fallen can perhaps recover and thrive once again.

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.

That's why I wrote what is above. I think that to ignore the most vulnerable in our society is atrocious and merely treats our societal failures as "bad resources" and "broken cogs".

Money is a measure of purchasing power, nothing more.

Yes, and that's why I think we need some form of entity to prevent the purchasing power of any other entity, individual or otherwise, from trashing what we all hold dear.

I am a staunch believer in the economic benefit of acting aberrantly, of being destructive. And I think we need to figure out methods of stemming most of the issues, however inefficient. Because being absolutely efficient is never going to happen.