Does the WTO do Anything?

[crimzonsol]

Any opinions on the World Trade Organization?

[Leopardpm]

it needs to cut all of its government support, or go away.

[crimzonsol]

Could you explain?

[firefox]

Intergovernmental Organizations (IOs)... I am not completely sure how I feel about them. On the one hand, they are in some ways just another form of government on top of the state. On the other, they can reduce the power of the state to some extent, in certain situations. I'll await LPM's answer.

[Leopardpm]

Well, my answer is simple, straightforward, and rather radical (of course). Nothing to do with whatever Intergovernmental Organizations are (they sound particularly ominous to me though...).
The WTO is not a private organization, it is a supra-governmental organization which has as its members only governments. There are positive aspects of the WTO, if one were to concede that governments must exist. The main benefit of the WTO is a liberalization of trade of its member governments - this is good. What is bad is that it is still a governmental structure and can therefore be used, not in the interests of 'the people', but to the benefit of special interest groups who happen to be able to exert political pressures.

In a natural global market, something akin to the WTO (and perhaps multiple such organizations competing against each other) would form to facilitate trade and disputes between businesses (NOT governments!). It would encompass a sort of international law and standard agreements as to dispute resolution and trade practices. It might also function as a 3rd party in holding deposits and such depending upon individual trade contracts and stipulations.

But, because of the actual nature of the WTO (a government for governments controlling and dispensing trade agreements), I would rather it be tossed to the wind. We, as taxpayers in a member government, are supporting it and are bound through the force of our own government to live up to agreements which we may not individually endorse or advocate.

I am no expert on the WTO or its history or past actions, but I would assume that it has been used by developed (1st world) companies to hinder competition, to exploit developing countries (3rd world), and to fatten the pockets of evil and mean tyrants across the globe. As I said, I have no idea if these assertions might be true or not, I base my assumptions just on what I know of how government works by its very nature.

Now for the 'radical' part: besides the abhorrent clause in our Constitution regarding giving over the right to regulate trade and tariffs to our lovely FedGov, I see absolutely why a wheat farmer in Kansas or a car maker in Detroit should hand over their rights to trade with whomever else in the world desires to. If JimBob the corn whiskey maker in Tennesse can sell his hooch to Pierre the liquor distributor in France, for an agreed upon (and therefore a mutually beneficial) price - the more power to him! And no one, not me, not you, not the red cross, nor some group called 'government' has a right to interfere, extract a tax, or ban such a trade from occuring.

well, that's my take anyhow

[Drocket]

I don't want to be rude, Leopardpm, but I have to say that you seem to epitomize what I hate about libertarians. You don't know what the WTO does, you don't know how it operates, and you don't know any of it's history or why it came into being in the first place - but it seems to be connected to government in some way, so it must, by definition, be bad.

Any look at history demonstrates quite clearly why government isn't just necessary, it's good. The free market is only free as long as something exists to FORCE it to be free. That's what government does, and that's what the WTO does. No, government isn't perfect, no matter what form it takes, but the reality is, as amply demonstrated by thousands of years of human history, is that as soon as the thing representing the little guy ceases to exist, the big guys immediately stomp all over things. Yes, it's open to influence from special interests - but that's better than things being run directly by the special interests.

[Leopardpm]

I don't want to be rude, Leopardpm, but I have to say that you seem to epitomize what I hate about libertarians.
don't worry, considering that my views are very radical from the mainstream, my skin has sufficiently thickened to withstand most personal attacks of the literary variety - I actually would rather have the hostility or insultive tone up front, as you have clearly stated, instead of some pretend-to-be-a-friend-but-just-waiting-to-stab-you-in-the-back guy. So, no worries, I appreciate your candor. I also hope you do not take personally any little jabs I might throw in just for entertainment - if you would rather not have such a type of banter, then just say and I will be all business (and no humor of the insulting type).

You don't know what the WTO does, you don't know how it operates, and you don't know any of it's history or why it came into being in the first place - but it seems to be connected to government in some way, so it must, by definition, be bad.
Before typing my post I made a cursory look into the WTO through its website, and alot of the things actually seemed to be pro free market, which is what I advocate. But given what I know about the workings of government, yes, I am very wary and distrustful. And you are correct, in my view, any governmental organization which operates outside of the law which average citizens must comply with, is by definition 'bad'. If it is 'bad' for me to take money/property from my neighbor, then it is bad for me and a group of neighbors to 'vote' and decide to take money/property from other neighbors. I do hope you noticed that I made no bones about my personal lack of experience and/or information on the actual workings of the WTO - I have no need or desire to imply expert opinion (or even informed opinion!) on this particular matter.

Any look at history demonstrates quite clearly why government isn't just necessary, it's good.
the whole host of founders just turned in their graves...

Since 'history', as you seem to understand it, is replete with examples of this so-called inherent 'goodness', would you care to cite some examples so we can dissect them a bit?

The free market is only free as long as something exists to FORCE it to be free.In this, you are correct, but only in words, not intention. There is indeed a 'force' which enables the market to operate effectively and efficiently, though it is not the same type of force you imply. There is no need for a threat of (or actual) violence to occur to induce market participants to conform to a set of standard trade 'rules' or laws. If a market player mixes in his dealings certain amounts of fraud, dishonesty, or violence, then the natural market effect is for a majority if not all of the other players to refuse to deal with this person (entity) at all. If these non-market efforts occur with such a frequency that it begins to impeed market functions, then there is a natural reaction of the market which is propelled by the demand of its very participants to include a level of safety. This 'safety' can also be provided by other market entrants. For instance, say that on a free market, humans somehow tend to be dishonest in general and are always attempting to defraud their trading partners. If this were the case, then all those folks desiring not to be defrauded would provide a demand for an organization which would act as a go-between in trade negotiations, making sure that each side receives what was agreed upon from the other. If I you and I agreed upon me trading my $5 for your 6-pack of Coke, then we would each hand over our items to be traded to a 3rd party (whom with both agreed to use), and the 3rd party would exchange and transfer the property back to the other party. This level of safety would obviously involve an amount of cost which would be paid upfront by both trade partners after agreeing to the transaction, but before any property had been exchanged. This 'system' can easily be expanded to cover all manner of trades, especially between larger market entities (companies). In fact, these 3rd party companies exist even today, not to mention a variety of arbitration services to circumvent the inefficient (and expensive) government court system.

That's what government does, and that's what the WTO does. No, government isn't perfect, no matter what form it takes, but the reality is, as amply demonstrated by thousands of years of human history, is that as soon as the thing representing the little guy ceases to exist, the big guys immediately stomp all over things.Actually, once a person breaks out of their cereal box given education of human history and really delves into actual perspective, what is found is that the 'big guy', more often than not, is easily able to be defeated by a much greater (and more motivated) population of wimps, sissys, and weaklings.

Yes, it's open to influence from special interests - but that's better than things being run directly by the special interests.what do you imply here, 'run by the special interests'? um, that is exactly what we have now!

[Drocket]

the whole host of founders just turned in their graves...

No, they didn't. They understood quite well the necessity of government. Their opinion was that government is to be mistrusted, and it's power distributed, but that it was, ultimately, a necessity that it exists. A government exists to protect the weak from the powerful. Without a government, the weak are inevitably crushed. The problem is that quite often, the government itself BECOMES the powerful, which is why they worked so hard to distribute that power. The more distributed the power is, the harder it is for it to be usurped by a single person or group (not that that's stopping the Bush administration from trying, but that's another topic.)

Government, a democratic government, when it works right, exists to give power of the powerless, and that's necessary to counterbalance the power of the already-powerful. THAT'S what permits the free market to exist. At the end of the day, a government is ultimately a reflection of the will of the people. It is, in essence, the purest form of the free market, where people's wills are measured, not simply their wallets.

is that the 'big guy', more often than not, is easily able to be defeated by a much greater (and more motivated) population of wimps, sissys, and weaklings.
Quite true. And that population of wimps, sissies, and weaklings, when they act together, is called 'government.'

The man who's often considered one of the most influential in libertarianism - REAL libertarianism, not modern 'lets destroy the government' Ayn Rand crap - Adam Smith, was well aware of this reality. That's the reason why the clause in the Constitution you so despite, the one giving the government the right to regulate trade, exists. A free market can only exist when the government wills it to exist.

[Leopardpm]

is that the 'big guy', more often than not, is easily able to be defeated by a much greater (and more motivated) population of wimps, sissys, and weaklings.
Quite true. And that population of wimps, sissies, and weaklings, when they act together, is called 'government.'
government is just a different group of 'big guys' - not physically big, but more power hungry.


The man who's often considered one of the most influential in libertarianism - REAL libertarianism, not modern 'lets destroy the government' Ayn Rand crap - Adam Smith, was well aware of this reality.Never read Rand, and don't desire to. Read smith, have Wealth of Nations, and see both the glimmers of genius and the fallacies he adhered to in his musings. He was great, especially considering his time frame, but he was not a God and made many, many mistakes.

That's the reason why the clause in the Constitution you so despite, the one giving the government the right to regulate trade, exists...and giving rise to this clause is one of his major ones.


A free market can only exist when the government wills it to exist.ah, yes, against all logic, all possibility, here we have the crux of the worship of government. Let's see... how exactly can a government exist without a market to first be in existence to extract the wealth the government needs to exist? Markets have formed ever since cave man Bob first met cave man Bill and decided it would be better to trade with him than try to beat him over the head. Markets have never needed government, especially considering that government just acts as a siphon of productivity and a wasteful leach of wealth on the market. Unfortunately, up until a few hundred years ago, no one really understood what it was that they were doing (participating in a market) and were thus susceptible to all manner of explanations for the production of wealth, goods, and services - then along came the great discovery of economics and free thinking.

[Drocket]

government is just a different group of 'big guys' - not physically big, but more power hungry.
No, government is a collection of little guys who, acting together, manage to have roughly the same power as the big guys, something that would be impossible otherwise.

Never read Rand, and don't desire to.[quote]
Quite frankly, I find that hard to believe, since your viewpoint essentially seems to be pure Ayn Rand - anarchy, feudalism and greed masquerading as a moral viewpoint...

[quote]ah, yes, against all logic, all possibility, here we have the crux of the worship of government. Let's see... how exactly can a government exist without a market to first be in existence to extract the wealth the government needs to exist? Markets have formed ever since cave man Bob first met cave man Bill and decided it would be better to trade with him than try to beat him over the head.
Except that's not what happened, and that's not what ever does happen. What happens is that as long as he's able to, Bob keeps right on bashing Bill over the head. Why pay for something when you can get it for free, right? That remains true right up until the point when Bill gets sick of it and teams up with Ted and Tom, and FORCE Bob to trade fairly. And voila, you have a government.

Yeah, sometimes Bill, Ted and Tom go overboard and decide to simply beat the shit out of Bob and steal his stuff. It's unfortunate, but it happens. You're pretty much back to square one, except with a different person/group as the bad guy. Without that step of little guys working together, though, you NEVER have the possibility of a free and equitable trade.

[Drocket]

A bit more: the thing that I think is the main flaw in 'neo-libertarianism' (to distinguish it from classical Adam Smith-style libertarianism) is that it ignore the fact that the government is us. WE are the government. It's not some evil ogre that randomly devours everything in its path - it's us. We control it - if and when we make an effort to, which sadly, we often don't. So many people spend so much time whining about 'special interests', when special interests are, almost uniformly, nothing more than citizens who ARE doing the work to make their voices heard. YOU are - everyone is - a special interest. If you chose to make the effort to be one.

[Leopardpm]

Never read Rand, and don't desire to.
Quite frankly, I find that hard to believe, since your viewpoint essentially seems to be pure Ayn Rand - anarchy, feudalism and greed masquerading as a moral viewpoint...believe as you will, it is true nevertheless (why would I deny it? Thought about reading Shrugged, but seemed rather boring... oh well). Anyways, its through economics and Rothbard that I mostly formed my most ardent beliefs, or at least found them penned out by someone else.

How do you define 'greed'?

ah, yes, against all logic, all possibility, here we have the crux of the worship of government. Let's see... how exactly can a government exist without a market to first be in existence to extract the wealth the government needs to exist? Markets have formed ever since cave man Bob first met cave man Bill and decided it would be better to trade with him than try to beat him over the head.
Except that's not what happened, and that's not what ever does happen. What happens is that as long as he's able to, Bob keeps right on bashing Bill over the head. Why pay for something when you can get it for free, right? but it is NOT free - every violence also carries a risk even between big Bob and wimpy Walt. Very rarely will Bob get away without a scratch, not to mention the lucky chance blow, bite, or poke.

That remains true right up until the point when Bill gets sick of it and teams up with Ted and Tom, and FORCE Bob to trade fairly. And voila, you have a government.not government - defending oneself against exterior aggressions is far from government... Bill, Ted, and Tom are all voluntarily consenting to mutually defend - they force Bob to do nothing and probably prefer him to just go away altogether. It is only when Bob initiates force that the defensive team starts using force of its own (unless, of course, George is playing, in which case he may travel halfway across the world to initiate so-called 'defensive force' - another matter entirely, of course). A government comes in when Bob says to Bill, Ted, and Tom, "Give me money or I will beat you again" and the meek trio decide its best to pay off Bob while still hoping he will go away. What is interesting is your claim that 'government is good', which is a far ways from 'hope it'll go away' - you would invite Bob to your party!

Yeah, sometimes Bill, Ted and Tom go overboard and decide to simply beat the shit out of Bob and steal his stuff. It's unfortunate, but it happens. You're pretty much back to square one, except with a different person/group as the bad guy. Without that step of little guys working together, though, you NEVER have the possibility of a free and equitable trade.Sure, our meek trio may well decide to take up the evil path of big bad Bob, but thats beside the point (plus, Bob probably deserved it, did you hear that he smooshes kittens and kicks puppy dogs too?) In any case, it is the theft or coercion which defines government - and to do either there must be a market to extract it from in the first place.

Thanks for going with my little characters (Bill, Bob, et al) - I am getting quite attached to the buggers)

[crimzonsol]

What About the Seatle Demonstration in 1999?

[Drocket]

How do you define 'greed'?
In terms of the new form of Libertarianism, it's generally a form of 'I hate paying taxes, but I really love all the benefits of society, so I'll just pretend those benefits just magically appear out of nowhere, springing forth full-formed like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. It makes no sense, but as long as I don't have to pay taxes, who gives a crap?' It's a rather willful ignoring of reality just to avoid the obligation to repay what they gain from the society in which they live.

not government - defending oneself against exterior aggressions is far from government... Bill, Ted, and Tom are all voluntarily consenting to mutually defend
But what you fail to understand is that THIS IS WHAT GOVERNMENT IS. Government exists because the people who make up that government WANT it to exist because it brings them benefits - the primary benefit being the possibility of free trade without that asshole Bob stomping through and stealing everything. Government isn't some vague mysterious force - it's Bill, Ted and Tom working together (preferably with Bob, now that he's had his butt kicked a few times and has learned his lesson about bullying) to enable things that otherwise couldn't happen. Yeah, it's going to cost them some money/time, but it's worthwhile because without that, all they have is Bob the asshole kicking them around.

Substitute Walmart/Microsoft/NewsCorp/TimeWarner/other major multinational corporations for Bob and the rest of the world for Bill, Ted and Tom, and you have the modern world.

[Leopardpm]

What About the Seatle Demonstration in 1999?

I saw it on the news, but didn't understand what it was about exactly. I suppose it was along the lines of 'free trade harms the impoverished nations' or some such clap-trap like that... but I really don't know.

[crimzonsol]

Originally it started out as that then moved to a right to free speech protest, due to the reaction the police took.

[Leopardpm]

How do you define 'greed'?
In terms of the new form of Libertarianism, it's generally a form of 'I hate paying taxes, but I really love all the benefits of society, so I'll just pretend those benefits just magically appear out of nowhere, springing forth full-formed like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. It makes no sense, but as long as I don't have to pay taxes, who gives a crap?' It's a rather willful ignoring of reality just to avoid the obligation to repay what they gain from the society in which they live.
I don't know who these 'new libertarians' are, but I have yet to find one who believes that the benefits of government (the benefits of 'society' exist with or without government) just magically appear and are more than the market could/would provide. I think you are making a straw-libertarian here. Even so, don't you have a definition of 'greed' that could be used as a template against which you can put any person to determine whether or not the are 'greedy'? For instance, I would define 'greed' as the undertaking of any action which violates the rights of others for personal gain. So, stealing is greedy, as is enslaving people to provide work, and also lobbying government for a subsidy (ie: a corporation or group or individual who lobbies for benefits from government at other people's expense via taxes). But, in general, looking at a person who earns $100k per year and giving $1k to charity vs a person who earns $20k per year yet still gives $1k to charity, it is not fair to say one is 'driven by greed', or 'greedy', the only real thing to maybe say is that one is 'greedier' than the other, but that could be negated by other subjective circumstances (the $100k person also paid for medical expenses for his cousin which amounted to $80k, or whatever)

not government - defending oneself against exterior aggressions is far from government... Bill, Ted, and Tom are all voluntarily consenting to mutually defend
But what you fail to understand is that THIS IS WHAT GOVERNMENT IS.If government were defined as purely a voluntary organization for the express purpose of mutual defense, then I wouldn't have any problem with it - but that is not what government is: it is a coercive and violent entity which relies on force to extract a toll upon its citizens, for whatever arbitrary purpose or reason.

Government isn't some vague mysterious force - it's Bill, Ted and Tom working together to enable things that otherwise couldn't happen.no, government is NOT the citizens, I am not the FBI, nor a congressman, nor a mayor. I am a citizen and I have no say in government except perhaps with a worthless government granted ability to vote.

Government exists because the people who make up that government WANT it to exist because it brings them benefitsThis is a very true statement: The purpose of government is to bring benefits to those within government, not particularly anyone else (ie:citizens)

- the primary benefit being the possibility of free trade without that asshole Bob stomping through and stealing everything.
Bob can easily be taken care of through mutual defense, which is NOT government - it is a function which government monopolizes and pretends to provide, but only one of many functions.


Substitute Walmart/Microsoft/NewsCorp/TimeWarner/other major multinational corporations for Bob and the rest of the world for Bill, Ted and Tom, and you have the modern world.
are you anti-business? Why do you make this statement?

[crimzonsol]

Leapardpm, if you were living in an anarchist state and somebody tried to bring the government back would you violently oppose them or would you let them bring the government?
Would it matter if you were in the majority or minority?

[Leopardpm]

Leapardpm, if you were living in an anarchist state and somebody tried to bring the government back would you violently oppose them or would you let them bring the government?
Two things to note first:
ONE - government is NOT a state. The red cross has a 'government', every club or membership organization has a government, and all these governments work quite well - BUT, they are not a 'state', they do not force others to join, and members can opt out as they see fit. An Anarchist society would contain many governments, but not all folks would choose to be part of any of them. The problem today is that folks believe that government is somehow tied to a certain region or territory, this fact of life today is NOT necessary and once this is realized, then a huge step towards a peaceful anarchist society will have been taken.

TWO - If someone tried to IMPOSE a government on others, through force, then defensive force is justified and expected.


Would it matter if you were in the majority or minority?no, of course not. If 10 of my neighbors 'voted' to take my house, they may be able to do so physically, but it is definitely an immoral act and violates my sovereignty/rights.

[crimzonsol]

What if a group manipulated a large portion of the population to want the state back would you let them reinstate the state if it did not effect you?
What if a million people wanted the state back and you were the only one who did not want it and you could choose if the state was reinstated, would you choose to reinstate the state?

[Leopardpm]

What if a group manipulated a large portion of the population to want the state back would you let them reinstate the state if it did not effect you?
manipulated how? You mean persuaded? Or something more sinister like mind control? If people voluntarily (without being threatened) wanted to be part of some sort of governmental structure, and I (or anyone) had choice in not being part of the thing, then I have no problem.

What if a million people wanted the state back and you were the only one who did not want it and you could choose if the state was reinstated, would you choose to reinstate the state?If a million people (or even 10 billion) wanted some sort of state FOR THEMSELVES, they can do this with or without my approval - it is only when these multitudes desire to impose their will upon me and force me to join as well that I have a problem with the endeavor.

[crimzonsol]

By manipulated I mean that one small majority saw the oppurtunity to gain power. So they used things like propaganda to spread their message. Can you use force to stop them if it appears that people voluntarily joined?

[Leopardpm]

By manipulated I mean that one small majority saw the oppurtunity to gain power. So they used things like propaganda to spread their message. Can you use force to stop them if it appears that people voluntarily joined?

what's a 'small majority'? LOL!

well, anyways, my bottom line will always be 'voluntary' is fine, being forced is not. Propaganda does not force anyone, it is merely a version of persuasion. If people have the opportunity to choose to NOT listen to it, to not follow it, to do something entirely different without facing some sort of imposed penalty, then I have no problem.

[firefox]

I think he means "50%+1". I agree w/ the propaganda point of yours. As long as you still have the ability to counter-propagandize, you're doing at least OK. When that goes away, however, you've got some serious problems to deal with. BTW, my copy of Anarchy & The Law (http://tinyurl.com/2s4w9n) just came in. There are some cool case studies about private law enforcement, "The Roads", etc. This is a good book for learning about where the logic is coming from, and is useful for both those who agree and those who don't.

[crimzonsol]

I meant small minority, sorry I was Tierd when I was typing it.

[firefox]

It doesn't really matter, crim.

[crimzonsol]

Leopardpm, what if your family wanted to go, would you abandon them, or would you go with them and would that be considered wrong?

[Leopardpm]

If an adult family member desired to go, then I would try to persuade as much as I could to change their mind - short of forcing them to stay. For family members who were under my guardianship, I would prevent them from going until they reached adulthood.

Would I go with them? perhaps, it is possible. But in that case, my action would be voluntary and I would enter into the socialist compact with consent.

[crimzonsol]

Why would you prevent a person that was under your guardianship from joining. What if your partner was going then how would you choose if they stayed with you or your partner, would you let them choose and if so why would you not let them to choose to go a join a state, but you would let them choose who they got to stay with.

[Leopardpm]

Yes, I would prevent a child that was under my protection from joining exactly because I would be protecting them.

What is the point you are getting at - you have moved into the realm of something of a 'custody battle' which has nothing at all with the topic.

[crimzonsol]

I was wondering two things, why you are allowed to make decissions for your kids and the State is not allowed to make your decisions?

The second reason I ask is because I do not know the anwsers to these questions and so would like to know what other anarchists think on the subject.

[firefox]

I'm in agreement w/ LeopardPM, but the entire scenario revolves around the question of "how do we know the individual is mature enough to make his own decisions, and thus be outside the legitimate control of someone else". Personally, I would say age 16 by default, and take it on a case by case basis. Some may be ready earlier, others later, but 16 would be my "target age of consent", so to speak. What do you think about this, crim?

[Leopardpm]

I was wondering two things, why you are allowed to make decissions for your kids and the State is not allowed to make your decisions?yes, exactly, my kids... not "the State's". And they remain 'my kids' until they see fit to break out on their own and take responsibility for their lives from me - they are 'mine' until they desire to 'opt out' of my little fiefdom.


The second reason I ask is because I do not know the anwsers to these questions and so would like to know what other anarchists think on the subject.
The subject of children is always a sticky issue because the subject of them being complete humans is a gray area. The way I see it, as the embryo is forming inside the mother, it is 'her' property, 'her' cells. At some point, the mass of cells becomes an entity unto itself, although still dependent upon the mother and parents to survive. So, as a baby moves through childhood, through pre-adultness, it gains 'rights' as it is able to be responsible to abide by these same rights of others. Just as a thief has broken the 'rights' compact with his victims, and thereby loses rights himself, the child gains rights as it learns to respect them.

Firefox says age 16 is a good default... perhaps. But I ask, "Why have a default at all?" Basically, the parents have a contract to provide for the children until the children are able to provide for themselves, or, until the children themselves believe they have this ability and desire to exert their rights to self-ownership and fly from the nest. This relative definition takes care of those instances in which parents dump babies by the side of the road (which just feels morally wrong), and those instances where the kids start taking advantage of the contract with their parents.

One of the problems I have with my little scenario is that revolves around that undefined and unconsented abstraction: the assumed contract. This then has all the same flaws logically as the vaunted 'social contract' which has been easily debunked in the past.

[crimzonsol]

I believe that the age is not relavent, I believe that if they demonstrate the ability to respect other peoples rights and the ability to think analytical They should be allowed to find their own course.

Although I do not know how this would be done, or if it can be done. This is definatly one the areas I think most anarchist negelct to think about because of the other complexities in the theory. As for the assumed contract, I believe that it would be the most fair and just way to reach an agreement. On The issue of abortion I am kinda in the middle, but slowly I am becoming more pro chioce, because outside of religious reasons I see no reason why we should not allow it.

I also do not know if the contract is something I approve of because it forces the kid in to a contract with out its consent.

[Leopardpm]

Crim,
On The issue of abortion I am kinda in the middle, but slowly I am becoming more pro chioce, because outside of religious reasons I see no reason why we should not allow it.
the abortion debate is this: Everyone agrees that murder of another human is illegal, the problem lies in defining the moment an embryo (or a few cells) attains this 'human' status. This has NOTHING to do with religion, except that most religions are generally against murder.

[crimzonsol]

The religious stand point is that the mass of cells has a sole so it is murder, if you eliminate the religion fraction from the arguement you have a very small who do not believe that it is murder.

But whatever. The point I was trying to make was that I do not Know when to define the time when a "human" is created.

[Leopardpm]

...because there is no 'objective' measure.... its a relative and subjective point

[crimzonsol]

Too true.

[firefox]

The religious stand point is that the mass of cells has a sole so it is murder, if you eliminate the religion fraction from the arguement you have a very small who do not believe that it is murder.

But whatever. The point I was trying to make was that I do not Know when to define the time when a "human" is created.


Souls, crim, souls. Soles is what happens in this situation: http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/flash/play/672/

[crimzonsol]

I know I cannot spell, by you get the genral Idea. By the way nice video.

[firefox]

I know, I just enjoyed the excuse to share that cartoon! ;)

[crimzonsol]

Glad you did.

[tony mitra]

I have been watching the goings on at the various DOHA round talks, a subset to the WTO agreements, the last of them conducted in Geneva a few months ago in Geneva between USA, EU, Brasil and India.

Why only those four groups? Thats a very long story, and starts out with the concept of the DOHA round of talks and the milelnium project, which was supposed to be for eradication of world poverty in a handful of years, primarily to benevolent loans and help from the rich for the poor and helping them climb the economic ladder quickly, by allowing them access to the huge western market for the few things that the poor can produce and the rich have presumably erected a barrier against. It was supposed to be good for all, and a great victory for globalization.

As it appears, things did not quite play out that way, by a long shot. The phenomeal rise of China, followed by Russia India and Brasil essentially changed the goal post and the nature of the game between the haves and the have nots.

Further, for the first time in modern history, the so called have-nots apparently found some teeth and began to coalesce into a hard bargaining groups, demanding access to western markets ahead of opening up their own markets, contrary to the wishes of the west.

The game of chess seems to have reached the mid point and heating up. At stake is the economic welfare of 3 or 4 billion people, the future status of the BRIC nations and their affiliation (whether it would lie more with the rich or more with the poor) and the very shape of the economic and trade power blocks of the near future.

Wonder if anyone else has some knowledge about it. One can find some American viewpoints on it from class lecture audio files in US universities such as University of California, Berkeley, or Stanford and such, and also on papers submitted by different folks involved in this game in the past decade or so.

Very interesting, at least for me.