But Hey At Least They Don't Talk About Jesus!

TheDanold

Unimatrix
I think a lot of people on here have thought I have my worries wrong when it comes to what Libertarian or freedom loving people should prioritize as more important, whether it be worrying about social freedom restrictions or economic freedom restrictions.
Well read the current state of this country which makes no restrictions on religion and has government going exactly the way Liberals here desire it to be: completely in charge and running the economy, oh and affirmative action and gun control too.


"THE meeting of the 14-member Southern African Development Community (SADC) in Zambia last week provided scant hope for the people of Zimbabwe. Few details emerged from behind the closed doors, but Zambia's President Levy Mwanawasa, who currently chairs the regional body and had previously compared Zimbabwe to a sinking Titanic, declared that problems in the neighbouring country were “exaggerated”. With 80% unemployment, inflation that could now be over 10,000%, and severe shortages of the most basic goods, many Zimbabweans may disagree. Over 3m of them are thought to have left the country, and the UN refugee agency is working on contingency plans in case the exodus worsens.

Another UN agency, the World Food Programme, reckons that 4m Zimbabweans—about one-third of the population—will need food aid by the beginning of next year. The harvest of maize, the local staple food, was meagre this year. Rains have been poor, and the government's disastrous land-reform programme has turned once flourishing commercial farming into subsistence agriculture.

This is plain to see in rural Mashonaland, the area around the capital, Harare, and the traditional heartland of President Robert Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF. Most of the land where tobacco and maize used to grow lies fallow, taken over by wild vegetation. A few hours' drive south of Harare, a commercial farm that used to grow maize and rear cattle has now been divided into 35 plots where subsistence farmers try to scrape a living. The irrigation system and the water pump that once turned the harsh terrain into fertile soil and provided drinking water broke down long ago. Only one of the 100 or so farm workers who used to work there remains. His small plot is dry, and he has to walk several kilometres to get water from a neighbouring farm. He reckons he has enough maize to feed his family until November. When his stock runs out, he'll be lucky to get one meal a day until the next harvest, in March or April.

A school was set up on the farm, and one of the teachers now lives in the main house, which was looted when the white owner was evicted. Even light switches have been ripped from the walls, not that they would be of much use now. There is electricity a few hours a day only, usually at night. The taps ran dry a long time ago.

The school is in a small building that used to house farm workers. Teachers and parents have joined forces to try to make it work. Benches are made up of old planks balanced on brick stacks, and makeshift tables have been built from scrap wood. None of the three tiny classrooms has any windows or doors left. School fees are 20,000 Zimbabwean dollars a term—or 11 American cents at the black-market exchange rate—but some parents cannot afford even that. The teacher says that a third of children in the area do not go to school at all.

Nearby, two of his pupils are staring up a tree, slingshots in hand. They are hunting a monkey, their only chance of eating meat. The youngest, wearing shorts that reveal his bony legs, says they manage two meals a day: tea and bread, when available, for breakfast, and maize porridge later in the day. His battered shoes are far too big and the laces are tied around his ankles to keep them from flying off. He lives 4km (2.5 miles) away and walks to school.

In another part of Mashonaland, a white commercial farmer tries to hang on, having lost the bulk of his farm to a senior government official and a few war veterans. He is one of the 350 or so commercial farmers thought to be left, from 4,500 before the government started redistributing land in 2000. A portrait of Mr Mugabe hangs on the office wall and he maintains good relations with local officials. The farmer points out that he is not fighting land redistribution itself. But some buildings (including his own house), valuable equipment and crops already planted have been taken over as well, so he is fighting that in court.

He has scaled back cash crops such as wheat and maize massively, and focuses on exports of citrus and tobacco, which bring much-needed foreign exchange. The next crops will need to be planted soon. Uncertain about the farm's future, he ponders over whether to make the investment. From 1,200 workers, he now employs only about 500. “We are going one way,” he says. “Down.”

The farm no longer makes money, but cheap government loans and heavily subsidised diesel help to keep him going. He also plants and harvests on neighbouring farms, which have been reallocated to black owners, and gets half the crop. Many new landowners find that reselling their subsidised diesel on the black market is far more lucrative than farming.

Presidential and parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe are scheduled for next March. The ruling party has been accused of leaning on traditional chiefs to control rural voters. Road-blocks in Mashonaland are frequent. In Chegutu, close to Mr Mugabe's home, shops are depressingly bare, and the struggling local factories and farms have laid off workers. But after years of intimidation, the opposition has almost disappeared. There is little visible security presence. Not so in Marondera, 45 minutes south-east of Harare, where the much-feared youth militia roam the streets and the atmosphere is tense.

Voter registration has just finished. The Zimbabwe Election Support Network, a local NGO, reports serious irregularities, with rural voters loyal to ZANU-PF registering in cities, presumably to dilute support for the opposition, strongest in urban areas. But Zimbabweans will no doubt be cheered to know that the SADC's leaders, at the end of their Lusaka summit, wished elections next year to be free and fair. "
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9687429

But hey what's starving compared to the indignity of having to put up with 10 commandments in courthouses?
 
Umm And this has what to do with the ten commandments in a uS courthouse ?
sorry I may be a bit dense today, but I lost you there ?
 
Umm And this has what to do with the ten commandments in a uS courthouse ?
sorry I may be a bit dense today, but I lost you there ?


You didn't miss anything. Dano is just in rare form today. Apparently he believes that Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is the model of governance that American liberals strive for. How he comes up with this shit is beyond me.
 
I think a lot of people on here have thought I have my worries wrong when it comes to what Libertarian or freedom loving people should prioritize as more important, whether it be worrying about social freedom restrictions or economic freedom restrictions.
Well read the current state of this country which makes no restrictions on religion and has government going exactly the way Liberals here desire it to be: completely in charge and running the economy, oh and affirmative action and gun control too.
..................


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm sorry, what was that?
 
You didn't miss anything. Dano is just in rare form today. Apparently he believes that Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is the model of governance that American liberals strive for. How he comes up with this shit is beyond me.

And do you think it was what Mugabe strove for? When he had government intervene in the economy to have the state oversee farm production and the economy he had envisioned an egalitarian society where people were more equal (sound familiar?).
Instead this is the result. The only difference between American economic liberalism and this was that he did it much quicker so you can see the results much easier.
 
basically. With that nonsensicle post.

It's not at all. For example, Singapore restricts a lot of social freedoms but is very high with economic freedom, it is not my desire for America to be like that, but nevertheless the country and it's people are reasonably happy, well-fed and not worrying about their lives.

Zimbabwe represents the opposite with very little restrictions on social freedom but near totalitarian control over the economy, with the result of starvation, mass exodus, hyperinflation and insane unemployment.

It just shows that given the choice (and unfortunately on a practical level that is the choice, much as you may be tempted to yell out "I'd rather live in neither"), there is no question that social freedom restrictions are no more irksome, not life threatening.
 
It's not at all. For example, Singapore restricts a lot of social freedoms but is very high with economic freedom, it is not my desire for America to be like that, but nevertheless the country and it's people are reasonably happy, well-fed and not worrying about their lives.

Zimbabwe represents the opposite with very little restrictions on social freedom but near totalitarian control over the economy, with the result of starvation, mass exodus, hyperinflation and insane unemployment.

It just shows that given the choice (and unfortunately on a practical level that is the choice, much as you may be tempted to yell out "I'd rather live in neither"), there is no question that social freedom restrictions are no more irksome, not life threatening.

Digging deeper there Dano, sure Singapore is a good comparison to Zimbabwe, well except for the govt economic control of course :rolleyes:
 
It's not at all. For example, Singapore restricts a lot of social freedoms but is very high with economic freedom, it is not my desire for America to be like that, but nevertheless the country and it's people are reasonably happy, well-fed and not worrying about their lives.

Zimbabwe represents the opposite with very little restrictions on social freedom but near totalitarian control over the economy, with the result of starvation, mass exodus, hyperinflation and insane unemployment.

It just shows that given the choice (and unfortunately on a practical level that is the choice, much as you may be tempted to yell out "I'd rather live in neither"), there is no question that social freedom restrictions are no more irksome, not life threatening.


Very little restrictions on "social freedom" in Zimbabwe? You have no idea what you are talking about. None.
 
"When he had government intervene in the economy to have the state oversee farm production and the economy he had envisioned an egalitarian society where people were more equal (sound familiar?)."

You always have a hard time discerning the difference between liberalism & socialism/communism.

You should read more about politics.
 
Very little restrictions on "social freedom" in Zimbabwe? You have no idea what you are talking about. None.
Good point, they do have the Liberal restrictions on social freedom like gun control and affirmative action, but I have not seen any involvement of religion in the government and the Shona and Ndebele people coexist in harmony and are not suppressed one more than the other.

I would say you have little idea what you are talking about, little boy.
 
"When he had government intervene in the economy to have the state oversee farm production and the economy he had envisioned an egalitarian society where people were more equal (sound familiar?)."

You always have a hard time discerning the difference between liberalism & socialism/communism.

You should read more about politics.
Not at all.
I don't expect any lefty to read it, but this essay had a profound impact on why I do see that, it validates what one can observe if you see things gradually moving as they are.

Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism
By Ludwig von Mises
http://www.mises.org/story/2370

The fact is that government does not stop growing, no lefty has ever set a TANGIBLE stopping point to that growth, one then can only logically deduce where it will end up. Pretending they differ is like pretending it makes a difference which car you are in for the road you are about to travel down.
I suppose you can pick a more comfortable and less speedy ride, but you are deluded if you think this really matters.
 
More emo fear-mongering. It's absurd to pick an example like this & equate it in any way with the goals of modern American liberals.

I bet you wouldn't like it if I picked a fascist, oppressive regime, or a theocracy like the Taliban, & said this is what you & conservatives are about.
 
It's not at all. For example, Singapore restricts a lot of social freedoms but is very high with economic freedom, it is not my desire for America to be like that, but nevertheless the country and it's people are reasonably happy, well-fed and not worrying about their lives.

Zimbabwe represents the opposite with very little restrictions on social freedom but near totalitarian control over the economy, with the result of starvation, mass exodus, hyperinflation and insane unemployment.

It just shows that given the choice (and unfortunately on a practical level that is the choice, much as you may be tempted to yell out "I'd rather live in neither"), there is no question that social freedom restrictions are no more irksome, not life threatening.

Singapore executes 10 times more people per a person than China. Singapore could've been much greater under any regime but the current one.

It's not like your 'social freedoms are restricted'. You live an a box, the government controls you all of your life, and forces you to work for corporations.

If your district elects a non-PAP members, you get far less desirable jobs. The PAP reasoning for this? Their policies are "good for Singapore", and if anyone votes for anoyone else they are hurting Singapore and need to be punished. That's democracy in a single-member district nation.
 
Back
Top