|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| I think what the Somali pirates are doing is wrong, but I don't see how the Somali pirates are any different than our soldiers in Iraq. It seems like both groups are people willing to pillage and kill for money and they both try to justify it with flimsy excuses. |
I agree: soldiers are paid killers. This really can't be said enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
British chemical tanker 'seized by Somali pirates'
Dec 29 Guardian
UK-flagged chemical tanker has been hijacked by Somali pirates, according to reports.
The reports said the vessel, the St James Park, was captured in the Gulf of Aden while on its way to Thailand from Spain and had since changed course for Somalia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/29/british-tanker-pirates-somalia?CMP=AFCYAH
Robin hood strikes again  . |
I remember certain people here trying to argue that the Somalian pirates were just Somalia's "volunteer coast guard" who work to protect Somalia from illegal fishing and nuclear waste dumping. Strange how the vessels they grab are so often high value vessels totally unrelated to fishing and nuclear waste dumping. |
Was that the same troll that suggested Somalia was an example of libertarianism in practice? |
Mind you, no one gave a particularly compelling reason why Libertarianism wouldn't turn out that way. . . because I strongly suspect any Libertarian society would end up being an unstable mess that's not internally at peace (the Native Americans, who were also quite Libertarian by any realistic measure, also constantly fought among themselves). |
I wasn't aware that 'Native American tribes' constantly experienced inter-tribal strife. Anyway, its a bogus example.
If you want a real example of libertarianism in action, try the United States during the 19th Century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If you want a real example of libertarianism in action, try the United States during the 19th Century. |
Which part of the 19th Century were you thinking of? The part of it where the gov't shut down all international trade (Embargo of 1807)? The forced removal of the eastern Indians or the massacre of the Plains Indians because they were 'other'? The part where the federal gov't gave gazillions of acres of public (read Indian) land to the railroads? Would it be the part of that century when the gov't kept hands off the banks and we had major financial crises time after time...1837, 1857...? Maybe you had in mind the Polk Administration where a foreign war was manufactured for the spread of slavery? Could it have been the Gilded Age when bosses locked the doors of sweatshops with the result of real live people burning to death?
Libertarianism is just the contemporary version of 'let the big money boys screw the common man and expect him to say 'thank you' for the pleasure'. Libertarianism is just cheap jack States Rights 'philosophy' run amok.
The laws of the 20th Century were a result of the abuses of the 19th Century. Libertarianism had its chance and failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| they need to establish an effective government and start patrolling their own waters. |
You seem to assume that Somali is a western nation with infrastructure and a history of democracy, that this is a simple task and the people are just being lazy about it. Actually they are trapped into factional and clan-based infighting. Warlords are strengthening- in part due to the proceeds from piracy.
Obama is trying to fortify the weak pre-existing givernment there as a counterbalance:
| Quote: |
| Recently, for example, $1.2 million was handed over to Somali leaders in "a brown paper bag," according to an account published on the website of Washington-based Foreign Policy magazine. |
http://www.afrika.no/Detailed/18753.html
But it won't be enough to rival what the clans are bringing in from piracy.
| Quote: |
If pirates were really interested purely and only in protecting Somali resources from plunder, they would limit their targets to:
1) Vessels actively engaged in illegal fishing. |
But they have, the pirates have been effective at scaring off the illegal trawlers.
The 'benefit' of Somalia's pirates
Channel 4, Oct 25th 2009
The increasing levels of piracy off the coast of Somalia have caused an unexpected spin-off, raising the levels of fish in the sea.
Fisherman in Kenya have reported bumper catches of shark and shellfish because commercial fishing boats from China and Japan have been scared away.
Now the fishermen are able to catch up to �200 worth of fish per day in an area where the average daily earnings are less than �5.
The massive factory trawlers which used to drain their fish stocks have been scared away and that means there is a huge bounty for local fishermen as well as helping to restore the health of the marine eco-system.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/africa/the+aposbenefitapos+of+somaliaaposs+pirates/3399027
So not only have Somalis defended their coast from the trawlers, they've recouped some of their losses from passing foreign trespassers.
Last edited by Junior on Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I wasn't aware that 'Native American tribes' constantly experienced inter-tribal strife.
Anyway, its a bogus example. |
Of course it is, because anything that isn't wildly successful doesn't count. Nevermind that they were the ultimate embodiment of local law, minimal government mandate, and freedom as far as know society goes. They don't count because they failed the test of history; Libertarianism does not brook failures to be counted amongst its ranks.
| Kuros wrote: |
| If you want a real example of libertarianism in action, try the United States during the 19th Century. |
And what I see is a society that inevitably changed quite dramatically. Even if I were to grant this is an example of Libertarianism (and I don't grant it, but I'll entertain it for the sake of discussion), the same could not be said for modern America. Minimally governed societies through-out history have inevitably gone two ways:
1) Never progressed at all.
2) Progressed, but quickly become progressively more governed as people demanded more from their government.
Yes, Libertarianism would be an excellent system if people were inherently different and could accept such a system and work within its confines to its full effect without agitating for more government. And Communism would be an excellent system if people weren't so driven by their own desires and could work effectively and reliably for the common good (and that goes for both workers and leaders). Back in reality, people aren't either way, so extolling the virtues of such systems doesn't mean much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| they need to establish an effective government and start patrolling their own waters. |
You seem to assume that Somali is a western nation with infrastructure and a history of democracy,that this is a simple task. In this regard I see Obama is trying to fortify the weak pre-existing givernment there. |
It's not a simple task, but it's one the majority of human civilizations have managed. If Somalians want the benefits of governance, they need to get past their problems and form an effective government. If they cannot, then they'll have to do without those benefits. In no case is turning to piracy an acceptable alternative (and fortunately, the majority of Somalis have not done so).
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
If pirates were really interested purely and only in protecting Somali resources from plunder, they would limit their targets to:
1) Vessels actively engaged in illegal fishing. |
But they have, the pirates have been effective at scaring off the illegal trawlers. |
They could do this without pirating. They should do this without pirating. But if they did it without pirating, they would make money, which again proves what this is really about: money. Not fish, not nuclear waste, money. As you say, poor fishermen driving Mercedes Benz. Not using that money to clean up nuclear waste. Not using it to help stabilize their country. Gadding about with their stolen goods and living it up.
| Junior wrote: |
| So not only have Somalis defended their coast from the trawlers, they've recouped some of their losses from passing foreign trespassers. |
Yes, they've recouped those losses by stealing money from innocent people who never harmed them in any way. If my wallet is stolen, and I decide to rob you to recoup my losses, did I do something praiseworthy? According to you, yes I did. Oh, but I'm Western so the same rules don't apply, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I wasn't aware that 'Native American tribes' constantly experienced inter-tribal strife.
Anyway, its a bogus example. |
Of course it is, because anything that isn't wildly successful doesn't count. Nevermind that they were the ultimate embodiment of local law, minimal government mandate, and freedom as far as know society goes. They don't count because they failed the test of history; Libertarianism does not brook failures to be counted amongst its ranks.
| Kuros wrote: |
| If you want a real example of libertarianism in action, try the United States during the 19th Century. |
And what I see is a society that inevitably changed quite dramatically. Even if I were to grant this is an example of Libertarianism (and I don't grant it, but I'll entertain it for the sake of discussion), the same could not be said for modern America. Minimally governed societies through-out history have inevitably gone two ways:
1) Never progressed at all.
2) Progressed, but quickly become progressively more governed as people demanded more from their government.
Yes, Libertarianism would be an excellent system if people were inherently different and could accept such a system and work within its confines to its full effect without agitating for more government. And Communism would be an excellent system if people weren't so driven by their own desires and could work effectively and reliably for the common good (and that goes for both workers and leaders). Back in reality, people aren't either way, so extolling the virtues of such systems doesn't mean much. |
Honestly, I don't want to spend my time debating the virtues or possibilities of Libertarianism with you. We wouldn't even agree on what Libertarianism means, so I see no point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Libertarian is derived from the word liberty. Liberty, properly defined, is the elimination of intimidation, coercion and violence. In other words, the central question for a libertarian isn't one of governance, but rather on how to achieve peace. If we are to accept a government, as even most libertarians do, save for the Murray Rothbards and Lew Rockwells of the World, then the question becomes one of individual dignity and state power. As far as economics is concerned, markets need peace, not to be confused with 'order', to survive, flourish and be successful. That is why question of Somalia is a non-starter; there is no peace.
That said, Somalia is clearly in need of what we may think of a properly functioning government. However, those of you expecting all of Somalia's warring factions to come together in Mogadishu for the purposes of a constitutional convention, don't hold your breath. There are to many people looking for a strongman, un caudillo, in the country. There are also a lot of people looking to be the strongman. Somalia, to me, seems nothing more than a violent game of king of the mountain.
All of this still leaves no excuse for piracy. However, ships passing through those waters should adjust by hiring the proper security or rerouting their vessels. As for the nuclear waste, it is something Somalis will have to put up with. The Somalis can't get their act together. Therefore they are going to have live with the waste, the economic stagnation and the wars. Everyone else will just have to take the proper precautions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Somalia is a culture rife with violent, primitive barbarism - tribalism, superstition, FGM, all trade being hand-to-mouth third world peddling. These norms become embedded in the collective psyche at an early stage in life and are very difficult to change later on. At least if an Islamic theocracy were set up, there would be some semblance of rule of law - albeit Sharee'ah law. But rule of Sharee'ah law is better than lawlessness. Then, if Somali entrepreneurs and skilled laborers were to start-up industries, the fruits of their labors could be guaranteed to be theirs (theft being illegal in Islam, punishable with amputations) and the factions and the militants will be in less of a position to frustrate individual efforts. Sharee'ah is milder than the Taliban-esque alternatives in Somalia (education of women, etc)
Hopefully a strong Islamic dictator will knock it up into some kind of shape - a hierarchic system where people can at least attempt to shape their own lives unmolested by devastating wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:16 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
British chemical tanker 'seized by Somali pirates'
Dec 29 Guardian
UK-flagged chemical tanker has been hijacked by Somali pirates, according to reports.
The reports said the vessel, the St James Park, was captured in the Gulf of Aden while on its way to Thailand from Spain and had since changed course for Somalia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/29/british-tanker-pirates-somalia?CMP=AFCYAH
Robin hood strikes again . |
I remember certain people here trying to argue that the Somalian pirates were just Somalia's "volunteer coast guard" who work to protect Somalia from illegal fishing and nuclear waste dumping. Strange how the vessels they grab are so often high value vessels totally unrelated to fishing and nuclear waste dumping. |
Was that the same troll that suggested Somalia was an example of libertarianism in practice? |
Mind you, no one gave a particularly compelling reason why Libertarianism wouldn't turn out that way. . . because I strongly suspect any Libertarian society would end up being an unstable mess that's not internally at peace (the Native Americans, who were also quite Libertarian by any realistic measure, also constantly fought among themselves). |
I wasn't aware that 'Native American tribes' constantly experienced inter-tribal strife. Anyway, its a bogus example.
If you want a real example of libertarianism in action, try the United States during the 19th Century. |
Only the last quarter of the 19th Century until the creation of the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve could be considered a period of relatively free markets. Since free labor markets and self ownership are essential to a free market and a Libertarian society, prior to the end of reconstruction after the Civil War, America was not even close to Libertarian.
Unfortunately, there was a great deal of political corruption which led to socialistic government favors being handed out to special interests that have been commonly called "Robber Barons." These were failures caused by socialistic government and more unfortunately the result was that the corrupt government politicians gave themselves more socialistic powers and made things worse.
The primitive form of socialism (more like tribal communism) practiced by American Indians was the cause of their glacially slow rate of development. They had no property rights and did not allow the ownership of land, nor did they allow any other form of wealth accumulation which means advancement was impossible.
No one thinks otherwise (except Fox) and American Indians would think Fox's assertions absurd.
The ability to own land, to fence off the land, to keep all the animals and crops that are raised upon the land, to pass on wealth to one's descendants, to use your wealth to hire others to do work and not support them by communistic required sharing - these are all essential elements in a Libertarian society and also essential to economic advancement. And none of these were allowed nor were they possible in North America prior to the European settlement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Big villas and hotels are sprouting, former subsistence fishermen are driving Mercedes-Benzes and gold-digging women are showing up. So are accountants. |
Too funny. It's like the gangsta rapper who hits it big. Ten to one he's po' again in five years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
[q
The primitive form of socialism (more like tribal communism) practiced by American Indians was the cause of their glacially slow rate of development. They had no property rights and did not allow the ownership of land, nor did they allow any other form of wealth accumulation which means advancement was impossible.
. |
Completely untrue. Indian chiefs/shamen had far more wealth (as they measured it back then) then some ordinary tribe member.
And as for the ownership of land many many bloody battles were fought with other tribes over prime hunting or fishing grounds.
To deny this is to deny reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
[
To my knowledge only one person has been killed by the pirates, and that in a silly and needless 'rescue operation" botched by ze french.
For the most part...the pirates treat their captives with extraordinary hospitality.
] |
I wonder if Taiwan thinks so
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6719091.stm
And the hostage wasn't killed for fishing or dumping, he was killed for his ship's owners not paying ransom.
But I guess it's pointless arguing with someone who thinks it's too bad that the Native Americans don't resort to terrorism to chase the whites out of 'their' land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
[q
The primitive form of socialism (more like tribal communism) practiced by American Indians was the cause of their glacially slow rate of development. They had no property rights and did not allow the ownership of land, nor did they allow any other form of wealth accumulation which means advancement was impossible.
. |
Completely untrue. Indian chiefs/shamen had far more wealth (as they measured it back then) then some ordinary tribe member.
And as for the ownership of land many many bloody battles were fought with other tribes over prime hunting or fishing grounds.
To deny this is to deny reality. |
Ontheway isn't in the business of facts. He has to deny that the Native Americans were extremely Libertarian because, if he doesn't, his entire world view crashes down. Suddenly Libertarianism isn't a recipie for a perfect utopia, but instead becomes a total social dead-end. But he a priori knows Libertarianism is a perfect form of society. QED, the Native Americans weren't Libertarian. His talk of land ownership is pure justification; anyone can see the reason most Native tribes didn't bother with things like deeds for specific plots of land is because land was in such ridiculous abundance that it was meaningless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
[q
The primitive form of socialism (more like tribal communism) practiced by American Indians was the cause of their glacially slow rate of development. They had no property rights and did not allow the ownership of land, nor did they allow any other form of wealth accumulation which means advancement was impossible.
. |
Completely untrue. Indian chiefs/shamen had far more wealth (as they measured it back then) then some ordinary tribe member.
And as for the ownership of land many many bloody battles were fought with other tribes over prime hunting or fishing grounds.
To deny this is to deny reality. |
Ontheway isn't in the business of facts. He has to deny that the Native Americans were extremely Libertarian because, if he doesn't, his entire world view crashes down. Suddenly Libertarianism isn't a recipie for a perfect utopia, but instead becomes a total social dead-end. But he a priori knows Libertarianism is a perfect form of society. QED, the Native Americans weren't Libertarian. His talk of land ownership is pure justification; anyone can see the reason most Native tribes didn't bother with things like deeds for specific plots of land is because land was in such ridiculous abundance that it was meaningless. |
This post is needlessly ad hominem and uncalled for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
