Comments on: China’s Growing Military: Much Ado About Something (Part 1)

By: Arben_G

Arben_G — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:42:18 +0000

Of course not. If you feel however that I didn't answer your points, there's little I can do about it since I think I did. And I'm perfectly happy with that situation.

By: Arben_G

Arben_G — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:40:26 +0000

They same the same thing. You just chose to stop reading there, and not read the rest of the sentence. 1 or 2 individuals are not a "people". A "people" are a society. For a society to be free, it first needs to be economically free, ie capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. This has little to do with whether there is a poor person in Appalachia or a rich person in China. Individuals are not economic systems onto themselves.

By: AreaMan66

AreaMan66 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:27:18 +0000

Yes, because it's all about feelings…

By: AreaMan66

AreaMan66 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:25:54 +0000

You write this….

Free people have to first be economically well off to be free.

but then write this…

That concept has very little do do with the relative amount of wealth of one or two individuals of any society

So which is it?

By: Arben_G

Arben_G — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:16:17 +0000

You may indeed submit this, but thats only because you didn't understand what I said or what it means.

Milton Friedman put it best when he said that "Capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom, but it is not a sufficient condition". That concept has very little do do with the relative amount of wealth of one or two individuals of any society. It has to do with the economic conditions and economic freedoms of societies as a whole.

No place on earth has become politically free without first practicing economic freedom (which translates into wealth generation for the greatest number of people).

It isn't simply an economic or political argument. It is also a basic cornerstone of sociology.

By: Arben_G

Arben_G — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:09:10 +0000

If thats the way you feel about it.

By: AreaMan66

AreaMan66 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:07:09 +0000

I can see that you are ignoring what I am writing and continuing on in a different direction.

By: AreaMan66

AreaMan66 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:48:46 +0000

Free people have to first be economically well off to be free.

Really? So, wealth leads to freedom?

I submit to you that the poorest yokel in Appalachia is a freer man than the wealthiest Chinese citizen.

By: Arben_G

Arben_G — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:43:06 +0000

One has nothing to do with the other. If economic collaboration is inductive to peace, then paranoia, nationalism and prejudices are inductive to war. The two can coexist in any situation. It is whichever one has the upper hand that matters. If we decide to go down the road of protectionism and anti-free trade (conservatives against free-trade? Again this boggles the mind), then we reduce the incentives…for peace. If we go down the road of viewing everyone as a potential "enemy" and "competitor" and someone who "takes advantage of us", then we increase the incentives for war.

The Left makes the same weak argument in person-to-person economic activities. They see everything as CLASS WAR. It seems some "conservatives" have boroughed a page from their book, and see country-to-country economic activities as actual WARS.

Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave.

What I said was that the best tool against war has always been economic collaboration.

By: AreaMan66

AreaMan66 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:36:04 +0000

Economic collaboration rarely gets people into wars. Whaa? Did you you feel the wind as the point whizzed past your head? Who said economic collaboration was the reason people go to war? You allege that because of economic collaboration there is less likelihood of war. That same argument was made in 1910 and was proven wrong.