- Capitalism and Alternatives -
I don't know, but I'm sure it's disgusting.
In Reply to: What is the sound of two eyes rolling? posted by David on December 08, 1999 at 11:10:15:
: Okay, she starts out by commenting that she heard some people argue that free trade leads to democracy and human rights, it is obvious that she thinks rather poorly of the these people. She starts to qulify her statement by pointing out that nations that have a poor human rights record and are not democratic are members. She then completely shifts gear and starts to attack people who oppose Chinas admittance into the WTO because of an oppressive government and poor human rights history.
She means, all the conservatives who belittle WTO protesters for bitching about human rights in WTO countries like Pakistan, but who then turn bitch about China's human rights record soley due to their anti-communism.
: Salvaging her previous argument that she kinda sort of made about how free trade cannot lead to democracy and human rights because there are nations that are appart of the WTO that are undemocractic and oppressive. First of all, the WTO has not achieved free trade yet, there are still huge restrictions and tariffs and trade barriers put up by other countries. The WTO seeks to create free trade among nations. (Personally, however, I think the WTO is an awful idea and will do more harm than good.)
: Look, trade is good. Markets are good. But markets have to be restrained by society and by political organizations. Unrestrained markets get rid of Jesus and Jefferson at the same time. There is no necessary corollary between free trade and secrecy. Free trade doesn't mean free to trash the environment or to trample on people.
: This is just stupid. How do free markets get rid of Jesus and Jefferson?
She means morality and democracy. Purely free markets abide by neither.
I am sure Jefferson would have no qualms with a free market, after all, America in his day was practicaly laissez-faire. (P.S.-- Sociamism gets rid of John Cage and Joan of Arc.)
Somehow I don't think the predatory global capitalism we have today existed in 1776. As for Cage and Joan...huh?
: Gosh, I get railed on for reading Ayn Rand-- at least she can keep her rhetoric linear. All in all though, the article is fairly blasť.
Linear rhetoric leading to the conclusion that selfishness is the greatest of virtues is like a straight road leading to a cliff. But on your last point, unfortunately, this editorial was atypical of other Molly Ivins editorials in that it was almost completely humorless. She's usually one of the funniest political writers around, which is why I love her.