The Everlasting CCCP !

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Oh, and one other thing about the capitalist/communist war crimes debate: if you want to talk about ideologies, rather than countries (which you said you did in the the post that started this whole thing off), then you really should include China under Mao and Cambodia under Pol Pot, too.

Sure. And all Africa in the other side

[Jamski]

The main problem with locking people away to stop them committing crimes, is that the crimes are already committed. How are we to say that the criminal will repeat his offences?

When, for example, they are psychologically compelled to commit them, or when they've been warned previosuly not to commit them, and yet they still do.

But this is the case in only a small percentage of offenders. If we take x offenders and lock them up we are restricting the freedom of x people + the original offences against liberty = 2x
If then y of these offenders are likely to reoffend, then we have 2x offences for y offences prevented, where y < x (we assume that not all of them are reoffenders
If we let them go free, and the reoffenders reoffend, then we have x+y offences committed in total. As y < x the second case produces a smaller overall number of offences against liberty, therefore a society that does not punish criminals is "more free"

Or?

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

We can define the blocks in sevreal ways :
- the mother country, their satellites, their client states, and their allies
- the mother country, their satellites, and their client states
- the mother country and their satellites
or
- the mother country

Which geopolitical definition should we use for the blocks ?

The first one.

Definetly not the same result. The importance of the influence of the mother state is definetly not the same if you're a client state or a satellite, and the ways used to make this influence respected differs a lot too. Thats why they cant be included in the same level of dependance to the "mother country".

Same result, difference in degree.

1948 : Five European countries sign the Brussels Treaty for mutual defence
1949 : Twelve nations sign the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington DC
European states were allies (except UK, which remains a vassal until nowadays), and if you consider allies to be part of the block (see definitions stated above) then China, Yougoslavia, India, etc... were always part of the eastern block. It all depends on the definiton we'll agree on though.

Well, China was definitely not a Soviet ally after the 1960s (they fought a war with the Soviets for crying out loud), and I wouldn't really consider India a Soviet ally, though I could be wrong.

F*ck off. I never said that USSR killed fewer people than the US, I said that their crimes was of the same importance,

Yes, you did say that actually.

"I surely forgot some others large crimes of war, but just with these, its over 30 millions."

and that US shouldnt be taken as a good guy facing the USSR.

I never said they should be, only that their crimes wer enot greater than the Soviet ones.

Now, you want a full list of bodycounts... Ok, Ill get it to you, let me the time to search for all the numbers.

Yes, I do, if you're going to claim that they add up to that many dead.

Because some survived ? Just like there is still jews in Poland and Germany.

Slavery isn't the same as genocide. They were enslaved to provide labour, not to try to wipe them out. Slavery wasn't even utilised by the capitalist North anyway; it was sue dby the souterhn aristocracy.

Well, you talk about Soviet enslavment of German POWs, and I talk about US enslavment of German POWs, and I precise they were scientists. Is that really so hard to understand.

I still don't understand why ou brought that up, because they weren'tenslaved', they were acquitted for war crimes on condition they work for the US. The German POWs were shippe doff to Siberia on whatever flimsy proof the Soviets could come up with.

Sure. And all Africa in the other side

Why, and what difference would it make?

[GeneralTacticus]

But this is the case in only a small percentage of offenders. If we take x offenders and lock them up we are restricting the freedom of x people + the original offences against liberty = 2x
If then y of these offenders are likely to reoffend, then we have 2x offences for y offences prevented, where y If we let them go free, and the reoffenders reoffend, then we have x+y offences committed in total. As y
Or?

Well, that then hinges on whether you believe that deterrence works. How many societies without any effective government have there been in which nobody committed crimes?

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Slavery wasn't even utilised by the capitalist North anyway; it was used by the southern aristocracy.

*whispers aside to audience*
Just paying someone doesn't stop them being a slave...

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Paying somebody to work for you doesn't make you their property. It doesn't deprive you of your rights.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Well, that then hinges on whether you believe that deterrence works. How many societies without any effective government have there been in which nobody committed crimes?

No government = no laws = no crimes. So in this case all of them. But assuming you mean crimes by the standards of our society. Hmm, I dunno. I can't think of any developed society without any "effective" government. Perhaps a tribal society in Papua Neu Guinea ? But in these societies there is no crime. As in zero.

And you know I don't think deterrence works.

-Jam

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Paying somebody to work for you doesn't make you their property. It doesn't deprive you of your rights.

"You are my property, I pay you, do what I say, or you don't get paid, and them you and your family will starve!" Cue evil laughter.

It doesn't deprive someone of thier rights, just the ability to exercise them. When I took my current job, one of the conditions was that I couldn't jion a union. This is aginst my constitutional right to free assembly, but I needed the money...

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Hmm, I dunno. I can't think of any developed society without any "effective" government.

Northern Ireland might qualify for that at one stage, although that wa sbecause the paramilitaries took over.

However, it is my beleif that as most people seem to prefer having at least some kind of roder in their lives, when all authority is abolished, a new authority will take it's place.

Perhaps a tribal society in Papua Neu Guinea ? But in these societies there is no crime. As in zero

Somehow I doubt that these societies have no laws at all. They might have social codes that no-one breaks, but what would they do if someone did break them?

And you know I don't think deterrence works.

Yes, I do know that. Why do you believe it? It does work. If you know that you will be punished for doing something, then that is a strong reason not to do it. If you like breaking windows for fun, but you know that you will be punished severely if you do, are you claiming that thsi will not reduce the numbe rof people who do it?

[GeneralTacticus]

"You are my property, I pay you, do what I say, or you don't get paid, and them you and your family will starve!" Cue evil laughter.

Nice try, but if you don't give me a job, I'll go work for someone else who will.

It doesn't deprive someone of thier rights, just the ability to exercise them. When I took my current job, one of the conditions was that I couldn't jion a union. This is aginst my constitutional right to free assembly, but I needed the money...

In which case your employer is violating the law.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Nice try, but if you don't give me a job, I'll go work for someone else who will.

Don't forget, this isn't sunny Australia here. We have nearly one quarter unemployment in Germany. If you don't like the job... well, just try to find another.

In which case your employer is violating the law.

They have some kind of clever loophole, like "If you complain, then we have a very good lawyer, and the state loves us just for giving you a job, considering the unemployment situation"

Great isn't it.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Don't forget, this isn't sunny Australia here. We have nearly one quarter unemployment in Germany. If you don't like the job... well, just try to find another.

1/4 unemployment? Ouch. Still, this is what unions are for... and if your employer doesn't allow them, then he is violating the law. The only problem is enforcing it.

They have some kind of clever loophole, like "If you complain, then we have a very good lawyer, and the state loves us just for giving you a job, considering the unemployment situation"

Great isn't it.

He's still violating the law. If the state refuses to enforce it, then that's another matter, and a very big problem.

[Jamski]

Tell me about it. Of course in other professions the opposite is true and they are over-protected by the union. You're not a union member? Then you won't work in this profession. This is to protect wages by stopping people working under price (a good thing IMO) but with the current employment crisis (a word I don't often use) the union members are basically just covering their own jobs. There are professions in Germany now from which you cannot be sacked - regardless what you do. Crazy.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Nations in crisis don't tend to be good examples of how or how not to run a particular system.

[Jamski]

But they are very good examples of what can go wrong with that system. The capitalist system is build on the principle of continuous profit growth. Who'd want to invest in a company that didn't make money? In Germany the growth stopped in the mid 90's. Now we are feeling the result. No growth = no investment = no jobs = low spending = no growth. This is the ultimate destination of the economies of all countries. If you're lucky it will get to Australia last.

-jam