Political or Economi Freedom?
Cheeze
Or poor yet free?
This is quoted from today's Inquirer:
***
"The Philippines is not reaching its full potential and may be facing
the risk of falling further behind the rest of its Asian neighbors,"
warned managing director Juan Jose Daboub at a forum on governance in
Manila.
He cited the rapid growth of China and India but also noted that
Vietnam, which once lagged behind the Philippines, had shown remarkable
success, cutting in half the number of its poor in just over a decade.
Daboub said this was happening in a "closed society (with) no political
freedom but economic freedom has started to pick up," thanks to market
reforms.
In contrast, the Philippines, with an open democracy, free press,
well-educated population, and active private and civil sector, was
still struggling to bring more of its population out of poverty.
***
Incidentally both China and Vietnam are considered communist on paper.
But I recall a recent Time article on the rise of the Chinese
capitalists in China, and I wonder how true that still is. Did it go
so far to the left that it is now on the right? I know very little
about vietnam and can't comment on its success, so I'll stick with
China.
Tumbaga, on another thread also mentioned Singapore. And I recall
Rennie giving an example that Singapore is an example of government
control that became a success.
So that gets me thinking. Could it be that DSP is correct and that the
liberals are all evil?
Should we not scrap the free speech clause altogether?
Should sovereignty be transferred from the people to... uhhm... an
emperor?
The article mentioned "no political freedom but economic freedom has
started to pick up."
In contrast, the RP has so many baseless economic restrictions (Why on
earth do you need five people to set up a corporation? Why do you
need to be a Filipino citizen to own land? Why do you need to be
Filipino to own a sari-sari store? Why can you not retain more than
five hectares of farm land? Why do you suddenly have rights over real
property by squatting on it? Why why why?!?!?!?). But there is a lot
of political freedom. We are free to say the President sucks (we'll
have to ask the first gentleman). And the newspapers do that. Free
speech is defended to the hilt.
And here is what I've always been saying. The same article then
stated: "Among the measures he suggested was to reduce the size of the
state, saying this would also reduced the chance of misuse of funds
while raising the activity of the private sector and civil society."
Aha aha... spoken like a true Randroid.
Lets not get too carried away with Free Speech. While it is a
necessary ingredient to our happiness, what is most important is that
which is found as the very first item on the bill of rights:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
BTW Rennie, I'm still a fan of Rand's capitalism though I think her
deeper philosophies are inferior to others.
Dirty Sick Pig
> Lets not get too carried away with Free Speech. While it is a
> necessary ingredient to our happiness, what is most important is that
> which is found as the very first item on the bill of rights:
>
> Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY
> without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
> protection of the laws.
What makes PROPERTY co-equal with LIFE and LIBERTY?
Dalublessee Pig
borac...@gmail.com
The constitution? (in regards to protection against being deprived
thereof)
tumbaga
China and Vietnam has an open market, but not on ideas. China had taken
the same tack that Hong Kong did, piracy and an open market but with
heavy restrictions on dissent.
Both are dictatorship by the ruling party. Any organized group that may
gain a large following (even religious in nature) are discouraged, to
put it down mildly.
It is the lure of a society that is hungry for modern products made it
attractive for investors, the stability of their governments made it
even more attractive.
Free speech is an essential ingredient, I do agree though that
limitations had to be set and defined and it should not be based on
"emotional", like burning a flag, but based on public danger like
"Shouting fire in a crowded" room or theater.
Anyway, China, Vietnam, Thailand etc..(Asia in general) has similar
restrictions, like Philippines, on their economies in order to protect
local investors.
These restrictions had never caused their progress to fail, it is the
promise of stability, in other words, the investors is assured that the
laws will not change, corruption is stable, labor laws are stable.
Dirty Sick Pig
You mean an oligarchy?
> Any organized group that may gain a large following (even religious
> in nature) are discouraged, to put it down mildly.
>
> It is the lure of a society that is hungry for modern products made it
> attractive for investors, the stability of their governments made it
> even more attractive.
>
>> Tumbaga, on another thread also mentioned Singapore. And I recall
>> Rennie giving an example that Singapore is an example of government
>> control that became a success.
>>
>> So that gets me thinking. Could it be that DSP is correct and that the
>> liberals are all evil?
My new sig still being tested: "Nothing stands between the Wall of
Freedom and a firing squad but a miserable line of blindfolded and
handcuffed stinky liberals." ~~Da Doity Seek Peeg~~
Inputs quite welcome.
>> Should we not scrap the free speech clause altogether?
No, that would not be eco-friendly. Why scrap something that's free?
>> Should sovereignty be transferred from the people to... uhhm... an
>> emperor?
Trouble with that word is, it conjures visions of empire. Why not
simply say, "Benevolent Dicktador?"
I agree. The proper way to exercise this freedom is to burn the flag in
a crowded space. THEN, and only then, can a citizen yell "fire" with a
clear and honest conscience.
Anyway, what's wrong with doing this? The Mexican crowd chanted "Osama,
Osama" during a U.S.-Mexico futbol game. And I cheered for the bull at
a Madrid bullfight (not recommended, it can result in contusions). :D
> Anyway, China, Vietnam, Thailand etc..(Asia in general) has similar
> restrictions, like Philippines, on their economies in order to protect
> local investors.
>
> These restrictions had never caused their progress to fail, it is the
> promise of stability, in other words, the investors is assured that the
> laws will not change, corruption is stable, labor laws are stable.
I yust wuv that part about stability of corruption. Classic! Bwahawr!
Corrupt Stabilized Pig
Dirty Sick Pig
> Dirty Sick Pig wrote:
>> Cheeze wrote:
>>> Lets not get too carried away with Free Speech. While it is a
>>> necessary ingredient to our happiness, what is most important is that
>>> which is found as the very first item on the bill of rights:
>>>
>>> Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY
>>> without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
>>> protection of the laws.
>> What makes PROPERTY co-equal with LIFE and LIBERTY?
>>
>> Dalublessee Pig
>
> The constitution? (in regards to protection against being deprived
> thereof)
I see. Now I know. I shall now exercise my natural or maybe even
divine (sorry, libs) right to property.
I'm just practicing being a liberal, dats ol.
RoyalPainInTheLibsPig
Cheeze
In contrast corruption in the Philippines is unstable? China's
advantage is the obvious size of the market there. The growth is
recent relaxation of some of those restrictions that has prevented
western corporations from invading them in the past.
Here in the RP, there are similar moves to lift those restrictions but
they seem to be coming in too slowly. The retail trade liberalization
act allowed foreigners to set up their retail businesses here but does
not cover the every day sari-sari store. And how many countries in the
world restrict land ownership to citizens? I'm guessing not many, and
I wonder if its the rule in China.
tumbaga
Hong Kong, yes (there were dissent during the British Colonial period,
but that had been minor and resolved) but China and Vietnam? No, both
are one party system.
Again, a joke carried too far becomes stupid, that is exactly how you
look here. But that is Dirty Sick Pig's signature, the real one!
>
> Anyway, what's wrong with doing this? The Mexican crowd chanted "Osama,
> Osama" during a U.S.-Mexico futbol game. And I cheered for the bull at
> a Madrid bullfight (not recommended, it can result in contusions). :D
>
>> Anyway, China, Vietnam, Thailand etc..(Asia in general) has similar
>> restrictions, like Philippines, on their economies in order to protect
>> local investors.
>>
>> These restrictions had never caused their progress to fail, it is the
>> promise of stability, in other words, the investors is assured that
>> the laws will not change, corruption is stable, labor laws are stable.
>
>
> I yust wuv that part about stability of corruption. Classic! Bwahawr!
>
> Corrupt Stabilized Pig
Yes, stable corruption is an attractive way to do business, you already
know how much you lose in corruption before you even start.
Not too many people realize how much corruption exist in PRC and
Vietnam, I have a brother-in-law with a manufacturing plant in Pinas and
Vietnam.
Now, he is opening a plant in Korea.
Besides, we have business dealings on all these countries, I have seen
how much corruption exists.
In the Philippines, there is so much similarity with Mexico, where the
tides of political moods can change radically, today you might pay one
set of corrupt officials, tomorrow, there may be additional sets or an
entirely different set.
tumbaga
>
> In contrast corruption in the Philippines is unstable? China's
> advantage is the obvious size of the market there. The growth is
> recent relaxation of some of those restrictions that has prevented
> western corporations from invading them in the past.
It is, in fact this is foreign businesse's gripe, hey I represent one, I
know.
>
> Here in the RP, there are similar moves to lift those restrictions but
> they seem to be coming in too slowly. The retail trade liberalization
> act allowed foreigners to set up their retail businesses here but does
> not cover the every day sari-sari store. And how many countries in the
> world restrict land ownership to citizens? I'm guessing not many, and
> I wonder if its the rule in China.
>
Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and China has much more severe
restrictions, and I posted it here once, didn't you read it?
I was responding to you back then.
Mazinger Z
Cheeze wrote:
> Do people want to be rich and controlled?
> Or poor yet free?
>
> "The Philippines is not reaching its full potential and may be facing
> the risk of falling further behind the rest of its Asian neighbors,"
> warned managing director Juan Jose Daboub at a forum on governance in
> Manila.
>
> He cited the rapid growth of China and India but also noted that
> Vietnam, which once lagged behind the Philippines, had shown remarkable
> success, cutting in half the number of its poor in just over a decade.
>
maybe they have less bullshit , less red tape, less corruption , more
efficency , more land , better strategic location than the pinas?
> Daboub said this was happening in a "closed society (with) no political
> freedom but economic freedom has started to pick up," thanks to market
> reforms.
so are you saying the pinas turn commie like vietnam ? i kaw ang
nagsabi or nagpropose niyan when you use vietnam as an example .
>
> In contrast, the Philippines, with an open democracy, free press,
> well-educated population, and active private and civil sector, was
> still struggling to bring more of its population out of poverty.
repeat, are you saying the pina ought to become socialistic like
vietnam ?
>
> ***
>
> Incidentally both China and Vietnam are considered communist on paper.
> But I recall a recent Time article on the rise of the Chinese
> capitalists in China, and I wonder how true that still is. Did it go
> so far to the left that it is now on the right?
its still commie with lots of capitalistic stuff mixed . so is it
more commie or capitalistic?
I know very little
> about vietnam and can't comment on its success, so I'll stick with
> China.
>
> Tumbaga, on another thread also mentioned Singapore. And I recall
> Rennie giving an example that Singapore is an example of government
> control that became a success.
>
> So that gets me thinking. Could it be that DSP is correct and that the
> liberals are all evil?
liberal capitalists? cmon you know thats as simplistic like the pig
when you label people into black and white.
>
> Should we not scrap the free speech clause altogether?
nope.
>
> Should sovereignty be transferred from the people to... uhhm... an
> emperor?
vietnam still has laws that protect itself . its not really the
people that protect its sovereignty but rather the govt.
>
> The article mentioned "no political freedom but economic freedom has
> started to pick up."
>
> In contrast, the RP has so many baseless economic restrictions (Why on
> earth do you need five people to set up a corporation? Why do you
> need to be a Filipino citizen to own land? Why do you need to be
> Filipino to own a sari-sari store? Why can you not retain more than
> five hectares of farm land? Why do you suddenly have rights over real
> property by squatting on it? Why why why?!?!?!?).
these are specific gripes that can be solved with specific reforms.
you dont have to throw away your freedoms to fix some small
problems.
But there is a lot
> of political freedom. We are free to say the President sucks (we'll
> have to ask the first gentleman). And the newspapers do that. Free
> speech is defended to the hilt.
whats wrong with that ? even the us and plenty of western countries
have it [ where the pinas system is based on ] .
>
> And here is what I've always been saying. The same article then
> stated: "Among the measures he suggested was to reduce the size of the
> state, saying this would also reduced the chance of misuse of funds
> while raising the activity of the private sector and civil society."
>
> Aha aha... spoken like a true Randroid.
problem in the pinas is that business does not act responsibly .
look at the corp that spilled oil in guimaras. they dont follow
the law. they mess it up for the rest of the people. in the pinas
govt is there to make sure these corporations are accountable to
the law and not a law into themselves..
>
> Lets not get too carried away with Free Speech. While it is a
> necessary ingredient to our happiness, what is most important is that
> which is found as the very first item on the bill of rights:
>
> Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY
life, is way superior or important to property.
> without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
> protection of the laws.
>
> BTW Rennie, I'm still a fan of Rand's capitalism though I think her
> deeper philosophies are inferior to others.
is rand for freedom and civil rights ?
people can prosper wwithout going to the dark side
Dirty Sick Pig
> Cheeze wrote:
>> So that gets me thinking. Could it be that DSP is correct and that the
>> liberals are all evil?
> liberal capitalists? cmon you know thats as simplistic like the pig
> when you label people into black and white.
Bullshit. Who uses "honky" all the time? Bwahawr, this Pinoy Brown
Nigger cracks me up!
Dirty Sick Pig
> Dirty Sick Pig wrote:
>
>> tumbaga wrote:
>>
>>> Cheeze wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do people want to be rich and controlled?
>>>> Or poor yet free?
>>>>
>>>> This is quoted from today's Inquirer:
>>>>
>>>> the risk of falling further behind the rest of its Asian neighbors,"
>>>> warned managing director Juan Jose Daboub at a forum on governance in
>>>> Manila.
>>>>
>>>> He cited the rapid growth of China and India but also noted that
>>>> Vietnam, which once lagged behind the Philippines, had shown remarkable
>>>> success, cutting in half the number of its poor in just over a decade.
>>>>
>>>> Daboub said this was happening in a "closed society (with) no political
>>>> freedom but economic freedom has started to pick up," thanks to market
>>>> reforms.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast, the Philippines, with an open democracy, free press,
>>>> well-educated population, and active private and civil sector, was
>>>> still struggling to bring more of its population out of poverty.
>>>>
>>>> But I recall a recent Time article on the rise of the Chinese
>>>> capitalists in China, and I wonder how true that still is. Did it go
>>>> so far to the left that it is now on the right? I know very little
>>>> about vietnam and can't comment on its success, so I'll stick with
>>>> China.
>>>>
>>> China and Vietnam has an open market, but not on ideas. China had
>>> taken the same tack that Hong Kong did, piracy and an open market but
>>> with heavy restrictions on dissent.
>>>
>>> Both are dictatorship by the ruling party.
>>
>> You mean an oligarchy?
>
> Hong Kong, yes (there were dissent during the British Colonial period,
> but that had been minor and resolved) but China and Vietnam? No, both
> are one party system.
The sole party being the oligarchy?
Tenkyuberimats! Can you make that a big-assed flag pre-soaked in kerosene?
>> Anyway, what's wrong with doing this? The Mexican crowd chanted
>> "Osama, Osama" during a U.S.-Mexico futbol game. And I cheered for
>> the bull at a Madrid bullfight (not recommended, it can result in
>> contusions). :D
>>
>>> Anyway, China, Vietnam, Thailand etc..(Asia in general) has similar
>>> restrictions, like Philippines, on their economies in order to
>>> protect local investors.
>>>
>>> These restrictions had never caused their progress to fail, it is the
>>> promise of stability, in other words, the investors is assured that
>>> the laws will not change, corruption is stable, labor laws are stable.
>>
>> I yust wuv that part about stability of corruption. Classic! Bwahawr!
>>
>> Corrupt Stabilized Pig
>
> Yes, stable corruption is an attractive way to do business, you already
> know how much you lose in corruption before you even start.
> Not too many people realize how much corruption exist in PRC and
> Vietnam, I have a brother-in-law with a manufacturing plant in Pinas and
> Vietnam.
>
> Now, he is opening a plant in Korea.
>
> Besides, we have business dealings on all these countries, I have seen
> how much corruption exists.
>
> In the Philippines, there is so much similarity with Mexico, where the
> tides of political moods can change radically, today you might pay one
> set of corrupt officials, tomorrow, there may be additional sets or an
> entirely different set.
I never, ever, had to pay a corrupt functionary in the Philippines. The
only time I forked over baksheesh, the cash was returned by messenger
within an hour of receipt.
It helps when you rubber band with the baksheesh lots of pictures taken
of the mo-fo's house, family members at different public places, pets,
car, his office, secretary, clerks, you get the drift. It helps them
realize it's just as easy to point a rifle scope as a telephoto lens if
you draw crude cross hairs on the pet's pic. I'm too dirty and sick to
bow before crooked politicos and I employ gentlemen who are good at
drawing crude cross hairs on pictures of animals.
Laser Pointer Packin' Pig
Dirty Sick Pig
SNIP
> Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and China has much more severe
> restrictions, and I posted it here once, didn't you read it?
>
> I was responding to you back then.
Who reads your crap?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAWRRRR!
tumbaga
If you don't understand the post just shut up.
Single party system is a dicktatorship, an oligarchy is a system ran by
the rich, like Singapore and Hong Kong, the difference in Hong Kong and
Singapore, there is a promise of spreading wealth to everyone.
That is why it worked there, now that Hong Kong is back in China's
hands, that changed a bit.
Singapore is a LIBERTARIAN'S dream.
In Cebu? Hmmm, let me get my cuzz on your ass then.
tumbaga
See that?
Reason is thrown out the door as soon as it is given.
Dirty Sick Pig
Followed by the "reason" giver or more likely the excuse monger. And
please make that the back door. We don't want to mess up front lawns,
do we? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWR!
Dirty Sick Pig
>>> In the Philippines, there is so much similarity with Mexico, where
>>> the tides of political moods can change radically, today you might
>>> pay one set of corrupt officials, tomorrow, there may be additional
>>> sets or an entirely different set.
>>
>> I never, ever, had to pay a corrupt functionary in the Philippines.
>> The only time I forked over baksheesh, the cash was returned by
>> messenger within an hour of receipt.
>>
>> It helps when you rubber band with the baksheesh lots of pictures
>> taken of the mo-fo's house, family members at different public places,
>> pets, car, his office, secretary, clerks, you get the drift. It helps
>> them realize it's just as easy to point a rifle scope as a telephoto
>> lens if you draw crude cross hairs on the pet's pic. I'm too dirty
>> and sick to bow before crooked politicos and I employ gentlemen who
>> are good at drawing crude cross hairs on pictures of animals.
>>
>> Laser Pointer Packin' Pig
>
> In Cebu? Hmmm, let me get my cuzz on your ass then.
If he feels a little warm red spot on his own ass, please advise him
that it's not harmful by itself, but the metallic and polymer gadget to
which the red spot generating device is attached is the loud, flashy and
smoke belching sonofabitch. If he feels a BIG, wet and painful spot
where flesh once resided on his ass, that means one of the critters got
diverted, or worse, distracted from training. Not to worry, I have TPL
coverage.
Seriously, does he need a good, well-paying job? Is he an AFP veteran?
Is he amenable to a salary in pesos but incentives in foreign
currencies? Willing to travel to "interesting" areas of the Philippines
and elsewhere (on per diem)? Previous criminal convictions not a bar to
employment in my organization as long as I'm told the truth.
Disqualifier if yes: Does he lisp and sashay with exquisite grace like
you? :)
tumbaga
He has what you have.
>
> Seriously, does he need a good, well-paying job? Is he an AFP veteran?
> Is he amenable to a salary in pesos but incentives in foreign
> currencies? Willing to travel to "interesting" areas of the Philippines
> and elsewhere (on per diem)? Previous criminal convictions not a bar to
> employment in my organization as long as I'm told the truth.
> Disqualifier if yes: Does he lisp and sashay with exquisite grace like
> you? :)
Hehehehe,
He doesn't need a job, former AFP, yes, he travels all over the country,
difficult to find.
tumbaga
from:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Thailand
The law permits 100 percent foreign ownership except in 32 restricted
service occupations, which include firms in the cultural and national
security sectors and industries deemed by the government to be at a
comparative disadvantage relative to those of other countries. Foreign
investors face limits on ownership in other sectors. According to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, "the Alien Business Act of 1999 governs
most investment activity by non-Thai nationals, opens additional
business sectors to foreign investment, and increases maximum ownership
stakes permitted in some sectors above the standard 49 percent
limitation…. In general, non-Thai businesses and citizens are not
permitted to own land in Thailand unless the land is on
government-approved industrial estates…. [F]oreigners who invest a
minimum of 40 million baht (around $964,000) will be permitted to buy up
to 1,600 square meters of land for residential use with the permission
of the Ministry of Interior." Regulations are not enforced consistently
or predictably and remain an obstacle to investment. The International
Monetary Fund reports that residents and non-residents may hold foreign
exchange accounts, subject to approval in some cases and maximum limits.
Foreign exchange transactions, repatriation, some outward direct
investments, and transactions involving capital market securities,
bonds, debt securities, money market instruments, real estate, and
short-term money securities are regulated and require government
approval in most cases. Residents may purchase real estate abroad,
subject to quantitative limits.
Businesses in Korea are classified in accordance with the Korean
Standard Industrial Classification (KSIC) system, whereby each type of
business falls under a particular KSIC number. Restrictions on direct
foreign investment under the FIPL are tied to this classification system.
from:
http://www.altassets.net/casefor/countries/2002/nz2527.php
Korea uses a negative list system, which means that a business is open
to foreign investment unless it is otherwise restricted. Under its
liberalisation policy, the Korean government has gradually increased the
number of businesses open to foreign investment, and almost all areas of
business are now open to foreign investment.
There are still some limitations though. For example, a foreigner cannot
own more than 49 per cent of the total shares in issue of a local
periodical publication business, a telecommunications business or a
power generation business operated by government invested institutions
and, in any event, a foreign investor cannot be the largest shareholder.
China:
https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/312.pdf#search=%22foreign%20ownership%20china%22
http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Real_Estate_Property/10065714.html
http://www.wangandwang.com/prc.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/news/rechina.php
Dirty Sick Pig
>>> In Cebu? Hmmm, let me get my cuzz on your ass then.
>>
>> If he feels a little warm red spot on his own ass, please advise him
>> that it's not harmful by itself, but the metallic and polymer gadget
>> to which the red spot generating device is attached is the loud,
>> flashy and smoke belching sonofabitch. If he feels a BIG, wet and
>> painful spot where flesh once resided on his ass, that means one of
>> the critters got diverted, or worse, distracted from training. Not to
>> worry, I have TPL coverage.
>
> He has what you have.
Then I have to buy him out or shoo him out of the market. Competition
is good if you're a monopoly. And that's why there are just over twenty
of us in this idiotic trade in da hol wayd world.
>> Seriously, does he need a good, well-paying job? Is he an AFP
>> veteran? Is he amenable to a salary in pesos but incentives in
>> foreign currencies? Willing to travel to "interesting" areas of the
>> Philippines and elsewhere (on per diem)? Previous criminal
>> convictions not a bar to employment in my organization as long as I'm
>> told the truth. Disqualifier if yes: Does he lisp and sashay with
>> exquisite grace like you? :)
>
> Hehehehe,
> He doesn't need a job, former AFP, yes, he travels all over the country,
> difficult to find.
Oh, a romantic insurgent! I got one of those fools in my payroll.
Gives half of his salary and all of his bonuses to "the cause," but
that's his bidnezz, not mine.
So your cuzz's operations are confined to the country, huh. Small fry,
then. Good for breakfast, but won't even make me burp, belch and fart.
Holy Burton Pig
PS: Nothing to do with this thread, but it just occurred to me that the
majority of Haliburton's contracts to provide worldwide support to the
U.S. military were signed, ratified and tobacco- and bio-stained during
the Clinton Assministration. Hmmmmm. Food for thought. He-he-he.
Dirty Sick Pig
> Dirty Sick Pig wrote:
>> tumbaga wrote:
>>> Dirty Sick Pig wrote:
>>>> tumbaga wrote:
>>>> SNIP
>>>>> Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and China has much more severe
>>>>> restrictions, and I posted it here once, didn't you read it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was responding to you back then.
>>>>
>>>> Who reads your crap?
>>>> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAWRRRR!
>>>
>>> See that?
>>> Reason is thrown out the door as soon as it is given.
>>
>> Followed by the "reason" giver or more likely the excuse monger. And
>> please make that the back door. We don't want to mess up front lawns,
>> do we? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWR!
Who reads your crap?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAWRRRR!
SNIP! :D
_
mentality
Dirty Sick Pig
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahawr!
_
Cheeze
Actually there was this Supreme Court case that said that life is
greater than property.
There was thief running away from the scene of the crime when he was
shot by the guy he stole from. The SC said his right to life was
greater than the owner's right to his property, so the victim of the
thief got a sentence.
So what do you think of the SC's opinion?
Cheeze
I believe I did get to read that post eventually, but it was after some
time you posted it and i didn't think that responding would still be
interesting.
Still though, the point is that these restrictions are not there to
attract business. They are not there to make the economy prosper.
They are there because the state wants to protect certain groups which
they consider of value (hey they're voters). Its not unlike the mayor
of makati bringing in squatters to the city and letting them stay there
because he knows they will keep the mayor in power. But that's another
story.
Point is, it is apparently the case that foreign investors would weigh
all these restrictions and compare them to incentives and still
consider that the places have better business environments. So what
does that tell you?
What we have therefore is an opportunity to undercut our neighbors. If
thailand has this certain restriction, then let's tell investors that
we don't have that restriction.
Another thing, to believe that RP gov't protectionism is motivated by a
virtuos sense of duty to the people is rather naive. What is being
protected is the existing economic status quo. What is being protected
are the inefficient businesses against better foreign alternatives.
The good and performing industries will stay. The overpriced ones will
not.
Take a look at those industries that have been protected by our
government. Lucio Tan's PAL was aided to the detriment of the pilots
who had legitimate concerns and who are now being prevented from
pursuing legitimate careers in better places.
And as to corruption, the most sure way to stop it is to prevent the
amount of participation that government has to the economy. Less
business permits to get. Less taxes to pay. All this would simply
mean that there is less public funds to malverse.
And if you are worried about the lack of public funds, just remember
that that would mean that we citizens will be free to spend the money
for production and not to pay some lazy government worker who sleeps
more often than work on his desk.
Cheeze
not finish it before you made an opinion.
But in any case, short answer: I do not in any way endorse a
totalitarian rule. I believe in absolute freedom and I believe that
the key to a good governance is no governance at all. That the private
sector composed of businessmen are more capable of running the economy
than a politician who owes political favors and acts on the basis of
popularity.
Incidentally, you mentioned petron. Do you know which among the big 3
oil corps in the philippines is owned (partially at least) by the
government. Clues: its not Shell, its not Caltex. But then again, I
don't think Petron whose private sector majority seems to be handling
the spill rather well all things considered, will runaway from
responsibility in the same way government officials run away from their
responsibilities with every waking hour of their lives.
Dirty Sick Pig
What this case demonstrated is a dire need for a jury system in RP. No
Pinoy jury would have convicted that guy.
Juror Hung Pig
Dirty Sick Pig
Liberalism is all about protecting that lazy government worker's
inalienable right to sleep at work. Disturbing his snooze may prove to
be detrimental to his general health and well-being, as well as those of
his family of 16 by two wives. And you're talking to a lib.