Re: Political or Economi Freedom?

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 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.

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.


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?"

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.

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.


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.

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.
.