UNIONS - still "helping" or hurting?

[Makalakumu]

Kubutao, Brasilia, Quito, and Bolivia in general. I don't think violence is so uncommon that it cannot be characterized as the norm. We honestly, don't hear about it here though. Talk to the missionaries though...Talk to the immigrants...they are full of horror stories and all of those stories contain American made weapons.

 

[OULobo]

Well that falls under the idea of what is really the threat. Is it the guns or the people shooting them. The truth is that if they didn't have American weapons, they would get AKs from China, Iran or the Slavic republics. Atleast with the American weapons they get a chance to run when the guns jam frequently. The problem with those areas is the government not the guns. Even if we took every gun away they would just regress down to using goons with machetes like they do in the poor African countries. Consequently, I know quite a few people who are here on student visas that are from the countries you mentioned Equador, Brazil and Bolivia) and the all say the same thing. It is better (read safer and more stable) to have a mild dictator than civil war and raging rebellion.

This is an even better reason to give them incentive to not send their jobs to these places.

 

[Makalakumu]

The governments you talk about were installed by US interests. The weapons are either given or sold very cheaply. Its not right no matter how its argued. Somethings are just indefensible in my opinion.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
The governments you talk about were installed by US interests. The weapons are either given or sold very cheaply. Its not right no matter how its argued. Somethings are just indefensible in my opinion.

I'll re-state that these countries are often in better positions by having dictators present (reduction of crime, increase of national economy), regardless of who got them there and the crimes they commit, and that weapons are one of the cheapest commodeties in the world right now and easily obtained no matter who wants them.

 

[rmcrobertson]

False alternative. Dictators and chaos are not the only options--or they wouldn't be, perhaps, without the century or so of the US trashing democracies throughout Latin America because they didn't agree with us.

The obvious case in point would be Chile, which had a democratically (and honestly) elected President, Salvador Allende, until the US-back 1972 coup. Then, the country had a military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, until the 1990s.

Then tried to nail that SOB on was crimes when he was in England, but regrettably the General was too old and ill to stand trial.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
False alternative. Dictators and chaos are not the only options--or they wouldn't be, perhaps, without the century or so of the US trashing democracies throughout Latin America because they didn't agree with us.

The obvious case in point would be Chile, which had a democratically (and honestly) elected President, Salvador Allende, until the US-back 1972 coup. Then, the country had a military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, until the 1990s.

Then tried to nail that SOB on was crimes when he was in England, but regrettably the General was too old and ill to stand trial.

I agree in theory, but in reality I think those are the only realistic options. A case of good textbooks, bad reality. Hindsight is 20-20 and human greed is a defining feature of the species (I know too many cliches, but they get the point across quickly). We know how they got to this point (can't do anything about that now), we know what to do after the civil wars and rebellions (that covers the past and possible future), but I think that for now they are in the best possible place (present). All the guys I know from Equador are thanking god they don't have to deal with what Columbia is going through (because Equador is still pretty much under a dictator that won't put up with it). Their words, not mine.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Do you really think that folks in Latin America are incapable of organizing democracies? Moreover, my point was that they'd repeatedly tried, only to have one European power or another undo everything.

Given the history of Latin America, the difficulty with democracy doesn't say anything about human nature. It says a LOT about colonialism...

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Do you really think that folks in Latin America are incapable of organizing democracies? Moreover, my point was that they'd repeatedly tried, only to have one European power or another undo everything.

Given the history of Latin America, the difficulty with democracy doesn't say anything about human nature. It says a LOT about colonialism...

True enough, but colonialism is a perfect example of greed and greed is part of human nature. As for the influences of European countries, or any country for that matter, that hasn't changed and isn't going to change. As long as there is something to be had in a poor country, there will be someone in a rich country ready, willing and usually able to try and take it or benefit from it.

And now to try and round out this tangent back to the main topic: Does anyone know what the influence, if any, is of unions in said latin american countries.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sigh.

First off, you seemed to be arguing that chaos and dictatorship were the only choices for contemporary Latin America. Did I misread?

Second off, I'd sure like to see some proof for the claim that, "greed," is part of human nature. For that matter, I'd like to see what human nature is supposed to be.

 

[Makalakumu]

To answer the question above, one of the biggest arguments against unions is that they cost us jobs in the US. Businesses move to Latin American countries because they don't have unions to protect their workers.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sigh.

First off, you seemed to be arguing that chaos and dictatorship were the only choices for contemporary Latin America. Did I misread?

Second off, I'd sure like to see some proof for the claim that, "greed," is part of human nature. For that matter, I'd like to see what human nature is supposed to be.

Not the only, choices per say, just the most realistic to the average citizen. They either deal with a dictator for the security and stability he can bring or take their chances with a rebellion that will cost thousands of lives and require much sacrifice. Most of them don't see any other options except emmigration.

As for the second point, how about capitalism or any other actual government in the world. American capitalism is built on the back of greed, that's why it has flurished so much, and every other socio-economic regime I can think of was either heavily influenced or taken over by greed when put into application, like Soviet Communism. Even Consumer trends are based on greed, like how much money we can save when shopping. While, I'm not the best at either human psychology or economics, I think there are enough examples of greed (or its twin jealousy) in all levels of human culture and behavior.

 

[rmcrobertson]

At the level of culture, maybe. But you'be been arguing, "nature." They're differnt.

 

[OULobo]

But don't even the youngest children show greed, jealousy and envy? Wouldn't that be included in nature?

 

[rmcrobertson]

That's not evidence, and it ain't science. That's anecdote. Like most of the claims about, "human nature," it's behaviour seen through adult eyes, from which all sorts of guesses--and they are guesses--about "nature," get made.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
That's not evidence, and it ain't science. That's anecdote. Like most of the claims about, "human nature," it's behaviour seen through adult eyes, from which all sorts of guesses--and they are guesses--about "nature," get made.

So how would you characterize or describe human nature, or are you saying that it is an illusion or in some way unstudyable (if that's a word) or indecypherable? Are you saying that we are reacting to observed behaviors or possibly that he are transfering our imperfections onto our vision of our children? You haven't given me an alternative or opposing view, you have only disagreed. All parts of applied science are impirical assumptions (guesses) and all parts of theoretical science are theories (guesses). Hell, it has been argued that all reality is a perception (guess).