benny

If you want to compare pure economic systems, you will have to stop comparing countries.

How about Chili and Sweden now?

Never forget though that Al-Qaeda is the product of a man (bin Laden) being fed up to see Sheiks working too readily with Americans without taking into consideration their populations rights and needs.

What about contributing to an answer to this thread's question now!?

There has been a previous Nazi–Soviet Pact, Hitler–Stalin Pact.

The scientific point of view is bogus because bare factuality coincides with radical voluntarism. http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...=4#PRA1-PA64,M1

If capitalism seems to be better than socialism it is because capitalism revolutionizes itself more systematically than socialism.

Locke discusses whether the Law of Nature can be said to be based on man’s self-interest. He rejects the Ancient Greek Carneades’ theory that all men act in the own interest, while he accepts the role that self-interest plays in the Law of Nature, “for the strongest protection of each man’s private property is the Law of Nature, without the observance of which it is impossible for anybody to be master of his own property and to pursue his own advantage.” Yet this is not quite anticipating Adam Smith’s theory of private profit leading to public advantage (Wealth of Nations, 1776), for Locke later accepts Montesquieu’s mercantilist (and ultimately Aristotelian) theory that one man’s gain is another’s loss; but what is of importance here is something we read of later in Hume’s criticism of self-interested pursuits. Some actions we deem moral, Locke remarks, can be personally costly – such as generosity and friendship, and while private profit may enrich some at the expense of others, “justice in one does not take equity away in another.” Similarly, if all were to pursue their own interest, that would imply that the individual would judge his own affairs and that can only lead to chaos, fraud, violence, and hatred. After rejecting self-interest as a justification of natural law, Locke proceeds to reject the argument that utility forms the basis of the moral law. (It is always useful to know that what are often portrayed as 20th Century debates on, say, utilitarianism versus deontology, have a long philosophical pedigree). For Locke, it is not seeking to do good that produces morality, for whatever good does occur arises from the moral law: “utility is not the basis of the law or the ground of obligation, but the consequence of obedience to it.” (This is the position that Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) later espouses in his strict application of duty ethics.) http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/locke-po.htm

Hitler was not violent enough, his violence was not "essential" enough. Nazism was not radical enough, it did not dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space (which is why it had to invent and focus on destroying an external enemy, Jews). This is why one should oppose the fascination with Hitler according to which Hitler was, of course, a bad guy, responsible for the death of millions -- but he definitely had balls, he pursued with iron will what he wanted... This point is not only ethically repulsive, but simply wrong: no, Hitler did not "have the balls" to really change things; he did not really act, all his actions were fundamentally reactions, i.e., he acted so that nothing would really change; he stages a big spectacle of Revolution so that the capitalist order could survive. If one really wants to name an act which was truly daring, for which one truly had to "have the balls" to try the impossible, but which was simultaneously a horrible act, an act causing suffering beyond comprehension, it was Stalin's forced collectivization at the end of 1920s in the Soviet Union -- but even here, the same reproach holds: the paradox of the 1928 "Stalinist revolution" was rather that, in all its brutal radicalism, it was not radical enough in effectively transforming the social substance. Its brutal destructiveness has to be read as an impotent acting out, i.e. a violent outburst that bears witness to Hitler's and Stalin's inabilities to resolve the deadlock they found themselves in. Heidegger was there and Heidegger's work after the war did go some way towards overcoming the political naivete that led to his disastrous involvement with National Socialism. He did this by, first, getting much clearer than he had been about the dangers of the modern world -- the dangers which led him to think we need a new world disclosure. Once he was able to articulate the danger of modernity in terms of technology, it became clear that National Socialism was just another modern technological movement (even if it employed technology for reactionary goals). "Just another modern technological movement ": not even the best of political projects, the most radical attempt to oppose nihilism, remained just another nihilistic movement caught in technology. There is no horror of Nazism here, Nazism is "just another" in the series, the difference is ontologically insignificant (which is why, for Heidegger, the Allied victory in the World War II really decided nothing). http://www.zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs...cle/view/64/129

There is a paradox at the heart of the scientific discourse that makes this debate about creation and evolution irrelevant. To better understand why, read yet another page (p.164) of the book The Parallax View: http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...=4#PRA1-PA64,M1

By creators you should read intentional beings: biologists, however reluctant they are, cannot avoid the illusion of seeing in all life forms intentional designs.

Out of Vienna, Freud used to say: surrounded by so much outstanding fools, I see myself as just a student.

As soon as one start using such powerful tools as are symbols (words, numbers), seeing creators everywhere becomes an unavoidable illusion.

Acting out is a very awful type of action.

Only those who are still asleep are unaware of their bad dreams.

When humiliation gives wings to a common person like Hitler, it becomes futile to ask which economic system (capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.) is better.

Terror language is the language of bad dreams.

Here a book that shows how greedy capitalist British may have foster Nazism: Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost the Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan.

In R. v. Keegstra, [1990], the Supreme Court found that the violation of freedom of expression was justified as the content of the hateful expression has little value to protect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra

Comparing Canada with other countries leads nowhere since comparing and evaluating are not related.

Soon Canada may decide to close its embassy in Sudan, and then settling the fate of this man (Abousfian Abdelrazik) would become more urgent.

Not much would remain of (Right-Wing) talk-shows, if we would get rid of hate speech.

Psychoanalysts attribute the efficacy of their treatments mainly by the fact that most of the time they literally terrorize their patients by remaining silent.

I almost always propose solving all problems (political, social, economical, etc.) with the same method: taxing all the natural resource rents out of every products and redistributing the proceeds only to those who doesn't use that product.

Legal costs can easily be transferred to a third party and even to the state.