The country that possesses these essential building blocks of liberalism will succeed; the country without them will – eventually – face disaster. To put it simply, if your property can be arbitrarily confiscated by the wife of the president, or by his son-in-law, then you won’t start a business in that country and you won’t invest. If you can lose a contract unfairly to some politician’s chum, then you won’t bother to put your money there. And if there is no way that politician can be democratically removed, then corruption will increase, and inefficiency will increase, and the people will suffer, and poverty will grow.
I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, Vladimir, but there are some countries where capitalism is believed to be in the hands of oligarchs and cronies, where journalists are shot, and where “liberal values” are derided, and where according to the Russian statistics agency Rosstat, a third of the country cannot afford to buy more than two pairs of shoes per year; where 12 per cent of the population still has to rely on an outdoor toilet, and where real incomes have declined for each of the past five years.Now many of you will see parallels between the EU and Putin's Russia; the political and economic corruption, the anti-democracy, a per capita GDP substantially lower than the UK's, ailing economy and sclerotic growth. I don't believe the parallels are accidental. A want of democracy coupled with an authoritarian and didactic central State kills growth and innovation and does a disservice to citizens.
Point made.
16 comments:
The fact that Russia (or, rather, its leadership) can be accused of such motivation somewhat brings to attention the fact that people still believe Putin has the right attitude to Globalism and manages to reach out to so many in the West in a far more acceptable manner than many of our own leadership can.
Stood against Merkel, Macron, May etc Putin is a 'tower of hope and responsibility' - which says rather more about the state of our politics than of theirs. This despite the MSM propaganda advantage M, M and M can muster.
But Russia is as much a victim of Globalism, Banksters and the US MIC as the rest of us are and, for that alone, gathers much sympathy and empathy from people in the West.
I don't see much difference (but far fewer comaprisons) between Russian property confiscation and the Wests wealth re-distribution via the Global Warming lie or, worse, ursury as but two examples of 'state' interference.
Try not paying your council tax or income tax and see how long it takes for the State to arbitrarily confiscate your ‘property’. Our vaunted property rights are a sham.
The point is not that the state can confiscate your property, but that well-placed individuals can grab it for their personal gain.
The situation in Zimbabwe under Mugabe was a classic example.
Don Cox
Putin has recently faced unrest, over his proposal to increase retirement age from...fifty-five. Dream on, you Tory-voting UK suckers.
It was also France and Germany, who were able to defuse the US-agitated matters in Ukraine with Putin, no one else.
Rossa, any party to whom you are in debt can apply for a Charging Order against your property, so why should the State be on a lesser footing than the private sector?
Also, such an imposition would not be "arbitrary", would it? It would be after Due Process, during which you could make your defence.
Why should people be allowed to break the law free of risk of sanction anyway?
@Cheerful Edward
"It was also France and Germany, who were able to defuse the US-agitated matters in Ukraine with Putin, no one else."
You are joking of course. It was France and Germany with the connivance of the US the staged a coup d'etat in Ukraine. All this after the West had specifically agreed with Russia after the break up of the Soviet Union not to interfere in their areas of influence. EU foreign policy is German Foreign policy by other means, and German foreign policy in that regard hasn't changed since 1870.
No, all that the European Union did in Ukraine was to set up Euroclubs, as Putin himself had commended in Russia. It was unaccountable private US sources, who poured billions into nationalist movements and into militias there, as they did in ex-Yugoslavia.
National governments of some EU countries, such as the UK, did indeed recognise arguably illegitimate figures in Ukraine, but that was no fault on the part of any European Union institution.
Yeah. And Joseph Stalin was a benign and loving leader who adored children and was kind to labradors and who never hurt a fly.
I do love these revisionist armchair historians ..
@CE - a Charging Order cannot deprive you of your property. It is only a means to attach a specific demand for sums owed when/after the property is sold and the property cannot be sold 'under you' to reclaim the debt.
@Cheerful Edward
"It was also France and Germany, who were able to defuse the US-agitated matters in Ukraine with Putin, no one else."
I see Rapscallion picked up on your idiocy too.
You are seriously deluded in what you reply; I am not saying that as a 'fun' insult to a silly troll, I am saying it and meaning it in crystal clear language.
In fact the ONLY thing missing from the EU's overt shenanigans was the word 'Lebensraum'.
OK, what DID any European Union institution do in Ukraine then?
Who were the operatives? What was the department called?
Stalin was a mass-murdering despot. Where are the European Union's secret police, death squads, gulags, and the rest? It doesn't even have ANY police force, security, intelligence service, or military.
Say what you like about Putin, nobody's perfect and he gets a bad press from the biased msm.
How he conducts himself in his own country is his own business as far as I care.
He's anti globalist and under the "my enemies enemy...." clause he gets a free pass from me.
Say what you like about Trump, nobody's perfect and he gets a bad press from the biased msm.
How he conducts himself in his own country is his own business as far as I care.
He's anti globalist and under the "my enemies enemy...." clause he gets a free pass from me.
Dave, correct.
Under HRA1998 and ECHR, a person has a Right To Peaceful Enjoyment Of Possessions.
That is why the Right want rid of them.
"Under HRA1998 and ECHR, a person has a Right To Peaceful Enjoyment Of Possessions."
Er, didn't we point out that "peaceful enjoyment of possessions" comes with some rather restrictive caveats in a previous thread?
No, you tried to make a silly, unfounded case against ECHR, Mark.
There is plenty of case law, precedent, you know, Common Law, as to what is reasonable when it comes to "for the public good".
Your caricature-dependent mind can only function on absolutes apparently. You need complete protection. Very good protection is the same as useless to you.
"Your caraciture dependent mind can only function on absolutes apparently"
How many times do I need to tell you to stop confessing!!
Are you even trying?
Post a Comment