The two writers seem to have got so excited at the former locally owned breadbasket of Asia being reborn under the ownership of foreign investors that they refer to the country by the word “Myanmar” visited without popular authority on the nation that their ilk deposed democracy in a bloodbath to seize. Referring to Burma by the name by which the thugs refer to it is a bit like sycophants on the make calling Papua “Irian Jaya”. Burma’s elected national leader was taken to task recently by the unelected thugs for referring to the country by its real name while she was travelling in Britain and Europe. Burma is a nation, not a market. A constitution for Burma, including its name, can be legitimised only by the Burmese people – by referendum.

Burma is the name visited on Myanmar by the British. The biggest ethnic group when they arrived was the Bama, so in true chauvinist style, they thought that's good enough. No need to bother with local names. Calling Myanmar 'burma' is as chauvinist as it would be to call Britain "England", or calling Irishmen or Scots "English". Before the British arrived the kingdom was called Myanmar, not Burma. In Burmese, Myanmar people mainly call themselves Myanmar people, not Burmese. They don't mind if westerners call them Burmese because of history, but don't tend to use the term themselves.

Aung San Suu Kyi, in case you haven't noticed, talks like she has a plum stuck where the sun don't shine. She has more of a toffee English accent than the Queen. The faux concern of the left wing with the issue of the name is tyoical of their pre-occupation with what is superficial, tokenistic, and illogically unimportant.

What we need to know is that Burma was the richest country in South-East Asia when the socialists took over in 1962. Of course they applied their usual genius for f**cking things up - just imagine having Julia Gillard, Bill Shorten and Craig Thompson running a country for 50 years, and that's pretty much where Myanmar is today - one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world.

However, Myanmar has soil that Australian farmers would give their eye teeth for. And the water!

No, EmperorJulian, the Myanmar people don't want to be poor just to please your half-witted prejudice against foreign investment. They have better things to do than be poor to please western trendy socialist creeps pining for their colonial name. Perhaps you'd like to sweat in the sun for a day and see how you like it?

"Burma is a nation, not a market."

Notice how the socialists of North Korea, Myanmar and Australia all share the same belief system? That the political process by aggressing against the personal and property rights of the people, so the political class can take what they like from the productive class without paying for it, is more representative of the will of the people, than the people are of themselves by their peaceable and consensual relations based on respecting the rights of liberty and property.

All this comes from the core of all socialist belief systems, including the democratic socialism of mainstream Australian. They don't regard people primarily as human beings, but as great herds of cattle belonging to government, to be ordered around and harangued, caged or killed for disobedience. It is this central belief system of all socialism, democratic or otherwise, that is the reason for the unnecessary poverty and distress of Myanmar's people. Socialists, including EmperorJulian, would rather see them poor than be free to enter into market relations.

This is easily proved: EmperorJulian, take any example of left wing policy i.e. one not intended to protect property rights. Now. At what stage short of actually shooting people do you renounce the use of violence to enforce the policy, at which point you agree compliance becomes voluntary?

Michael Kirby was yesterday guilty of the same hypocrisy, criticising North Korea while sharing the same statist belief system that the state has a right to exercise a monopoly of aggressive violence over people whether they agree or not, and that rights are by definition whatever the state says they are.