Grim “do you believe all 6.7 billion people on this planet should have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness?”

Yes

But that does not mean they will all achieve it.

And because some don’t does not impede the right of others to achieve happiness.

“Happiness” is experienced through the pursuit of personal achievement and growth. Such pursuits are not limited to material needs.

The matters Grim suggests, limiting freedom in fact does impede the few but has never provided anything for the many.. all that happens, is a bunch of political zealots take over and bring greater misery to everyone, the few and the many; as has been seen from Robespierre (the Terror), Lenin (the Kulak repressions and mass starvation), Stalin (mass executions, starvation and the Gulags), Pol Pot (mass murder of the educated, enforced social regression, mass starvation and social genocide) -

and all in the name of human “Equality”

everyone having an equal share of poverty and repression.

It seems to me whenever anyone tries to achieve what Grim wants, Terror, Mass Murder and Starvation are its "enforcing companions".

Compare USSR and USA in 1980s… one the product of libertarian capitalism and the other the product of enforced collectivism.

Whilst it was not a perfect place for everyone, people were trying to get in to USA and people were trying to escape USSR.

“Feet” and the direction they are walking, are good indicators of the success of any and every social system.

TPP "Squatters rights" were in USA and were at a time when the USA was "underpopulated". "Squatters Rights" were a way of populating the vast tracts of land which were available for occupation through European colonisation of "the West".

Col Rouge wrote: It seems to me whenever anyone tries to achieve what Grim wants, Terror, Mass Murder and Starvation are its "enforcing companions".

Dear Col,

It doesn’t seem to me that way at all. The Scandinavian countries have a very high average income, an equitable distribution of wealth and a high degree of political freedom compared to most countries. They seem to have achieved what Grim wants without the tyranny of Marxism or the inequitable distribution of wealth in the USA.

The Scandinavian countries have encouraged the productivity of capitalism while, at the same time, limiting its excesses. It can be done.

Accusing people like Grim who mention or concern themselves with the inequities in society of producing Terror, Mass Murder and Starvation is most unfair.

Col Rouge also wrote: Lenin, who oversaw the mass starvations of millions and his efforts at genocide were exceeded only by Hitler and of course the biggest killer of them all, Stalin.

The estimated number of corpses produced by various communist entities is about 100.000,000 from information gathered in the Black Book of Communism edited by Stephane Courtois and published by Harvard University in 1999. In 1997 it was first published in France as Le Livre noir du Communisme: Crimes, terreur, repression. By then much information previously unobtainable was available since Soviet archives had been opened after the collapse of the USSR, and scholars had time to examine those archives.

The following is on page 4:

USSR 20 million deaths
China 65 million deaths
Vietnam 1 million deaths
North Korea 2 million deaths
Cambodia 2 million death s
Eastern Europe 1 million deaths
Africa 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan 1.5 million deaths
Latin America 150,000 deaths
The International Communist movement and parties not in power 10,000 deaths.

Most of the 65 million deaths in China were under Mao. He was a much greater killer than Stalin.

Davidf “The Scandinavian countries have a very high average income, an equitable distribution of wealth and a high degree of political freedom compared to most countries.”

And they are countries with higher suicide rates than either UK, USA or Australia.

They have small population basis centered around a strong ethnic identity (one race)

If what you see as the “Scandinavian Nirvana” was transportable, why is the rest of Europe not adopting these wonderous Scandinavian processes?

I would note, regardless of all your bluster to the opposite, the “Scandinavian countries” operate on a capitalist economic model of private enterprise and private ownership of the sources of production.

Scandinavian countries still have “rich and poor” people.

To be honest, your claim supports my view:
That central an all powerful government and collective ownership produces worse social outcomes than libertarian capitalism for all. In other words, the poor are even poorer under socialism/collectivism than they are under capitalism.

It is all about ideas and innovation and the right of people to follow their passion and benefit from the deployment of their ideas:

Under a libertarian capitalist political structure, people benefit from their endeavour and the whole “economy” is stimulated,

In a socialist political structure with no personal benefits, innovation is stifled, endevour disappears, and the whole “economy” stagnates.

To your second point… so Mao, another communist despot murdered more and push Stalin into second place… excuse my omission,

I was comparing libertarian capitalism to murderous soclalism/collectivism/communism, not "one murdering commie" to "another murdering commie"… your correction in fact validates and affirms my observation:

“collectivism” produces "death" and “tyrannical terror” and human misery of the worst kind and deserves to be assigned to the cesspool of history for all time and its promoters and supporters (Lenins “useful idiots” – a title for which Grim seems to be applying) executed in the name of public safety. For the death of such fools is a far lesser number and eevil than the evil which they would seek to impose on the rest of us.

So thanks for your message of support Davidf, for proving my assertion.

Dear Col,

You have stated you play the ball, not the man. However, that does not seem to be true.

You wrote: I would note, regardless of all your bluster to the opposite, the “Scandinavian countries” operate on a capitalist economic model of private enterprise and private ownership of the sources of production.

I stated my points in a calm way with no bluster. You are attacking me rather than what I say. You are attacking the man rather than the ball.

You also wrote:

“(Lenins “useful idiots” – a title for which Grim seems to be applying)”

It was unnecessary to take another swipe at Grim. Again you play the man.

You also wrote:

“To be honest, your claim supports my view:
That central an all powerful government and collective ownership produces worse social outcomes than libertarian capitalism for all. In other words, the poor are even poorer under socialism/collectivism than they are under capitalism.”

I was comparing the Scandinavian capitalism to the US style capitalism. Socialism did not enter into it so I don’t see how it supports your view.

I have politely answered your points without referring to you in any derogatory manner. I would appreciate the same consideration from you.

Once again, Col Rouge, you have cleverly demonstrated the typical conservative's lack of anything like an imagination. If one is not a libertarian (who grovels at Lady Thatcher's feet) one must be a socialist, or communist.
All I have tried to point out is that Libertarians are ultimately their own worst enemies. You fear totalitarianism (as do I), but you think the only way to achieve totalitarianism is through socialism.
In 2004, 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies were corporations. The latest GFC has seen more mergers, with more wealth concentrated in fewer hands, and more money taken directly from tax payers to prop up businesses 'too big to be allowed to fail'.
Even in a democratic Socialist country, you have one person one vote.
In a corporation, you have one share, one vote, and employees are not even guaranteed a share.
What happens when we are all working for global corporations? Oceania doesn't have to be a nation. It could just as easily be a multinational company.
And how can 6.7 billion people possibly have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness, when they don't even have an equal right to clean water? (Which is currently being privatised all over the world, to become a commodity instead of an essential service).
Col Rouge says: … most libertarians are higher up Maslow’s hierarchy and hence derive more enrichment through non-material inputs than those who follow socialism and are blind to that which is not “material”.
It is the socialists, not capitalist consumers, who are “materialists”.
Is it possible to be happy -or 'derive more enrichment'- when you are dying of gastroenteritis?
“USSR 20 million deaths”.
30,000 children a day. That's 10,950,000 each and every year. Meanwhile, The GDP of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
Incidentally, your quote from Lenin was actually a response to a famous claim by the Jesuits: "Give me a child until he is 7, and I will give you the man."

Davidf “You have stated you play the ball, not the man. However, that does not seem to be true.”

You obviously see no difference between banter and character assault.

If you are so delicate in such matters, maybe you should consider your posting future, I for one will not be changing my writing style or acquiescing to your criticism.

To Grim… there is nothing derogatory about me comparing Grim to Lenin’s “useful idiots”, when he clearly adopts a posture of such relentless blindness.

Grim “Once again, Col Rouge, you have cleverly demonstrated the typical conservative's lack of anything like an imagination.”

Strange how all innovation, invention and development is the product of individual “imagination”. It is the individual imagination which all libertarians cherish and socialists despise, because individual thought can also seed dissent against the proletariat limits.

To be honest Grim, there is an old saying, “think global but act local”.
Unfortunately you cannot see past the global to the local. Local thinking makes your “mission” an impossible goal but then, most socialists pursue the impossible – it is what explains the continual failure of their practical attempts at government.

“In a corporation, you have one share, one vote, and employees are not even guaranteed a share.”

Employees are rewarded for their input and there is nothing limiting their right to acquire voting shares. Indeed, many companies have employee share schemes. My daughter has benefitted from her employers scheme. However, her share-holding rights differ and are logically separate to her employee terms and rights.

“30,000 children a day. That's 10,950,000 each and every year. Meanwhile, The GDP of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.”

So what. The wealthy “West” has poured charity development funds into Africa for decades and Africa remains a charnel house of corruption.

Deal with African corruption (maybe re-colonize the lot) before you try to penalize wealthy westerners with your fetish for equality of povert