"I, personally, consider both the intentional and inadvertent frustration of individuals' opportunities for the actualization of their own and their family's fulfillment of their basic human needs as a criminal act. "

By who? Who owes them "actualization"? Who can possibly do it for them?

Dumbass.

"People constantly speak of  'the government' doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men." -- H.L. Mencken

"In following what's been happening over the past few decades, it is clear that the core values of liberal democracy, specifically the value of equality of economic OPPORTUNITY, have been under attack, primarily by those in power who profit from undermining this core value, and, secondarily, by others out of sheer ignorance and stupidity."

Those in power profit from utilizing the talents and work ethic of the most talented and hardest working people they employ. The free market has done wonders for many, like me, who were raised in lower middle-class homes and have enjoyed great success because of their hard work.

Intellectual lightweights whine because they're stupid and were raised poorly. They think they're far more capable than they are. They're greedy and think everyone deserves to support 4+ human beings on their income and have a pool and cell phones and 2 cars and air conditioning and.... They're greedy and stupid. Their value is greed and their justification is stupidity. Pretty poor values for arguing morality, economics, or anything else. The fact is that economic freedoms correlate with standard of living. Positively. The fact is that nobody's wealth hurts anybody else. The fact is that higher standard of living is better lives for all, regardless of "relative" measures of wealth based in greed, not better living.

So, to help me understand what you're saying, could you be more specific? Because what you're saying is SO vague that nobody knows what you think you're talking about.

"Their common ploy is to equate the core value of equality of economic OPPORTUNITY with the value of equality of economic outcome, upon which communism is founded. By labeling the value of equality of opportunity a communist value, they can then quell any discussion on how the value of equality of opportunity is being undermined. "

Examples of this ploy? Not even 1? What are you talking about? Who's ever done this? I've never seen anyone "label" the "value of equality of opportunity" as communist. That sounds ridiculous to me. So please, enlighten us. What are you talking about? Can we get some examples?

"The Lockean school of thought and thus the American system of democratic governance itself was founded on this core value of equality of economic OPPORTUNITY."

America was founded upon ideas of equality under the law. The free market gives us equality of opportunity all by itself. America's founders believed in equality under the law, freedom (rights), and individualism. They guaranteed equality under the law and freedom and let the free market sort out the rest. The notion that they believed in some sort of government [babysitter] enforced "equality of economic opportunity" as some sort of regulated right is laughable.

If you want to provide examples of how your suggestion is not laughable, I'd love to see them.

"I attribute this to their ignorance of their own history.  It is, I suppose, simply a sign of the times: those who don't study history are doomed repeat the mistakes of history.  Such is the effect of people becoming ignorant of the values upon which their freedoms and liberties are based. "

Which values? Based on what texts/evidence? You're being vague in literally everything you say. There's literally nothing concrete you've posted. You've made literally 0 references to evidence in documents/history to back up your... extremely vague claims. You're making ambiguous, vague claims and giving us absolutely no basis for them. Great job. That's spam.

"For the last time, then, equality of opportunity is essential to the functioning of any sustainable civilization; it is a quintessential UNIVERSAL human value, one upon which all values of liberal democracies everywhere depend."

Not really. Equality under the law is. To guarantee "equality of opportunity" would be to guarantee that nobody is rewarded for their success (ie wealth). To claim that "equality of opportunity" is paramount suggests you think EVERYONE should have access to EVERYTHING that ANY amount of wealth provides to ANYBODY. That's a positive right which is economically impossible. Nevermind that the implications of attempts at it would harm the free market and the standard of living of all.

"To those who would out of either ignorance of malevolence equate this value of economic opportunity with the value of equality of outcome:  Anyone who does so PURPOSEFULLY, sabotages the very values upon which free, liberal democratic nations EVERYWHERE were founded...."

You need to learn history before you can tell anyone about it.

"Never have I called for equality of outcome.  All this time I have merely been standing up and calling out against how the core values of equality of opportunity is being undermined by how our societies are functioning; it simply can't going the way it has been going..."

Could you try to be more vague? Someone might ignorantly think you're making sense. It's not likely. But just in case.

"To the IC community:  that the only person who seems to be listening, insults me and calls me a communist for standing up for the values of his OWN LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC state, is astonishing."

I simply call your communist thoughts communist. You've openly stated them previously a number of times. To deny this is just stupid, ignorant, insulting, and RETARDED. Your post above only suggests your communist ideology; but you're overly vague and not intellectually capable of following your simple thoughts to their logical and necessary conclusions, so in this post you're probably legitimately ignorant of the communist values you have espoused. On many instances in the past, which I have called you on and quoted you, you've openly stated that you're a communist.

"This is a poll thread.  Choose a or b.  If no one does, this will be my last post in this forum."

Nevermind your false (and stupid) dichotomy. I'm not answering on the grounds that, on the .0001% chance you're being honest, I need to do what's best for the forum.

I support C. We're cool.

I do not support jokes involving the oppression of billions. You monster.

Your #3 is coupled with ridiculously increased cost of living as a result of such retarded regulations and taxation.

If you want to talk about opportunity, stop ignoring the many tiers of taxation which increase our cost of living astronomically. If we didn't pay so much just to feed/clothe/house ourselves, we'd have a lot more disposable income available to educate ourselves and purchase the necessary materials/assets to do business.

Haha. You reject the free market as a concept because you hate the idea.

Obviously you're joking because China is a major oppressor of human beings! They treat their populace like retarded children who need babysitters!

You hear that China? I'm better than you. I'm smarter than you. I'm richer than you. I'm freer than you. Kemp: 4. China: 0.

But I'm definitely a hell of a lot richer than any Chinese guy taxed with policing the interwebs Wornstrum is exposing his fragile little mind to.

My reference to intellect was referring to the fact that the Chinese people are treated like babies by a nanny government.

My reference to wealth was a reflection of the fact that the Chinese people are poor as hell. I'm sure that Chinese wages are starting to compare with other places in the world. But comparing them to Zimbabwe is nothing to brag about. The fact is that the vast majority are impoverished. That's why they offered you so much more than average to teach. And yes, that's a very low wage for teachers in the USA. It's even lower than places (mostly in the south?) that pay their teachers the least--very low, even in my Libertarianish opinion.

Yeah, you're very free in China. Unless you talk about/protest anything. Then you get locked up. Unless you tell ignorant people with their heads in the sand like you about such protests/imprisonment. Then you get locked up. Even recently China has been locking people up for protesting or reporting on protesting. It sounds like you're both unaware of this or the fact that it's suppressed by Chinese authorities.

Engaging in free speech by ridiculing morons isn't suppressing free speech. I also speak out against racists and corruption.

You're pretending that, because I engage in free speech to challenge the views of others, I'm inherently against their right to voice those views? I'm merely engaging in free speech, just as they are. You're suggesting that I must politely decline to engage in free speech in order to support the free speech of others? That's just weird.

The fact is that I can speak freely and so can they. You can't. Chinese people can't. Some people who believe human beings have rights find this very problematic. I understand that, if you believe that people are the slaves of the ruling class, they shouldn't be allowed to talk about what their government is doing or question it. But I do not believe, as you do, that slavery is just.

My reference to being "better" was a reference, again, to not being treated like an inept, idiot child by my government. I can feed and clothe myself. I don't need to be given my lunch as a privilege from government or told what I can or cannot read/say. I'm presumably more capable of taking care of myself (aka better), because my government doesn't prevent me from doing so by treating me like a baby who needs to be protected from itself. And my life is obviously way better (aka better) because being a slave is not desirable for the vast majority of the population.

I can live where I want. Do what I want. Say what I want. Read what I want. Yes, freedom is good. Freedom is "better" than slavery. I respectfully disagree with you.

You're right. You were offered $25k/yr, so the fact that most Chinese live in poverty is irrelevant.

You're right. Protesters are demanding too much freedom too soon. If they just went along with the Party, there'd be less harm.

You're right. Because freedom has no value, it's certainly never worth sacrifice and human life.

"Having said that, do you then respect people's decisions to chose a socialist government, or advocate such a system?"

Of course I do. Greek citizens had every right to bankrupt their nation. Just as Amerikans do. This is irrelevant to the topic, however, because the Chinese people don't have a choice in the matter.

"What am I doing now? I guess I am typing, but I think I made my point there. I understand where you were going with this, but I also wish to point out that I have seen protests that were not blocked/resulted in arrests by the government. You are taking some protests, and making a generalisation that all freedom of expression is suppressed. I do understand that it is not a perfect system, but noone ever agrees that a system is perfect."

You're arguing that the Chinese have any level of freedom remotely comparable to free peoples in democratic Western states. It's laughable. It's ignorant. It's insulting to the Chinese people.

You say "what am I doing now?" as if your presence on this forum somehow negates the fact that the vast majority of Chinese have their internet access greatly restricted. That you're here doesn't mean the Chinese people ANY level of freedom of speech.

"I know you have issues with your government also, sure you can express them, but people here can also. I was invited to a committee on the public expenditure on disablities (or so I think, maybe my Chinese translation was a little off), because I believe that they were unhappy with current government expediture."

That's great. Such speech was approved. It's completely irrelevant to the conversation here. That you are permitted to debate the spending level on X means nothing. You know this.

"I haven't read this book, but I believe it was very anti-communist, but I was able to buy George Orwell's 1984 (and Animal Farm) the other day. I can read mostly what you can read."

Orwell was a socialist. Yes, they allow you to read a socialist's book. Thanks for supporting my point. No, they don't allow you to read anything you want. Thanks for supporting my point.

"As stated before, the public welfare programes are actually limited, and provide for less than most western nations I know about. Noone gets a free handout in China, if you cannot afford to eat, you do not eat."

Actually limited? Of course they're limited. Most of the nation lives in poverty. They can't afford more. How does this justify the lack of freedom in China? So everyone has less freedom and the vast majority also have a far lower standard of living. How is that not great systemic injustice?

"Me too...hence why I am in China"

You can do anything you want? Except all kinds of things? That's not anything you want.

"Noone disagrees, but I also do not feel like a slave, so is it really that relevant?"

Yes. How you feel is irrelevant. You're a slave to their system and, if you disagree, you can be locked up. Their elite have absolute control of you and what you can and cannot do. It's because of them that most Chinese live in poverty while nations in the area such as Taiwan and South Korea have SKYROCKETED their standards of living in the past 50 years. But you don't "feel" like a slave, so it doesn't matter that the Chinese government is responsible for a TERRIBLE standard of living for the vast majority of its people? And that's just looking at standard of living, forgetting about massive human rights abuses.

"Freedom is better than oppression (I think would have been a better analogy)"

Obviously, because you don't really care about freedom. Oppression and control are inherently slavery. You have exactly as much freedom as your masters judge ideal. And that freedom can be rescinded as they judge appropriate.

But you're a good sheep. You don't feel oppressed, so the poverty and oppression is cool. As long as your income is many times the national average, they can go [] themselves.

"I'm freer than you. Kemp: 4. China: 0."

lol

Wornstrum, do you see the irony in the above statement? 

And, better yet, should someone explain it to him?