Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
Oh geez... another irrelevant rant.
You talk as though the two are mutually exclusive and inherently at odds with each other.
You cannot excuse oppression for the sake of economic stability. Either in theory or in the case of Tibet. It makes no logical sense.
I may be promoting an ideology but so are you. You are blind to think otherwise.
|
No the difference is at least I can provide empirical evidence. And yes I am saying there is no direct correlation. And it is not economic stability, it is social stability. You have never been in a situation where social stability is an issue so you take it for granted. China had social stability issues for pretty much the majority of the last century.
Put it another way, if you had to choose between running your mouth or getting fed, which one would you choose? I can tell you now you won't even last 3 days running your mouth with no food. If you still don't get it, or it's too hard for you, you can dismiss everything I say as irrelevant, I don't care. Go read up on economics 101. Not once was freedom of speech part of ANY economic text book. And yes i majored in economics and finance.
You obviously never been to any of the countries I talked about either judging by your lack of reply.
I'd rather live in oppressive China and getting clothes and fed than free Indian slum (no offense to any Indians). But if you prefer the opposite, that's your lifestyle decision.