Hello R, <<The United STATES is composed of 50 individual separate[sp] entities, no more or less independent from each other as HK is from Bejing>>
Wrong. Either you know not what you are talking about, or you are deliberately mistaken. HK is an UN recognized customs area, and by treaty and reality, has laws, regulations, and ways and means very much distinct from Beijing. Further, we have two official languages, applicable to all official documentations and should one choose of free will, commercial slips of paper. This is why HK is recognized as #1 in economic freedom, the only freedom that matters, by Heritage Foundation, a whole lot of slots ahead of wherever you happen to be.
<<Canada a foreign country from the US on our Northern boarder has essentially no passport requirements to cross that boarder, proof of citizenship is sufficient (birth certificate, naturalization papers)>>
Yes, and your point being? China PRC is essentially a foreign country on our Northern border, and the crossing of which requires nothing more than sufficient documentation (an ID or passport).
<<You see TJ what you perceive as freedom is not what we perceive. I do not need permission to travel anywhere on the North American Continent. Even Mexico has an open boarder that I can drive across, with only the need of proof of citizenship>>
Yes, and your point being? Who needs permission to travel, besides the normal ID or passport? We sure do not. Moving on to your next weighty point.
<<Economically HK is seperate[sp, I guess, again?] from Mainland China only because it is advantageos for China to maintain the British Build economic base that exists in HK. When and if China catches up to that economic base the freedoms that HK enjoys will cease.
Two weighty points in one paragraph. Let me take it one point at a time.
I will go slow: HK is HK because of system+people, and Britain is Britain because system+people. HK is not Britain, because the people are different, and so, HK was most certainly not built by the British by any remote stretching of the truth. Else, Britain would be like HK, which it clearly is not, being socialist and all.
Second point. Regarding you belief that “When and if China catches up to that economic base the freedoms that HK enjoys will cease”, that is certainly the idea, for China to catch up to HK, and when and if, HK’s historical mission will be complete, and its freedoms secured thus for a good long time, as dividends on good investments made, in a manner of speaking.
<<BTW I don't read the NYT, nor the WSJ, Nor the WP nor the NR>>
You should. They are probably better than the rest, if one has the tenacity to read between the lines. You should read something at least.
<<You are insinuating I am a liberal>>
Not at all. You are presuming, with no basis whatsoever that I am doing anything of the gentle.
<<I happen to be very mainstream with a strong predilection towards conservative views economically and libertarian views when it comes to social mores>>
I know you are in the main and of the stream. I had always been a self-admitted economic conservative with a libertarian kernel Message 21884898 .
What I do not know is whether you are <<an idiot about it>>.
Your points taken care of thus, we can move on to further points, to make a proper determination of what you may or may not read, etc.
Message 22065858
<<Do you have the freedom to ...
(a) buy and keep other nationality documents without having to give up your birthright documents?
Of course, Passport, visa, drivers license, etc. and I do not have to buy them only pay a processing fee. I don't even understand the question of give up my birthright documents???>>
You missed the target completely, by about several light years, because either you did not spend the time to read, and ponder, or you could not comprehend what true freedom is.
You most assuredly cannot take up the nationality papers and simultaneously keep your birthright documents unless due to some very specific exceptions.
So, we have now established that you in fact do not have the freedom of movement as defined by nature, as opposed to granted by visa officers.
(b) can you establish businesses and financial accounts all over the world without having to divulge same to nosy people?
If I so want, I can open "off shore accounts" and hide money. I can purchase stock from any company, except with the possible exception of three or four embargoed countries.
Yes, but then you would be exercising your right to go to jail, suffer an enormous fine, and go bankrupt.
So, we have now established that you in fact do not have the freedom of choice as defined by nature, as opposed to granted by the treasury department.
<<(c) do you get to keep 99% of your gains from toils and troubles?
As the United States is not socialized such as is your government …>>
I think we can stop reviewing this point right at this juncture, since you are able to make the conclusion that Hong Kong is socialized relative to the US, and yet the American Heritage Foundation can name Hong Kong as the most free economy far ahead of the US. You must read more, even if the NYT, WSJ and whatever else passes for free journalism where you are.
So, we have now established the fact that you cannot, in your wildest dreams, legally, by right, or freedom-lovingly, by nature, keep 99% of the gains from your toils.
<<I drink pure water, have pure streams in which to play, kayak, canoe, etc. I breath fresh air. I don't have to breath your emissions from your unhealthy factory, I believe HK has quite an Air Pollution problem>>
… so does LA, but not Zimbabwe. What does it al have to do with FREEDOM?
<<(d) can you express any allegedly politically incorrect rants without being lectured on by busybody neighbors or getting sued for causing distress?
I not only can I often do, and if they do decide to lecture me I can tell them to F___ off . Can you speak out against your government, both in your socio economic domain (HK) and the rest of the PRC??>>
Yes to the former, and no to the latter, to a certain but improving extent.
Can you speak out against the government of Cuba while in Cuba? No, shucks, does that mean you do not have FREEDOM? I guess not, but for the other self-discovery questions and answers.
You error, and it is exactly that, is you take system borders not seriously enough.
(e) does anyone launching an ultimately losing lawsuit against you and/or your business have to pay your legal bills?
Certainly should they not prevail I can counter sue for costs, attorney fees, etc. I can of course counter sue when they file for these costs.>>
Again you have missed the point completely, or completely enough. In HK-Money-Rock&Kowloon-Freedom-Mountain’s case, the loser pays, and I do not have to spend more money, waste more time, to pursue the infringer of my FREEDOM when the case goes my way, and so I have the necessary deterrent against frivolous infringement on my FREEDOM from all, including the civil service.
<<(f) can your kids choose to go to any publicly funded school outside of the assigned school zones?
Absolutely>>
Really?! Without moving into the school district of choice or lie about the child’s home address?
And in the case of universities, without having your kids skin colour be considered? Again, you should read more, get out and about, and see the truth amongst the facts.
<<(g) can you ask your secretary for a date without suffering the danger of financial ruin?
Of course, what I can not due is continue to badger her if she refuses. Nor can I fire her for not complying. Nor would I want to. You see we in America are civilized.>>
Apparently not so, else why require laws to guard against human nature of the locale in question.
So, in any case, a qualified yes/no, with a la suit possible, where the winner has to pay own cost, unless he/she wants to ‘invest’ more to make a point. Bummer.
<<(h) can you protect your assets from the three scourge of life (officialdom, creditors, spouse)?
Now you piss me off!>>
So, again, the answer is no, you cannot adequately protect what is yours from whomever you may consider as a scourge of life. Bummer. As to the letting go of water bit, that is good, letting go of water.
<<Of course i can protect my assets from officialdom>>
Is that why you give 25-45% of it away every year, year after year? Interesting, and no doubt very therapeutic.
<<I can pursue my debtors>>
Buzzer. You missed the point, that being can you protect yourself from creditors who have more money to hire bigger name lawyers. Answer, no. Consequence, you need to pass more water.
<<and why would I ever want to screw over my wife financially>>
You may not, but others, those who desire FREEDOM, may. The point, which you missed completely, being that you cannot protect what is yours by will, as to by law or right, meaning you have rights, but not FREEDOM.
<<I have an ex-wife that I pay spousal support to, by choice I give her more than the court has ordered. If I were married to someone for 30+ years why would I even consider such a crass idea>>
You need to calm down and not take every word so literally and personally. FREEDOM is a state applying to all, or should, not to each individual per his definition.
<<I do not consider my ex-spouse or my present spouse a scourge. You should be ashamed!>>
Why should I be ashamed? I do not even have an ex-spouse nor foresee the need to. You are missing the point. Substitute any other word for spouse, and you still cannot protect your assets in anything remotely resembling a FREEDOM way.
<<(i) can you go to the toilet within 30 minutes of landing in your national capital's airport?
??????????????????????????????????>>
So, you do not read the NYT, WSJ and you either never traveled to your capital or never tried to pass water on the airplane at anytime within 30 minutes before landing.
The privileged of not haveing a government with thought police, that respects the rights of every individual rich or poor, that has totally unfettered travel priviledges, etc. is worth much to me
Yes, yes, and we have established that you have nothing of the kind, at least not FREEDOM, only rights.
<<Even when I held the highest of US Security Clearances, my travel was essentially unfettered, on requiring governmental notification should I have desired to travel to certain embargoed countries. Even there I did not need permission, just notification ... The privilege of breathing clean air, having clean water, not having corporate polluters, having total freedom of expression, total freedom of travel, very minimal government intrusion, these are freedoms that I enjoy and you don't.>>
Now that we have fully established that you do not have any freedom in the true natural sense, but has a bunch of rights, mostly exercisable if you can afford to pay, and seeing that you were a part of the officialdom, perhaps you care to, if not too angry or speechless, give us your views on the war for freedom.
<<These freedoms are worth dying to protect.>>
What freedoms? And dying for it? Without intervention of the thought police? Like I mentioned earlier, <<Once we care to get down to the basics of life, the truth becomes obvious.>>
<<I do not fear retribution, even if I call then stupid MF and CS, which I have done.>>
Not very civilized, I dare say, and so self-evident as well. This is what self-discovery is all about.
Chugs, J |
