On 3=D4=C226=C8=D5, =CF=C2=CE=E74=CA=B130=B7=D6, netvegetable
<flav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:43:52 -0700, fyfp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On 24 mar, 18:33, netvegetable <flav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:20:48 -0700, fyfp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> >> > Why should the people in Kowloon of HK not be allowed to have
> >> >> > their own state and their own currency?
>
> >> >> First, are you going to answer my question, or do you want to for
> >> >> some reason? Why shouldn't the Tibetans be permitted to have their
> >> >> own state?
>
> >> > They 'should' if they could.
>
> >> Thank you. You agree that the Tibetans should have their own state.
>
> > You are asking for *my* opinion and my opinion, whichever way it goes,
> > will not make a difference except to satisfy your logics. Being
logical
> > does not mean being true. The truth is that none of the 59 ethnic
> > groups is allowed by the central governmemnt to have their own state.
> > That said, the more appropriate question you should ask me is whether
or=
> > not I *prefer* any ethnic group to own their own state.
>
> > I personally don't prefer any ethnic group to own its own state. And I
> > think national boundaries should be broken or even erased in the long
> > run. Thus your preferred notion of a separate state runs counter to
my
> > ideological belief.
>
> What you *prefer* and what the Tibetans prefer might be different
things,
> might they not? What right do you have to dictate how these people want
> to live? If they want to be part of China, all well and good. If they
> don't, that should be up to them.
>
> > I personally would prefer a politically 'freer' Tibet or 'freer' any
> > other province in which the Chinese government stays way out of its
> > religious activities.
>
> No argument there.
>
>
>
> > Now,
> >> I would like to know why you don't want that to happen.
>
> > From an economist point of view, separate states mean the _economy of
> > scale_ in production fails to be realized in full. Separate states
mean
> > isolation, fragmentation and alienation. It is not the ideal world I
am=
> > seeking.
>
> Why should it be your concern whether or not the Tibet's _economy of
> scale_ is realized in full? Surely that's a matter for Tibetans, not
you?
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> A: Top posters
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
> conservatives." - John Stuart Mill-
=D2=FE=B2=D8=B1=BB=D2=FD=D3=C3=CE=C4=
=D7=D6 -
>
> - =CF=D4=CA=BE=D2=FD=D3=C3=B5=C4=CE=C4=D7=D6 -
it is because whatever one group of people in a nation do affect
others in the same
nation and what one nation does affects other nations too in a closely
interrelated world.
This is why each nation likes to look over the shoulder of each other
to make sure things are in line...
Again, the owner****p of Tibet is very much debatable. Who owns
Tibet? The people of Tibet or the Tibetans? What is the correct
definition of a Tibetan? You have been throwing up all sorts of
childish questions based on 'that is what they want'. I want money in
the bank too, because I am a citizen and a bank is supposed to serve
its citizen. Then I go out and force my way into the bank and
afterwards tell the judge why it bothers him that I took money from a
bank because this is what I want as a citizen.
|
