G
gilgamesh
Guest
Re: bartering
Hmm, I really must interject here. The last time I studied capitalism, I came to understand that it is simply the concept
of taking individual resources and pooling them together as
one whole entity. This alone is certainly not as evil and
nefarious as some of you would paint it out to be. The abuses
caused by what masquerades as free-market capitalism now I think
are attributable to the government sleeping in the same bed as
huge corporations. For example, giving tax breaks and massive
government contracts to only certain corporations. The
military-industrial complex of the USA is one of many examples.
Other examples are corporate welfare, such as the thousands of
dollars tucked away in the Dominican sugar industry from USA tax dollars.
The truth is, USA is not a democracy, and thank heavens for that.
It was intended to be a constitutional republic, but it's basically a socialist republic now, as evidenced by the scores of
high-flying idealist government social programs, as well as the not-so-idealist sneaky pork barrel programs. Not to mention
the gobs of money we spend on national offense, ahem, I mean,
defense. Who, for example, benefits from the latter? Boeing,
GE, Lockheed-Martin, etc; all massively profitable corporations,
but because of the breaks they get from the government, not
because they alone are inherently evil. Perhaps it would be
enlightening to see which senators and reps in the USA Congress
also sit on the boards of major corporations.
Capitalism has allowed the kind of resources necessary for
the entire industrial revolution, which produced, for example,
the very computers you all are using to communicate with people
all over the world for a minimal price. No one forced you to
buy them. We are not chained to computers, and no one is
forcing the population to make a mass exodus from local communities to cyberspace. However, what used to be the earnest,
hard working effort of a group of individuals with a shared vision is now becoming the tool of a union of plutocrats in
government and the laws that benefit the multinational
corporations they are part of. It's socialized capitalism, if
you will, and one of the things it immensely profits from is
the waging of war, as an example.
In true, unadulterated free-market capitalism, the consumer can
make a choice. Factory up the river polluting your land? I
think you have a case in court. Don't like Starkist destroying
ocean biomes with drift net fishing? Don't buy their products,
and spread the word through your family, neighbors, friends and
the internet. I believe, for example, putting up a web page
is free these days; you just need internet access, and the
simple knowledge of how to populate a search engine with your
message. The main problem with much of the abuses of so-called
"corporations" these days is that many are so obliviously
ignorant to their abuses; if it doesn't affect their tiny piece
of the world, the heck with it. But the more that the world
becomes connected together, the more these abuses can be
showcased.
It's easy to pay lip service to how bad "capitalism" and
big corporations are, but look around at everything you have.
Many of you, such as myself, are minimalists, by choice or no.
But, I've met a lot of ivory-tower liberals who hype up all these
nasty things, yet they drive a gas-guzzling Bronco, don't
recycle, buy products from (my opinion) really evil corporations
like Phillip Morris (I digress - they make a TON of stuff!
check out their web site! You slacker, go find it in a search
engine!), etc. This is their choice. But many of them are
just ignorant. I used to be one, heck.
The problem that many see with communism, bless its idealist
heart of giving to everyone, is that it involves FORCE.
There is a group that will backup the law with FORCE if you
do not comply. I have a serious problem with this. I also
think that this stifles innovation, because no one is really
motivated to do anything more than is necessary. Yes, I think
it's terrible that people are such slaves to their own personal
ambitions in spite of their family lives, but many corporations
are changing their attitudes about this, hearing the cry of
so many who are just unable to keep cranking out 60 hour work
weeks and still be there for their kid's soccer game and be
intimate with their spouse. BUT, has communism (I believe it's
the collective ownership of production by everyone; who decides?)
ever worked? It inevitably becomes a spiralling contradiction
upon itself, where a small elite group ends up deciding what
the majority gets in equal shares. It's still unequal, and
everyone is depressed because, no matter how hard you work and
no matter how much pride you take in your work, you'll still
get the same wage as your slacker neighbor. Ok ok, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea are the major ones left, I know. Go
do an in-depth study on the happiness of their peoples.
Anyway, I have seen, in my short time here, a growing attitude
of free-enterprise, and there are shops and small businesses
sprouting up everywhere, and the shoe-shine boys, painting
peddlers and avocado hawkers are also examples of that spirit.
If you get crappy merchandise (not luxuries, let's say...
eyeglasses for example) you are not bound to return to that
store. Which causes the store owner loss of profit, and usually
motivates them to provide a better product the next time, in
order to retain and hopefully grow their customer base. This
does not exclude non-material things, such as services. Material
economy or not, domiciles need cleaning and arranging on a
usually daily basis. So, maids and servants fill this need in,
for those who are uncapable of doing it themselves.
Anyway, to me money is kind of a necessary evil until we get
over the whole idea of worth of material goods, but it's going
to be a long time. I'd love to have the nifty futuristic
Star Trek universe where money is non-existent, medicine and
food are available to everyone, and everyone and everything
necessary are provided for. Until then, would you rather revert
back to barter and trade? Tough question, esp. for me. I think
I like the power of a universal currency, which is a concept that
has been around for a long time, and the subsequent idea of
pooling currency together and operating as a whole. It works.
It's abused, like every other tool. Most people use chainsaws
for cutting down trees. A select few use them to cut down
people. Should we then outlaw chainsaws?
As far as how this affects the DR, I think there is usually
a transition phase for a "primitive" to "developing" to
"developed" society, and until a society is "developed" in the
sense where it has a self-sustaining economy and can provide
for most of its citizens, it has to use some measure of force
just to get things working. Trujillo, for example, if I read
my history right, built much of the "modern" infrastructure
here. He certainly was not implementing any kind of free
society. His predecessor eased up a bit on the draconian
dictator thing, but Balaguer was (I guess still, kinda) a
caudillo, and used his firm hand to guide the country further
into "development". In the last decade and a bit more, there
has been phenomenal growth without as much help from the
government, although much of it foreign investment. Remittances
from Dominican baseball players in the USA leagues I'm sure
helps a bit too ;-) My point is, if you just suddenly unleashed
free-market capitalism on a blissful populace not accustomed
to it, it would be chaos. I think it's getting to the point
now where it could work, and the answer is certainly not as
simple as "abolish capitalism" and "institute socialism".
If people knew that many wealthy landowners were disrupting the
self-sufficiency of the DR's economy by hogging up land for
livestock (I'm definitely aware of the phenomenon in general;
they basically ruin the land with grazing, and they need a lot
of it, as well as water). But again, do you eat beef? If so,
you're a goldurn hypocrite, and deserve the consequences. Go
educate people on it, rather than whining anemically on an online
message board populated mostly by those foreign to the DR. Get
active.
I have to take another long-winded digression here about the
legislation of morality. The law, in my opinion, is not for
the institution of some vague morality upon the masses. For
example, there is this frightening legislation pending (I'm not
sure if it's already through or what) in the USA about "hate
crimes." Since when is a violent crime NOT motivated by hate?
Why do we need to spend extra tax dollars to write the law books
and employ more LAWYERS, as well as to go through the whole
ridiculous process? Doesn't anyone see that this is just some
thing for a politician to make himself look good with? Why
the heck does it make a difference whether I said "you f***in
bas***d" or "you f***in nig**r bas***d" before I killed someone?
Either way it's a terribly heinous crime *involving a victim*.
Which leads me to the next point, in which I totally agree with
Jim Hinsch on, and that is the subject of drugs. First off,
doesn't anyone realize that tobacco and alcohol are DRUGS that
kill hundreds of thousands of people a year in the USA alone,
not to mention the lives and families they ruin? I still don't
think they should be illegal, because technically there is no
victim involved, and it's no one's goldurn business what you do
in your own home. If you want to exercise the temperance of
smoking a cigar and having a glass of rum and coke on festive
occasions, that's your choice. If you want to hammer down
a liter of Brugal a night, that's also your choice. Certainly,
as an individual with freedoms, it's your choice to educate
yourself on the dangers, and act accordingly. As far as marijuana goes, this stuff has never killed anyone ever in
the entire recorded history of humanity. It doesn't cause
brain damage, and there is even a brain receptor specifically
built for its active ingredient. The only danger coming from
it is the act of smoking it. Well duh, smoking anything is
carcinogenic. Since it is illegal, a black market (due to
what is the same thing as USA's Prohibition) has sprung up,
and grossly inflated prices for a PLANT have prevented people
from acquiring enough to eat, which basically removes all the
physiological danger. You're going to find a lot of smoke
and mirrors (hah no pun intended) on this subject, naturally.
Regardless of whether it is dangerous or not, and certainly
any doctor will tell you it's much less dangerous than alcohol
or tobacco, it's still no one's business what you do with your
life. Period. It's just that simple. Anything more is a
legislation of morality, and to me, this is an anathema to a
truly free society, just as making law after law about the same
crime inhibits and chokes the justice system. And you know
what else chokes the justice system, are VICTIMLESS CRIMES such
as marijuana possession, and yes, prostitution. I would rather
the dopers stay in their houses and do what they feel is their
right, and the women and men who choose to do what they want
with their bodies, so that the justice system can deal with the
REAL criminals, those who murder, rape, rob, etc. Crimes with
victims, i.e., actual crimes. I know this is probably shocking
for a lot of you, but if you just tried to use reason rather than
hysterical belief-oriented dogma, you would see that, no matter
what you don't like about someone's behavior, be it that they
fart in public, bow towards Mecca, shout "ludicrous gibs"
frequently, smell bad, or you just think they are ugly, they
are entitled to this behavior as long as they don't interfere
with you - like, hit you, shoot you, or otherwise physically
infringe upon you. Too
bad, go somewhere else. That is the whole point of USA, and
that is why it is kind of crumbling now. Murderers get released
because the failed War on Drugs insists on hard statistics, like
how many 17 yr old kids caught with 2 joints get 5-10 yrs,
hence ruining their entire lifes. All the while, everyone ignores the fact GW Bush Jr. has a history of alcohol (A DRUG
people) and cocaine use. He dismissed it as "something in the
past" or some such.
Someone mentioned something I almost giggled at, because it
was so preposterous; that the advent of capitalism results
in organized crime, and 2 other things. Listen, organized
crime did not begin in the USA on a large scale until
the Prohibition of alcohol earlier in the 20th century.
I don't know much about business, but I do know the obvious,
which is that, whenever there is a demand, there will always
be a supply for it. Whether it be guns, drugs, sex, or more
banal things such as Pokemon dolls (the production of which
could be argued to damage the environment - solution: don't
buy it, and set an example to others. It's all your little
voice can do), there will be a supply for them. Often times,
things are made illegal so only the ones that are in power
and make the laws can benefit from them. Iran-Contra affair
come to mind?
I must say, I've agreed with everything Jim Hinsch has said, and he seems
to be one of the few beacons of reason rising above the dark
cloud of irrational hysteria that seems to have proliferated
this board lately. There used to be all this wonderful info
about DR, general and specific, and I even bought the "Living
in Santo Domingo" book (very useful!!! thanks!); but now it
seems to have degraded into a morality war, which seems to have
little to do with anything but egos, really. I don't understand
why everyone freaks out when Jim points out that he doesn't see
a reasonable cause for bringing up the child sex thing. I think
it started with someone posting that article from a Chicago
newspaper web site, about the many negatives of prostitution
and tourism, and underage prostitution specifically. I think
it's an isolated occurrence myself, but I think it disturbs
everyone because it is pretty durn terrible and creepy. I don't
think Jim is denying this. I think he's just clarifying a few
facts and saying that, even though it does exist in the DR, it's
not as bad as some would make it out. Then suddenly, people are
basically throwing a hysterical witch hunt at him, and for what?
Perhaps they have their own issues, and they just need to
malign someone for it. Maybe someone underage they knew was
exploited in such a manner. Whatever it is, be reasonable and
decent, please.
I agree also with the folks who say that tourist dollars alone
are helping the DR. I know that much of that revenue goes to
fill the pockets of the heads of construction and hotel companies, as well as foreign investors. They still employ
thousands, and from what I gather, much of the recent prosperity
the DR has seen is directly due to tourism. Yes, there are
inconsiderate, crude a-holes everywhere. It is just as
inconsiderate and a-holish to employ vague standards for
admittance of foreigners into tourist enclaves; what will
foreign customers think? Probably that it's not worth going.
And how will this be enforced, and under what standards?
Background checks? Letters of good-keeping from home country?
GET REAL. How much money would that cost, to put in such an
infrastructure? Who would run it? Who would enforce it?
Isn't it just easier to bust people who commit crimes? For
example, to enforce prostitution laws(even though I don't agree
with this; if I'm a woman, it's my choice who to sleep with
and who to take money from, sorry. It's really quite simple
to me). Does a potential tourist need at least a Bachelor's
degree, a wife and 2 kids, and belong to at least one social
organization? Listen, it is more inconsiderate and a-holish
to ruin the DR's growing but fledgling economy based primarily
on tourism, and that is exactly what will happen when all this
stuff would be implemented. Why not let the resorts make their
own private decisions on such matters? And whether you're a
foreign tourist or a native, if you commit a crime, you commit
a crime. Seems simple. Morality and obscenity laws might have
a nice ring to them, but end up hurting more than helping in the
long run.
OK, enough with the long-winded and digressional diatribe.
I welcome any corrections, as well as flames, ignorant and
informative alike. Oh, Joseph McCarthy, is that actually
your name? If it is, I find it quite interesting, and
have this kneejerk reaction to drawing parallels with the
historical USA senator of the same name.
Gilgamesh, living in the utopian paradise of Sto. Dgo., DR
(ok, it's a bit smoggy... but yah the people are great! It's
not just because tourism is a big industry, is it? *ducks*)
Hmm, I really must interject here. The last time I studied capitalism, I came to understand that it is simply the concept
of taking individual resources and pooling them together as
one whole entity. This alone is certainly not as evil and
nefarious as some of you would paint it out to be. The abuses
caused by what masquerades as free-market capitalism now I think
are attributable to the government sleeping in the same bed as
huge corporations. For example, giving tax breaks and massive
government contracts to only certain corporations. The
military-industrial complex of the USA is one of many examples.
Other examples are corporate welfare, such as the thousands of
dollars tucked away in the Dominican sugar industry from USA tax dollars.
The truth is, USA is not a democracy, and thank heavens for that.
It was intended to be a constitutional republic, but it's basically a socialist republic now, as evidenced by the scores of
high-flying idealist government social programs, as well as the not-so-idealist sneaky pork barrel programs. Not to mention
the gobs of money we spend on national offense, ahem, I mean,
defense. Who, for example, benefits from the latter? Boeing,
GE, Lockheed-Martin, etc; all massively profitable corporations,
but because of the breaks they get from the government, not
because they alone are inherently evil. Perhaps it would be
enlightening to see which senators and reps in the USA Congress
also sit on the boards of major corporations.
Capitalism has allowed the kind of resources necessary for
the entire industrial revolution, which produced, for example,
the very computers you all are using to communicate with people
all over the world for a minimal price. No one forced you to
buy them. We are not chained to computers, and no one is
forcing the population to make a mass exodus from local communities to cyberspace. However, what used to be the earnest,
hard working effort of a group of individuals with a shared vision is now becoming the tool of a union of plutocrats in
government and the laws that benefit the multinational
corporations they are part of. It's socialized capitalism, if
you will, and one of the things it immensely profits from is
the waging of war, as an example.
In true, unadulterated free-market capitalism, the consumer can
make a choice. Factory up the river polluting your land? I
think you have a case in court. Don't like Starkist destroying
ocean biomes with drift net fishing? Don't buy their products,
and spread the word through your family, neighbors, friends and
the internet. I believe, for example, putting up a web page
is free these days; you just need internet access, and the
simple knowledge of how to populate a search engine with your
message. The main problem with much of the abuses of so-called
"corporations" these days is that many are so obliviously
ignorant to their abuses; if it doesn't affect their tiny piece
of the world, the heck with it. But the more that the world
becomes connected together, the more these abuses can be
showcased.
It's easy to pay lip service to how bad "capitalism" and
big corporations are, but look around at everything you have.
Many of you, such as myself, are minimalists, by choice or no.
But, I've met a lot of ivory-tower liberals who hype up all these
nasty things, yet they drive a gas-guzzling Bronco, don't
recycle, buy products from (my opinion) really evil corporations
like Phillip Morris (I digress - they make a TON of stuff!
check out their web site! You slacker, go find it in a search
engine!), etc. This is their choice. But many of them are
just ignorant. I used to be one, heck.
The problem that many see with communism, bless its idealist
heart of giving to everyone, is that it involves FORCE.
There is a group that will backup the law with FORCE if you
do not comply. I have a serious problem with this. I also
think that this stifles innovation, because no one is really
motivated to do anything more than is necessary. Yes, I think
it's terrible that people are such slaves to their own personal
ambitions in spite of their family lives, but many corporations
are changing their attitudes about this, hearing the cry of
so many who are just unable to keep cranking out 60 hour work
weeks and still be there for their kid's soccer game and be
intimate with their spouse. BUT, has communism (I believe it's
the collective ownership of production by everyone; who decides?)
ever worked? It inevitably becomes a spiralling contradiction
upon itself, where a small elite group ends up deciding what
the majority gets in equal shares. It's still unequal, and
everyone is depressed because, no matter how hard you work and
no matter how much pride you take in your work, you'll still
get the same wage as your slacker neighbor. Ok ok, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea are the major ones left, I know. Go
do an in-depth study on the happiness of their peoples.
Anyway, I have seen, in my short time here, a growing attitude
of free-enterprise, and there are shops and small businesses
sprouting up everywhere, and the shoe-shine boys, painting
peddlers and avocado hawkers are also examples of that spirit.
If you get crappy merchandise (not luxuries, let's say...
eyeglasses for example) you are not bound to return to that
store. Which causes the store owner loss of profit, and usually
motivates them to provide a better product the next time, in
order to retain and hopefully grow their customer base. This
does not exclude non-material things, such as services. Material
economy or not, domiciles need cleaning and arranging on a
usually daily basis. So, maids and servants fill this need in,
for those who are uncapable of doing it themselves.
Anyway, to me money is kind of a necessary evil until we get
over the whole idea of worth of material goods, but it's going
to be a long time. I'd love to have the nifty futuristic
Star Trek universe where money is non-existent, medicine and
food are available to everyone, and everyone and everything
necessary are provided for. Until then, would you rather revert
back to barter and trade? Tough question, esp. for me. I think
I like the power of a universal currency, which is a concept that
has been around for a long time, and the subsequent idea of
pooling currency together and operating as a whole. It works.
It's abused, like every other tool. Most people use chainsaws
for cutting down trees. A select few use them to cut down
people. Should we then outlaw chainsaws?
As far as how this affects the DR, I think there is usually
a transition phase for a "primitive" to "developing" to
"developed" society, and until a society is "developed" in the
sense where it has a self-sustaining economy and can provide
for most of its citizens, it has to use some measure of force
just to get things working. Trujillo, for example, if I read
my history right, built much of the "modern" infrastructure
here. He certainly was not implementing any kind of free
society. His predecessor eased up a bit on the draconian
dictator thing, but Balaguer was (I guess still, kinda) a
caudillo, and used his firm hand to guide the country further
into "development". In the last decade and a bit more, there
has been phenomenal growth without as much help from the
government, although much of it foreign investment. Remittances
from Dominican baseball players in the USA leagues I'm sure
helps a bit too ;-) My point is, if you just suddenly unleashed
free-market capitalism on a blissful populace not accustomed
to it, it would be chaos. I think it's getting to the point
now where it could work, and the answer is certainly not as
simple as "abolish capitalism" and "institute socialism".
If people knew that many wealthy landowners were disrupting the
self-sufficiency of the DR's economy by hogging up land for
livestock (I'm definitely aware of the phenomenon in general;
they basically ruin the land with grazing, and they need a lot
of it, as well as water). But again, do you eat beef? If so,
you're a goldurn hypocrite, and deserve the consequences. Go
educate people on it, rather than whining anemically on an online
message board populated mostly by those foreign to the DR. Get
active.
I have to take another long-winded digression here about the
legislation of morality. The law, in my opinion, is not for
the institution of some vague morality upon the masses. For
example, there is this frightening legislation pending (I'm not
sure if it's already through or what) in the USA about "hate
crimes." Since when is a violent crime NOT motivated by hate?
Why do we need to spend extra tax dollars to write the law books
and employ more LAWYERS, as well as to go through the whole
ridiculous process? Doesn't anyone see that this is just some
thing for a politician to make himself look good with? Why
the heck does it make a difference whether I said "you f***in
bas***d" or "you f***in nig**r bas***d" before I killed someone?
Either way it's a terribly heinous crime *involving a victim*.
Which leads me to the next point, in which I totally agree with
Jim Hinsch on, and that is the subject of drugs. First off,
doesn't anyone realize that tobacco and alcohol are DRUGS that
kill hundreds of thousands of people a year in the USA alone,
not to mention the lives and families they ruin? I still don't
think they should be illegal, because technically there is no
victim involved, and it's no one's goldurn business what you do
in your own home. If you want to exercise the temperance of
smoking a cigar and having a glass of rum and coke on festive
occasions, that's your choice. If you want to hammer down
a liter of Brugal a night, that's also your choice. Certainly,
as an individual with freedoms, it's your choice to educate
yourself on the dangers, and act accordingly. As far as marijuana goes, this stuff has never killed anyone ever in
the entire recorded history of humanity. It doesn't cause
brain damage, and there is even a brain receptor specifically
built for its active ingredient. The only danger coming from
it is the act of smoking it. Well duh, smoking anything is
carcinogenic. Since it is illegal, a black market (due to
what is the same thing as USA's Prohibition) has sprung up,
and grossly inflated prices for a PLANT have prevented people
from acquiring enough to eat, which basically removes all the
physiological danger. You're going to find a lot of smoke
and mirrors (hah no pun intended) on this subject, naturally.
Regardless of whether it is dangerous or not, and certainly
any doctor will tell you it's much less dangerous than alcohol
or tobacco, it's still no one's business what you do with your
life. Period. It's just that simple. Anything more is a
legislation of morality, and to me, this is an anathema to a
truly free society, just as making law after law about the same
crime inhibits and chokes the justice system. And you know
what else chokes the justice system, are VICTIMLESS CRIMES such
as marijuana possession, and yes, prostitution. I would rather
the dopers stay in their houses and do what they feel is their
right, and the women and men who choose to do what they want
with their bodies, so that the justice system can deal with the
REAL criminals, those who murder, rape, rob, etc. Crimes with
victims, i.e., actual crimes. I know this is probably shocking
for a lot of you, but if you just tried to use reason rather than
hysterical belief-oriented dogma, you would see that, no matter
what you don't like about someone's behavior, be it that they
fart in public, bow towards Mecca, shout "ludicrous gibs"
frequently, smell bad, or you just think they are ugly, they
are entitled to this behavior as long as they don't interfere
with you - like, hit you, shoot you, or otherwise physically
infringe upon you. Too
bad, go somewhere else. That is the whole point of USA, and
that is why it is kind of crumbling now. Murderers get released
because the failed War on Drugs insists on hard statistics, like
how many 17 yr old kids caught with 2 joints get 5-10 yrs,
hence ruining their entire lifes. All the while, everyone ignores the fact GW Bush Jr. has a history of alcohol (A DRUG
people) and cocaine use. He dismissed it as "something in the
past" or some such.
Someone mentioned something I almost giggled at, because it
was so preposterous; that the advent of capitalism results
in organized crime, and 2 other things. Listen, organized
crime did not begin in the USA on a large scale until
the Prohibition of alcohol earlier in the 20th century.
I don't know much about business, but I do know the obvious,
which is that, whenever there is a demand, there will always
be a supply for it. Whether it be guns, drugs, sex, or more
banal things such as Pokemon dolls (the production of which
could be argued to damage the environment - solution: don't
buy it, and set an example to others. It's all your little
voice can do), there will be a supply for them. Often times,
things are made illegal so only the ones that are in power
and make the laws can benefit from them. Iran-Contra affair
come to mind?
I must say, I've agreed with everything Jim Hinsch has said, and he seems
to be one of the few beacons of reason rising above the dark
cloud of irrational hysteria that seems to have proliferated
this board lately. There used to be all this wonderful info
about DR, general and specific, and I even bought the "Living
in Santo Domingo" book (very useful!!! thanks!); but now it
seems to have degraded into a morality war, which seems to have
little to do with anything but egos, really. I don't understand
why everyone freaks out when Jim points out that he doesn't see
a reasonable cause for bringing up the child sex thing. I think
it started with someone posting that article from a Chicago
newspaper web site, about the many negatives of prostitution
and tourism, and underage prostitution specifically. I think
it's an isolated occurrence myself, but I think it disturbs
everyone because it is pretty durn terrible and creepy. I don't
think Jim is denying this. I think he's just clarifying a few
facts and saying that, even though it does exist in the DR, it's
not as bad as some would make it out. Then suddenly, people are
basically throwing a hysterical witch hunt at him, and for what?
Perhaps they have their own issues, and they just need to
malign someone for it. Maybe someone underage they knew was
exploited in such a manner. Whatever it is, be reasonable and
decent, please.
I agree also with the folks who say that tourist dollars alone
are helping the DR. I know that much of that revenue goes to
fill the pockets of the heads of construction and hotel companies, as well as foreign investors. They still employ
thousands, and from what I gather, much of the recent prosperity
the DR has seen is directly due to tourism. Yes, there are
inconsiderate, crude a-holes everywhere. It is just as
inconsiderate and a-holish to employ vague standards for
admittance of foreigners into tourist enclaves; what will
foreign customers think? Probably that it's not worth going.
And how will this be enforced, and under what standards?
Background checks? Letters of good-keeping from home country?
GET REAL. How much money would that cost, to put in such an
infrastructure? Who would run it? Who would enforce it?
Isn't it just easier to bust people who commit crimes? For
example, to enforce prostitution laws(even though I don't agree
with this; if I'm a woman, it's my choice who to sleep with
and who to take money from, sorry. It's really quite simple
to me). Does a potential tourist need at least a Bachelor's
degree, a wife and 2 kids, and belong to at least one social
organization? Listen, it is more inconsiderate and a-holish
to ruin the DR's growing but fledgling economy based primarily
on tourism, and that is exactly what will happen when all this
stuff would be implemented. Why not let the resorts make their
own private decisions on such matters? And whether you're a
foreign tourist or a native, if you commit a crime, you commit
a crime. Seems simple. Morality and obscenity laws might have
a nice ring to them, but end up hurting more than helping in the
long run.
OK, enough with the long-winded and digressional diatribe.
I welcome any corrections, as well as flames, ignorant and
informative alike. Oh, Joseph McCarthy, is that actually
your name? If it is, I find it quite interesting, and
have this kneejerk reaction to drawing parallels with the
historical USA senator of the same name.
Gilgamesh, living in the utopian paradise of Sto. Dgo., DR
(ok, it's a bit smoggy... but yah the people are great! It's
not just because tourism is a big industry, is it? *ducks*)