In article <C51qr5.Duu@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes: >julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes: >>I suggest you >>listen very carefully to the stuff Yeltsin and his people are saying >>and compare that with the very anti-West slogans coming from his >>opponents in the Russian congress.  I sure know who I want to back. > >Could we back him without forcing others to back him at the point of a >gun?  If we had backed him strongly early on I doubt there would be the problem there is now.  Many Russians became disillusioned with democracy and reforms when they felt, rightly IMO, that the West didn't care.  Yeltsin was virtually promised massive aid (once Bush got over his Gorby-mania.)  This probably kept him from dismantling the congress and calling for new elections.  Well, the aid didn't come through and we didn't make sure it went to the proper places and now the anti-reformers are gaining strength where before they were in hiding.  > >Have you considered a non-interventionist policy?  If market reform does >happen, Russia will certainly get *private* capital at *private* risk to >help their economy.  They will even have incentive to do so for the same >reason.  If they don't reform, then our government will probably >consider them enemies anyway and rather spend money to hurt rather than help >them.  If they don't reform I don't believe in giving them money.  However, I think this is too important to take a non-interventionist approach. This is what really bugs me about Libertarianism -- it sounds like 'it'll all be the same in a hundred years time.  no need to do anything.' > > >>How does this affect us?  Well, we are on the same planet and if >>vast tracks of Europe are blown away I think we'd feel something. >>A massive breakup of a country that spans 1/6th the planet is >>bound to have affects here.  (Of course, there is also the >>humanitarian argument that democracies should help other >>democracies (or struggling democracies).) > >If a $1.6 billion gift was that important to our well being, couldn't it >be raised voluntarilly?  People already give over $100 billion a year to >charity.  Despite the wishes of Libertarians, this society is a far way, and getting farther, from being Libertarian.  Perhaps voluntary gifts would work if we had the proper framework but we do not have it.  We have to face the problem *now*, not in X years when we have a Libertarian dream society.  Right now there are huge stumbling blocks to trade, let alone charity. There are still limitations to high-tech exports.  NASA can't buy Proton launch vehicles from them.  Sure, the market may be able to help a great deal but it can't right now.  There are too many obstacles. Instead of fighting against the aid you should be fighting to  tear down the obstacles the market and charities have to face. > >>Seriously.  Everyone has different opinions on what is stupid. >>My two "causes" are aid to Russia and a strong space program. >>Someone else will champion welfare or education or doing studies >>of drunken goldfish.  That is why we have a republic and not a >>true democracy.  Instead of gridlock on a massive scale, we >>only have gridlock on a congressional scale. > >It seems instead of gridlock on any scale, we have aid to Russia, >expensive space programs, national charity that doesn't help the poor, >and probably, studies of drunken goldfish.  I think *limited* government >is more key than how democratic it is.  Well, I think limited government is primarily democratic due to it being limited.  But the main question is how do you transform a state-run economy and monolithic government into something that even remotely looks like ours?  (BTW, sometimes it seems that our government  is trying to go the opposite direction)  It is not going to be painless and not going to be easy.  We simply cannot wait to help when they *have* the 'proper' government.  They'll never get there without the aid.  It may be too late already.  > >>BTW, who is to decide 'stupid?'  This is just like those who >>want to impose their 'morals' on others -- just the sort of >>thing I thought Libertarians were against. > >That was an opinion, and libertarians are very big on free speech.  And I'm just excercising mine.  > >>Actually, my politics are pretty Libertarian except on this one issue  >>and this is why it is impossible for me to join the party.  It seems >>that Libertarians want to withdraw from the rest of the world and >>let it sink or swim. > >If you are pretty libertarian except on this one issue then you should >be VERY libertarian.  Consider it a compromise.  How much money would >your fellow Russia-aiders have to give to Russia if those you oppose >weren't using the same government machine to steal money from you >and your group for causes you don't support?  As I also said above, another problem I have is with *transformation*. A Libertarian society is not going to happen painlessly or overnight. I have seen nothing about how to take our current government and society and turn it into a minimal government and a responsible self-sufficient populace.    > >>We could do that 100 years ago but not now. > >People have been saying that for hundreds of years.  They didn't have nuclear weapons 100 years ago.  Nor instantaneous communications nor travel to virtually anyplace on the earth in less than a day.  > >>Like it or not we are in the beginnings of a global economy and >>global decision making.  > >All the more reason to depend on the free market which can more >efficiently process information, than to depend on rulers for decisions >on complex issues.  Yes, depend on the rulers of the free market and the businesses.  Rulers do emerge *somewhere* and they will never represent the opinions of every person on the planet.    There must be checks and balances.  Checks on the government when it gets out of bounds and checks on industry when it gets out of bounds.  Putting all your hopes on the benevolence of the market is, to me, just like putting all your hopes on the benevolence of government.   >