> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > He used to be adamantly capitalist/free-market oriented.
I don't think so.
> > However he seems to
> > have reached his dotage, and he has taken on a very socialist/mercantilist
> > stance (which is consistent with his current preference for gold) against free
> > markets,
> As he said what his reasons are?
The usual socialist garbage, essentially its the old 'people are no damn good and need
other people to tell them whats best for them' mantra.
> > and while he has been funding many enterprise development projects in
> > the Soviet Union, he also funds quite a bit of leftist/liberal political causes
> > here in the US, including large amounts of money for gun control groups,
> Oh right so he's a good guy. I thought you thought he was a bad guy?
You might think so, I do not.
> > as well
> > as support for pro-world government like the World Federalist Society, and other
> > anti-freedom causes.
> Given the current polarisation of the world towards US hegemony, a world
> govt would be a good idea, but I'd rather no governments.
Considering that the current UN peace keeping force in Sierra Leone can't seem to
shoot its way out of a wet paper bag, and is the largest source of weapons supply for
the communist rebels (sounds like Pournelle novel, doesn't it?) while the private
mercenary forces previously sent in by both the South African gov't and the domestic
Sierran government were keeping things well under control until kicked out by UN
mandate, the UN is possibly the worst possible organization to look out for individual
liberty around the world.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:59 MDT