From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 01:06:15 MST
Spike writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > [Adrian wrote
> > > in the areas where famine happens, governments (in
> > > effect, if not always in fact) seize the food that was
> > > going to the poor and sell it for their own profit.]
> >
> > In retrospect, it seems incredible that we could not
> > see that this was very likely going to be the result.
>
> Lee, the result was foreseen, the action was
> intentional. Those who minister to those in need
> perpetuate their existence by keeping people in need.
Well, I have read accounts of AID (Aid to Developing
Countries), the IMF, and World Bank, and so far have
not seen any evidence that they realized that they
were hurting the nations that they intended to help.
Especially at mid-century, they were under the spell
of Sovietism, and really believed that they needed to
go into all these countries and win the hearts of the
people to keep them from going Communist.
They thought that land-reform (read expropriation and
destruction of property rights), and lots of money
(read confiscation by corrupt rulers into Swiss bank
accounts), and tons of free food (read further destruction
of the existing economy), all would really help. They
simply didn't understand, and I guess practically NO ONE
did back then.
But the corruption part---that's what's still unbelievable.
I mean, didn't the hard-nosed politicians from their home
countries tell them what was going to happen?
> > But the pressing question is still, what *can* be
> > done in cases of famine? Are we to just turn our
> > backs? (Unless you invade, what other option is there?)
>
> The answer is harsh, but no more so than the actions
> that have already been taken in the name of charity.
> The technically advanced must have the courage to
> declare that all cultures are not truly equal, that
> some cultures really are better than others, and that
> technology really does make for longer, healthier,
> happier, better lives.
I'm now starting to wonder if the culture is the worst
part of the problem. For example, until this week I
believed that the Protestant Work ethic was something
real, but studies have shown that when equality before
the law and private property is guaranteed, there is no
difference between Catholics and Protestants at all.
(True: I still recall accounts that Protestants today
in Latin America are thriving---so I don't have the full
story on this, it appears.)
> Nonviolent memetic warfare is called for.
Yes. All that I know of that can be done is to remove
the blinders from everyone's eyes about collectivism and
corruption, and to cheer on Hernando De Soto and his allies.
> Are we morally obligated to respect other's
> cultures, religions and customs? I argue that we are
> not, that ideas want to be free. Ideas will make their
> way into closed cultures, and those cultures will
> be turned upside down. We cannot stop that, we do not
> want to stop that. The old ways will be overturned.
> No one can lock up any sizable piece of real estate
> on this planet for any one religion or custom. No
> one can stop a radio wave. No one can stop capitalism.
True. But so many problems remain. In the countries of
southeast Asia, and also throughout Latin America, a tiny
percent of people form cliques that totally dominate their
economies---ethnically dominant minorities. In Southeast
Asia, it's the Chinese, and they're resented everywhere.
In Latin America, it's the people with white skins that
run not only the economies, but have all the political
power as well. What I would dearly love to know: have
these economically dominant minorities written the laws
in such a way as to help keep them in control, i.e., to
deny equal protection?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 01:07:42 MST