From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 20:30:45 MDT
Samantha writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > [Damien S. wrote]
> > > Such as one where one person owns all the land? Or would
> > > redistribution there still be a violation of the sacred
> > > rights of property?
> >
> > That's exactly the right question, and it was the one asked
> > by a number of American administrations in the 1950s - 1980s,
> > when they were doing whatever they could---hang preconceptions
> > and ideology---to keep nations in Latin America and Africa
> > from falling into the hands of the Russians.
>
> In some cases they were doing all they could to keep the nations
> out of the hands of the nations' own people and their duly
> elected representatives.
For what motive? That is, in your model of reality, what would
the motive of the U.S. have been to avoid having the land fall
into the hands of a nation's own people?
From earlier postings, I get the feeling that you just believe
U.S. foreign policy to be intrinsically wicked, so that it would
of course immediately follow that it would have as its first
priority the detriment of the people, which ignores incentives,
and is a dumb reading of history.
> I do not believe that all of this was only about keeping
> the Russians from grabbing these countries.
Well, then, which country's land distribution would you
like to discuss first?
> I especially do not believe when our policies did not
> become more hands-off after the fall of the USSR.
Please provide an example.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 20:39:47 MDT