From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!hou5f!hou5b!hou5c!hou5e!mat
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: economic coercion, Phillipines, Chil - (nf)
Article-I.D.: hou5e.394
Posted: Wed Apr 20 18:00:19 1983
Received: Fri Apr 22 07:42:10 1983
References: rlgvax.303


  I am going to fan flames here.  The discussion in question is one of
capitalist investment (or exploitation, take your pick) in less developed
countries.  Sometimes the governments of these countries nationalize the
property of the investors.  As our story continues ...

	From hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!\
	harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy Wed Apr 20 14:09:14 1983
	Subject: Re: economic coercion, Phillipines, Chil - (nf)
	Newsgroups: net.politics
		Correction: the native government has all the guns,
		except for the guns the U.S. Marine Corps has.
		Several regimes which tried the aforementioned
		expropriations in the early years of our century
		were gently admonished to leave property owned by U.S.
		citizens and corporations alone by the aforementioned
		organization.

Was this such a bad thing?  After all, the individuals/corporations involved
had often made agreements or contracts, either with the government or with
other individuals.  The subesquent confiscation (what is nationalization)
of the property of these persons is a violation of that agreement (be it
explicit or implied).  It is direct harm to the welfare of a U.S national
who made an agreement in good faith ... and when it is a government involved,
the crime is particularly bad.  International law exists only as far as there
are guns to support it or people willing to obey.  In the lack of the latter,
you need the former.

I don't argue that the U.S is innocent.  We had a particularly shameful,
if ineffectual, example of that recently when, after closely supervised
elections in El Salvador, a bady of our Congressmen suggested that we
should try to influence or change the duly elected regime.

We in North America are not aware of the state of the world outside of our
borders; we might be horrified to see what kind of people are really
out there.  Ivan the Terrible, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin (a bumbling amatuer)
Ferdinand Marcos (a dilettante), Adolph Hitler (a kid with a chemistry
set), Mohamar Quadaffi (a penny--ante operator), . . .

I don't see how, in good sense, we can consider the crimes of Nestle's
(an over--eager promoter), Hooker Chemical (Love Canal) or IBM (JCL)
to be in the same league.  I suspect that most of these were things that
were bumbled into.  Nestle saw a market.  Ivan the Terrible saw a
way to torture human beings for pleasure, and on a daily basis.

					(puff, spark, puff, puff, sizzle)
					-!hou5e!mat
					Mark Terribile
					Duke of deNet