Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Experimentation and Danger
Message-ID: <914@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 21:39:00 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.914
Posted: Wed Dec 18 21:39:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 02:58:45 EST
References: <344@pedsgd.UUCP> <28200281@inmet.UUCP> <817@mmintl.UUCP> <1772@teddy.UUCP> <878@mmintl.UUCP> <1822@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 52

In article <1822@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes:
>In article <878@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>[Talking about the inherent susceptability of small countries to
>	domination by currupt or violent cliques.]
>>In my book, 8 million is not a small country.  Medium-sized, rather.  I
>>had in mind the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, West Germany.
>>India wouldn't make my top ten, but it wouldn't make the bottom ten, either.
>>For truly awful governments, besides the Horrible Communist Monsters, look at
>>Cambodia, Albania, most of Africa.
>>
>>The disadvantage of small governments is that they are more vulnerable to
>>being taken over by a small group.  Also, in a mostly homogeneous population,
>>what minorities there are are more vulnerable to exploitation by the
>>majority.
>
>Still don't buy it.  There are many African countries that are larger
>than Sweden and are still quite bad.  Zaire, one of the largest
>countries in Africa, is also among the most brutal and corrupt (and a
>U.S. ally, BTW).

This has gotten a bit off the subject.  My original claim was not that
there was a positive correlation between size of country and quality of
government.  Indeed I explicitly stated that most of the worst governments
are also very large.

In pointing out the disadvantages of small governments, it was not my
purpose to argue that they are inherently worse than large ones.  Only
that there are disadvantages to offset the advantages.

I do think that really small sovereign governments, less than about
100,000 people, are dangerously unstable.  There aren't many nations
of this size which are really independant, so this is really just an
opinion.

If small governments were better than large ones, I would expect to see
a negative correlation between size and quality of government.  In fact,
I can detect no correlation whatsoever.

>What Jack Kemp and others who support aiding UNITA are asking us to do
>is get the United States involved in a tribal conflict that is
>certainly none of our business.  But I digress...

Your analysis (which I deleted) is correct as far as it goes.  But the
fact is that nations which are our enemies are supporting that govern-
ment, hoping to gain and cause us to lose thereby.  That makes it our
business.  The fact that it is a local, tribal conflict does make it
only a local, tribal conflict; the presence of Cuban soldiers makes it
something more.  (Which is not to say we should intervene.  Just that
there is some reason for intervention.)

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108