Hacker News Reader

Those who leave are not capable of fixing their state, because that requires power, and those with power rarely leave.

Is that so? The London property market isn't propped up by poor Russians.

100% of Russia's richest man stays in Russia, but that doesn't mean that 100% of the most resourceful 10% stay there. Look at this, for example:

https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/fn...

I feel confident that the richest third of Russians bought almost all of those, and the poorest Russians few or none, so it's those without power who don't leave, because they can't. Lack of money/lawyers/resources diminishes your ability to arrange a residence permit in a foreign country.

Those richest thirds of Russians are still under Putin's thumb.

To some degree. The poorest third are under his thumb to a larger degree, don't you agree? The difference is best described as power.

The power gained by their wealth is enough to make leaving the country easy, but not enough to "save" it, by any stretch.

The modestly powerful can only effect modest improvements. Often local rather than national. If you think modest improvement is zero, then you are unquestionably right, they can't "save" it.

"Moral" is the wrong word when you consider:

  -a big reason people immigrate to the US is because the US destabilized their home country in the first place
  -America systematically ensures the poor are incapable of improving their condition

Many Americans would be happy to vote to stop destabilizing countries across the ocean, given the choice.

Even if this is true, as we know, the American government is explicitly set up to not give citizens this kind of choice, so offering this as an argument is disingenuous.

As a counterpoint though, consider that neocons keep getting elected to Washington every other year.

>Counterpoint: neocons keep getting elected to Washington every other year.

Because the choice given to a voter is this:

Vote for a democrat, who destabilizes foreign countries as a matter of course, and puts their energy into rewriting a health care bill. Vote for a neocon, who destabilizes foreign countries as a matter of course, and puts their energy into keeping gas prices and taxes a little bit lower. Vote for Trump, who actually attempts to stop destabilizing foreign countries, and gets impeached and called a terrorist by everyone who suddenly thinks NATO and aggressive foreign policy is the most important thing in the world.

An actually democratic decision would be giving citizens a plebiscite, "Do you want to stop foreign intervention in X country: yes or no." It would be quite a long list, but the results of that vote would be nice to see.

I just listened to a podcast [0] this morning that mentioned the fact that the many of the same people denouncing "Team America World Police" two decades ago have flip-flopped on that attitude regarding current events in Eastern Europe. I guess this is sort of intended to go along with c_crank's reply there.

[0] https://conservativenerds.locals.com/post/4567762/the-ben-he...

Any comparison between the middle east and Ukraine is entirely disingenuous, because they aren't even remotely comparable. Ukraine is most comparable to when a coalition of western states freed Kuwait from Saddam.

Sending money to Ukraine is more comparable with sending money to President Jinping or President Maduro.

In what way?

And most of those many will flip on a dime. Invading Iraq had something like 70% public support and Afghanistan was even higher. Of course, you can't find most of those people now.

Because they're mostly flip-floppers based on their political ideologies.

Or… because they have different information now than they had then… which is a completely rational and even desirable state of affairs.

They had all the information they needed then. Those chose wrong, they'll be mostly wrong now. Any ideological bent today is just as much a normie venture as it was then.

Excellent username

> If the US were to only allow those most capable of fixing their own state/country to flee to the US, is this a moral policy when we have the knowledge that it extends the harm of a bad system in need of reform?

> Those left behind are the most poor and incapable of helping themselves.

That's pretty much the reality now. Look no further than Russia: there are millions of Russians in the US and Europe in all sorts of science and engineering positions in universities, JPL and NASA, and the aerospace & defense industries working on the same sort of stuff that is deciding the war today. The brain drain has been a very real issue since the iron curtain fell.

But let me stop you right there: that's dangerously close to paternalism and denying the people who would be allowed to come to the United States their self determination based on some ham-fisted attempt at geopolitical fairness is not only immoral but will only end in tears. Humans simply aren't capable of social engineering at that scale without huge unintended consequences and reams of collateral damage.

The United States has already tried nation building in this century in Afghanistan (where the Taliban rule, a return to the status quo pre-9/11) and Iraq (which was an unmitigated disaster). If the US focused more on improving itself instead of building other nations then I think the world would be a better place.

I'm not saying isolationism, and foreign aid is good, but let other countries fix their problems (potentially with aid from us, but not direct military intervention) because if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd not lift a finger to assist us (except for maybe Cuba).

If the US had actually been serious about nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, they could have done it. Instead it looked more like an extractive neo colonial project.

The US has no moral obligation to prevent the best and brightest from coming here.

You can always over-analyze everything to death, but at the end of the day, it's the responsibility of the leadership in that organization/country to fix the problem. If they don't, or can't, no one else is going to take responsibility for it.

Power corrupts. If a government is broken, it's the people's responsibility to replace that government with one that works. Whatever that takes.

Since this can be costly, the sane approach is to nip a governments' broken-ness in the bud ("voice" in the article's parlance) before things get bad enough that you can't do so any more.

Democratic countries tend to not attack other nations. The US is an odd one in this respect, which imho reflects the state of US' democracy. Sadly the US people aren't fixing it.