>From the article:
> The nexus between oil and rogues is not happenstance. A growing literature > suggests that oil wealth emboldens autocrats, fosters corruption, retards > economic development, and undermines democratic accountability. Though > Friedman is probably exaggerating when he posits that "the price of oil and > the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions," it does seem that oil > wealth distracts states from building diversified modern economies, > establishing accountable governments, writing sensible tax codes, and > investing in human capital. Oil states, notes The Economist, "fare worse on > child mortality and nutrition, have lower literacy and school-enrollment > rates, and do relatively worse on measures like the U.N.'s Human Development > Index." Corrupt and fascist regimes will always find some wealth to exploit. If not oil then diamonds or food or ... A reduction in gasoline consumption can reduce CO2 emissions, but I don't think it should be touted as means to bring about world peace and freedom. Harry Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > >> I think the word Libertarian is not a good description. > > I meant this is a Libertarian publication, closely associated with > the Libertarian Party. It is interesting to note that even they > support this initiative. Normally they oppose all government plans, > which I think is misguided. > > >> By adopting this idea, Bush could drop his idiocy rating by a huge amount. > > I agree, but I think there is not the slightest chance he will do so. > > - Jed > >
