I will refuse to pick a side when both sides retain the fundamental flaw (market control through fear or authority), and hope, with Brian, “that the founding principles of our country maintain enough sway that violence against those of us who disagree will be rare, and that the option of leaving, even if it requires substantial financial loss, will still exist.”
I have a bit of a problem with this claim: “Bah, governments or politicians don’t have power today, only “Finance” does.” The power that concerns me is that used to forcibly prevent me from providing investment opportunities to people who might be willing to take a risk on a good idea, or preventing my friend Jeannette from baking stuff in my house and selling it to support herself, or preventing private citizens from protecting themselves from renegade federal agencies (like the IRS), or preventing people like Bernard von Nothaus from providing a stable form of money, or, more generally, preventing competition against privately owned privileged institutions (like the Federal Reserve, in the Nothaus case - he created the “Liberty Dollar”).
I think that if you subtract the government power out from the power of finance, finance once again returns to the useful industry that helps people buy thing with promises and helps to keep them honest - one with only as much power as any such useful industry ought to have.
RE Burma: I bet Burma could use people like Julia just as much as Cambodia. But since Julia has dibs in Cambodia, perhaps Burma would be the better choice. Dibs, you know, “property rights”. Respect for that would go a long way these days.
