> V.Kemp wrote:

The idea that morality is make-believe is a silly and naive. Human history and psychology both just called you stupid.>

I am well aware of feeble human attempts to justify moral realism, but they have all failed. As for psychology, I am not sure what you're getting at. Our impulses to care and reciprocate? I'm not denying they exist. But if you are arguing that they are evidence for morality, then you are confused.

Here's how I see it.

If Romney wins the nomination, I will not vote because it will be politics as usual no matter who wins the election. If Santorum wins, I will seriously register to vote, and I will vote for Obama. I will not stand by and let a social conservative win, no matter the cost.

Paul,

I am afraid you are confused. Since Putin became President, Russia's economy has significantly improved.

First, allow me to detail what happened under the Yeltsin years.

1. Yeltsin inherited a declining economy that could barely pay for the state's expenses, and his rapid transition to a market economy made the economy worse, for a time.

2. Corruption was rampant because of poverty, underfunded public services, a lack of transparency, and the government's desperation to pay state expenses. Firstly, Yeltsin's privatization schemes such as the one that issued stock vouchers to Russian citizens benefited wealthy individuals. Rather than buy stock, the mass of desperate Russians illegally sold them to wealthy individuals for cash. This made wealthy individuals wealthier, as they were able to purchase state assets for less than their worth. Secondly, there was little transparency. This allowed political insiders to enjoy unfair competitive advantages. Thirdly, the criminal justice system was underfunded. This caused police to demand bribes, and businesses had to rely on the mafia to enforce their business contracts. Finally, Yeltsin was compelled to hasten privatization by exchanging state assets for money to add to the state budget, and the money the government received was usually much less than the market value of those assets.

3. Political power fragmented. Firstly, Yeltsin and Parliament issued contradictory orders, which caused governors to cherry pick sides. This escalated in to the 1993 coup. Even after the new constitution had made the president in to a 'super president,' Yeltsin was still forced to make concessions to economic and political elites. For example, he promised the governors "all the autonomy you can swallow" in the 1996 elections. Secondly, governors pushed the limits of their autonomy. For example, some issued their own passports and currency. At the extreme, Chechnya seceded. Unable to tolerate the political liability that Chechnya posed, Yeltsin was forced to send inexperienced conscripts to crush the rebellion after the professional military units refused to participate.

In summary, the Yeltsin regime was usually desperate for money to pay for the state's budget, and the concessions it was forced to make made it weak and dependent on political and economic elites.

But Putin changed all that. He has:

1. Restored the vertical balance of power.
2. Balanced the budget and instituted a flat tax.
3. Eliminated low level corruption. Police no longer demand bribes, and the state's monopoly on enforcing business contracts has been restored.
4. Significantly grew the economy. Nominal GDP more than doubled under Putin's presidency, average salaries increased from $80 to $640, the middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million people, and poverty fell to 14% from 30%.
5. Crushed the Chechnya rebellion.

Now it's true that Putin's regime is authoritarian. He has dealt with oligarchs who have misbehaved, and replaced them with professional colleagues he trusts. It's not hard for him to do, since every oligarch is guilty of tax evasion. Those who misbehave receive selective justice. Secondly, Putin isn't afraid to control the legislature with material incentives. Someone in the legislature who misbehaves may notice that their Moscow apartment or salary is withdrawn. Thirdly, Putin has shown a willingness to assassinate his most irritating opponents, rig elections, and use force to put down a demonstration.

However, unlike the totalitarian regime of Stalin or the weak regimes of Khrushchev, Gorbachev, or Yeltsin, the character of Putin's regime is moderate and closer to czarist Russia. Putin is like a referee to the elite. He settles their disputes, and maintains the balance of power between them by manipulating them to compete for his favor.

Now that I clarified the historical, economic, and political facts of Russia, it seems that you are confused about a few other important things. The first is strong leadership and Stalinist-style brute force. Stalin was foolish and would have suffered a coup, had it not been for Hitler's depopulation efforts during the invasion of the USSR. The second is the circumstances under which democracy is possible. You seem to think it's possible to create a liberal democracy by simply organizing the government that way. Well, that is not how things work. The political and economic climate determines the possibilities of government a state will have. It's possible that developments in Russia are moving towards a democracy in the decades ahead, but forgive my skepticism about the practicality of liberal democracy in the present. Without an individual strong enough to serve as a referee between the elite, they will fight like rats in the sack. Also, you are confused about the infighting that happened in 2007-2008. The infighting was between factions all ready supporting Putin. It was not a scheme to identify or purge his enemies, lol.

Finally, you have unfairly judged Putin. He can not be compared to dictatorships like North Korea. Putin has not depressed economic development or created a command economy to increase his control or buy the loyalty of his supporters like the majority of dictators tend to do. Neither has Putin assumed totalitarian control of the media. While it's monitored and guided to serve his objectives, it's much more free than other authoritarian regimes. Articles and political cartoons critical of Putin are occasionally circulated with little backlash from Putin's government. Moreover, Putin participates in press conferences, and although he restricts the journalists who are permitted, only some topics are completely censored (like Chechnya). Additionally, one way he deals with critical journalists in press conferences is to call on supportive or moderate journalists to either provide comical relief or change the subject. In totality, Putin has governed moderately and has been much more consistent with liberal principles than other authoritarian leaders.

Flint,

1. The demand for drugs is largely inelastic due to addiction. So causing the price of drugs to increase by eradicating suppliers is ineffective, and only leads to an increase in drug crime. When those addicts can't pay for their addiction, they will get inventive.

2. On sexuality, men are less elastic than women. Moreover, women face higher risks for sexuality. This makes sexuality a market, whereby women are suppliers and men are consumers. If you increase the costs of sexuality by eliminating planned parenthood, or even banning/limiting abortion and contraception, then women will exit the market. This will increase the price of sex and cause more men to seek substitutes, including prostitutes and sluts. With fewer women supplying the same quantity demanded, the increase in STI infections will explode. Keeping sex cheap not only makes everyone happy, but it reduces the number of STI infections.

To support my point, CDC records show that Bush's abstinence only education caused a significant number of teen girls to exit the sex market, but it had a marginal effect on teen boys. Moreover, the number of teen girls who had more than 3 partners a year also increased. In other words, the increase in price due to sellers leaving the market had little affect on the quantity demanded, and this increased the demand for risky sex.

So keep abortion and contraception legal, and their services affordable and available to the poor.

The only post from BW that I see is the one posted in 2008 from a thread someone bumped.

Lets just suspend the constitution and elect David Petraeus to be our absolute monarch. It's not like the constitution matters anymore anyway.

Zarf,

Oh I see then. Well you kind of got me. Although, there are things he can do. He can demand considerable concessions in exchange for signing legislation. Based on their previous behavior, I wouldn't put it past social conservatives to hold the country hostage in order to coerce democrats in to signing socially conservative concessions. They successfully passed legislation to discontinue funding Planned Parenthood. That was bad enough, and they will have much more leverage with the president on their side.

Rick Santoroum... he's an extremist social conservative who wants to outlaw contraception. Are you nuts?

In most jurisdictions, prospects for jury duty are selected from the voter register. So by not registering, I greatly improve my chances of avoiding a possible life interruption.

Huh?

Who let Deci out?

I have been worried that China may try invading Sakha. It's rich in minerals and gas. And no, Russia probably won't nuke over it. Nukes won't be used by one nuclear power against another unless there is nothing to lose.

And Flint is right. The circumstances in China favor militarism. Moreover, such population imbalances highly correlate with militarism.

Which is why we need to stop toying with Russia, and help them build up their military so they can fortify their southeastern border.