Where should we have drawn the line?

Karl Davies karl at daviesand.com
Sun Jun 18 14:14:47 EST 2000

Larry Caldwell wrote:

> In article <394AD4EC.FFE26694 at daviesand.com>, karl at daviesand.com writes:
> > Duh, Harry your brain is dead.  The publications ceased because people don't
> > like clearcuts, especially on their (USFS) land.  It's THEIR land, not YOUR
> > land.  Neither you, nor the USFS, nor the timber industry owns the national
> > forests.  The citizens of the United States own the national forests.  You
> > may disagree with me here, but the US is still a constitutional republic,
> > not a corporate fascist state...at least on paper anyway.
> And of course, when you don't like something the first thing you do is
> make sure nobody can oppose your opinion.  There are worse things in this
> world than fascists.  A mob springs immediately to mind.

Do you mean mob or do you mean the people?  How do you make the distinction?  Or
are the people always a mob in your mind?

> Public opinion is a fickle beast.  If you take the management of forests
> away from foresters you place it in the hands of ignorance.

This of course assumes that foresters aren't ignorant, nor corrupted by
corpo-fascist interests. <G>

> The first
> public emergency, that same preservationist general public will be
> howling for you to bulldoze the forests.

Are you kidding?  Or is this part of your theory of mob/democratic rule?

> The current system is NO BETTER than the Reagan overcut.  It is still the
> total abandonment of responsibility on the part of the landowner, i.e.
> the US Government.

It's a REACTION to the Reagan overcut, which was instigated to save his fat
Republican ass from the effects of inflation (a public emergency or a financial
class emergency?).  The Vietnam War and the Oil Crises of the 70s caused the
inflation.  The overcut was instigated to lower the cost of housing, thereby
lowering inflation--to save the financial class.


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list