Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!
Langrrr at aol.com
Thu Nov 2 10:17:51 EST 2000
In article <021120000107303003%petrich at netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <petrich at netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <8tpfpo$39r$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
> > In article <311020002043037133%petrich at netcom.com>,
> > Loren Petrich <petrich at netcom.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8tmofe$qq3$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr
<Langrrr at aol.com>
> > > However, in practice, US soldiers are mercenaries.
> > Are you intentionally obtuse? ...
> Of course not.
> However, "we're only in it for the money" is a capitalist ideal, is
> it not?
It may very well be. But that offers little in the way of explanation
for those who serve in the armed forces of the United States.
I note that you snipped the definition of mercenary, which demonstrated
that your understanding of the concept was incorrect. Obviously, your
ego cannot handle an acknowledgement of your own errors, even when
those errors are more than amply shown.
See, that's the difference between you and me, Loren - when you can
show _WHERE_ I was wrong and _WHY_ I was wrong, I will admit to it.
You cannot, obviously.
> > > However, most big businesses, by that definition, are
> > > owned, because their owners are almost always only part-owners.
> > > ownership by several part-owners is not collectivist, then there
> > > such thing as collective ownership of anything, because the
> > > collective is a lot of part-owners.
> > And would you say that "big businesses" are collectively controlled?
> Why not?
I'll take that as a yes. Why not? You tell me the last time Ford
employees voted on new product lines.
> And why the scare quotes? Is there no such thing as a big
I put quote around it, Loren, because given your misapplication of
terms, who knows how the hell you define "big business"?
> > > > In point of fact _ALL_ real property was so owned by the
> > > > the Soviet Union - assigned by the government.
> > > Comrade Langrrr has swallowed Soviet propaganda whole.
> > > The Soviet Government only *claimed* stuff like that; in
> > > it acted like it was the owner of all the xUSSR's major assets,
> > > the whole nation was one big company town.
> > Do you think the statement above conveyed what you thought in
> > I said, "All real propery was owned by the people of the Soviet
> > assigned by the government."
> At best, that was a legal fiction.
> > You responded that the Soviet Government acted like it was the
> > all of the USSR's major assets.
> > I never said that it didn't act that way. In fact, I made it clear
> > that the management of all of the real property assets of the USSR
> > in the hands of the government, who were _SUPPOSEDLY_ managing it in
> > the name of the people.
> So you are now admitting that your earlier claims about the xUSSR
> are wrong? At least it is good of you to recognize your fallibility.
Which claims are those? Please point them out to me.
> > And as the Soviet Union was a marxist-leninist state, these assets
> > managed _COLLECTIVELY_.
> The way a big business manages its assets.
Ah, yes - I see just how much Lysenko has in common with the CEO of ADM.
> > > The xUSSR had tried to do *exactly* that with international
> > It tried to create a profit. It did not try to maximize capital in
> > order to create that profit.
> Is maximizing capital an absolute necessity?
For any business to be successful in the long term? Absolutely.
> > > In fact, the Soviet system has sometimes been described as
> > > a form of capitalism where the State is the sole capitalist.
> > And Cuba was described as a workers' paradise. What of it?
> In the xUSSR, the government acted as if it was the only entity
> the right to practice capitalism, which does support that criticism.
Marxist-Leninist dialectic, Loren, marxist-leninist dialectic. In the
transition from a capitalist to a communist system, the transitional
phase of socialism will be marked by state-run businesses.
What of it?
> > > Pure horse manure. Calling the Soviet system an example of the
> > > the C is such remarkable idiocy that I don't even know where to
> > Textbook example, in the extreme. Resources being managed, in
> > for the people of the state by the state itself. No incentive for
> > sustainability, no incentive for pollution control. No singular
> > responsible caretaking entitiy.
> Horse manure. ALL the arguments for the supposed virtue of private
> ownership would also demonstrate that the Soviet Government had had
> strong incentives to protect the environment: a poisoned nation would
> not be a strong and powerful one, and neither would a nation that had
> used its resources unsustainably.
If your system has at its disposal nearly limitless resources but no
incentive for capital maximization (as such a thing is not a part of
your philosophy), and no single entity to take responsibility for the
upkeep of those resources, that, coupled with a system which does not
encourage efficiencies and relies upon labor intensive extraction
practices in order to make up for economic shortfalls, you have a
recipe for disaster.
Face it - the Soviet system failed, and in order to stave off failure,
the Soviet Government, in the name of the people, raped and pillaged
the peoples' resources.
Tragedy of the commons wins out again!
> > Loren, all of this is irrelevant to the issue at hand:
> It IS relevant, because it shows what sort of control the Soviet
> Government had been willing to exert.
Which is irrelevant to the issue at hand - I know _ALL_ about Soviet
control. In fact, I use these self-same examples in discussions about
why it is so important to protect private property rights.
But they have nothing to do with a discussion of tragedy of the commons
in this instance.
> [Soviet-censorship details...]
> If everything Mr. Langrrr wrote had to go by some US government
> official who had a long list of things that were not supposed to
> in print, would he still think that governments do not act like
No, I would think that it acts as a despot.
But that is completely irrelevant, of course.
> If he had to remove from his writings references to the planned
> travels of US leaders, the censorship system itself, calculations of
> the dollar's exchange rate, accidents and natural disasters, crime and
> drug-addiction rates, the audibility of foreign radio stations, the
> prizes that athletes receive, etc., would he still think that
> governments do not act like owners?
This has nothing to do with the issue of the tragedy of the commons,
> Except to prove that it had not been the cause of the xUSSR's
> environmental troubles.
Not as proven by you.
> > > Seen in that light, Mr. Langrrr's position that the xUSSR was
> > little
> > > different from anarchy looks absolutely absurd. And his attacks on
> > > Solzhenitsyn's descriptions of gulags -- I wonder if Langrrr's
> > > a fun vacation is to be dragged off to an Arctic prison camp on
> > > charges, where he must then mine gold in a streambed with a pick
> > > shovel in subzero weather.
> > We've been over this very issue before, Loren. I find your
> > as nauseating now as I did then.
> If Solzhenitsyn was wrong about Soviet gulags, then how was he
Who has attacked Solzhenitsyn's descriptions of Soviet gulags?
Certainly not me.
> > > It had been the Tragedy of the Commons due in part to de facto
> > > laissez-faire policies by various governments. When those
> > > decided to put their feet down, the T of the C disappeared.
> > I see - so you lay it solely at the hands of the government. The
> > that the industrial sector in Ohio is a fraction of what it used to
> > has nothing to do with it?
> So what?
So, laying it entirely at the hands of the government is completely
wrong. If there are fewer factories, Loren, there is less pollution.
> That's an evasion, pure and simple. Why not look at some
> honest, non-rewritten history some time?
So Ohio's industrial sector is not a fraction of what it used to be?
> > But thank you for admitting that the Cuyahoga River is a prime
> > of the tragedy of the commons.
> As a result of that river having no serious de facto owner.
Yes, that is what the tragedy of the commons _IS_.
> river cleanup effort was a result of governments acting like owners.
In other words, asserting private property rights.
So please explain to me again why the Soviet Government, acting as an
owner, raped the environment, or why this _ISN'T_ an example of the
tragedy of the commons?
- Andrew Langer
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
More information about the Ag-forst