Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!
dgossman at gcisolutions.com
Thu Nov 2 14:48:11 EST 2000
Paul Bramscher <brams006 at tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3A007A9D.C2FAB675 at tc.umn.edu...
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> > Private ownership can easily take the form of "use it up and move
> > onward", which is what has essentially happened in many cases.
> Exactly. There's no government law on the books that says you can't
> the minimum requirements for stewardship, responsibility, and protection
> natural resources. Companies are currently completely free to do BETTER
> EPA minimum guidelines, emissions standards, protection of sensitive
> and endangered species, etc.
And in many cases they do.
> So if industry is such a naturally perfect steward, and would function
> without government oversight, why are they complaining? They can exceed
> minimum regulations whenever they want.
And many do. At the same time there are plenty of regs that do little for
the environment, sometimes harm the environment, sometimes harm people,and
cost industry (and therefore you and I as well) lots of money. You defend
this? Would you not prefer that that money be spent on real improvements?
> I've come to conclude that there are two kinds of Libertarians and other
> conservatives. (1) Logical types, but unfortunately their ideas are rooted
> pre-industrial thinking, for a much larger and simpler world. Also a very
> dichotomous world, in which you can easily draw divisions between public
> private, corporate and government, capitalist and non-capitalist. In
> practice it's not this simple, and today's dynamics present new challenges
> old thinking. (2) The politically disaffected, who've not researched
> ideas well, and have adopted their political dogma as a surrogate
> They've wound up as Libertarians by default, like an errant eddy from a
> political whirlpool.
"Today's dynamics" sounds like a broken record for tyrants throughout
history. But then as an historian you would know that....
> For example, the difference between "public" and "private" has all kinds
> layers of meaning. A shopping mall, while privately owned, is a public
> place. We lose our Constitutional rights (free speech, etc.) when we
> shopping mall. If we abolish truly public places, do we therefore abolish
> our access to the Bill of Rights, particularly if we don't own property of
> our own? Public roads, police, schools, libraries, fire departments, etc.
> are all socialist entities, but make quite a bit of sense when managed
> properly. Street bazaars in communist countries can be vibrantly
> capitalistic institutions. I happen to have a triple-major in
> history, and computer science. As a professional programmer, I'll be the
> first to admit that while binary logic forms the foundation of my
> work, it really has no corollary in human systems: they're infinitely more
In research on human communications the basic unit of research is the
"diad". Hmmmm, sounds sort of binary to me.
The fact that you as an historian should know is that government ownership
(read commons) provides the basis for enslavement, totalitarianism and
tyrannies. One would think that you would be concerned enough about these
historical and future developments to be an advocate of individual rights
instead of trying to confuse them with "public" activities.Why aren't you?
More information about the Ag-forst