Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Loren Petrich petrich at netcom.com
Tue Nov 7 23:54:19 EST 2000


In article <8u6hes$a6t$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
wrote:
> In article <041120000204294341%petrich at netcom.com>,
>   Loren Petrich <petrich at netcom.com> wrote:

> > > > > 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.
> >    What difference is that supposed to make?
> Collective control.  Obviously if all are not engaged in the
> decisionmaking about Ford's product lines, that which drives the
> corporation's continuance, then Ford is not, as it were, collectively
> controlled.

   Collective control does not necessarily mean employee control,
buster.

> > One can ask *exactly* the
> > same thing about Ford's stockholders. I'd be surprised if most of them
> > were *ever* asked their opinions on what Ford ought to do next.
> Another piece of evidence to demonstrate that Ford is not collectively
> controlled.  Once again, thank you for playing.  This is amazing - the
> new agreeable Loren Petrich, laying down on an argument.

   Collective control does not necessarily mean stockholders regularly
voting on what the company is supposed to do.

   Collective control can be control by a single committee or small set
of committees.

> >    The collectivism here is still collectivism even if the collective
> > in question is the biggest stockholders and top-level management.
> Um, no.  Sorry - that isn't the way collectivism works.

   According to Mr. Langrrr's conception of collectivism, that may well
be so. However, according to mine, it is still collectivism, since the
control is by some high-level committees.

> >    In general, however, "USSR, Inc." is a good picture of how their
> > economy had been run.
> Um, no.  For a number of reasons we have already discussed.

   Imagine a business that runs a company town.

> I see - and so you limit your understanding of Sovietology to what?
> Solzhenitsyn and one visit many, many moons ago?

   What do you have against Alexander Solzhenitsyn?

   And I have *plenty* of knowledge of the Soviet system.

> >    That does NOT describe the Soviet system very well. Because it was,
> > in a sense, the de facto owner of *everything* that was not personal
> > property. Consider what the Soviet Union's leaders had done to
> > suppress
> > private farming in the early 1930's, for example.
> And?  This not only does not counter my point above in any way, it, in
> point of fact, buttresses my point.

   The Soviet Government acted as if it was the real owner of the
property that these farmers had claimed to own.

> >    It's not the T of the C because there were not several independent
> > entities, but a single supreme sovereign entity.
> I will say it once again - Tragedy of the commons.

   Go ahead, enjoy your addlepated ideology.

> >    However, such property rights can mean in practice *exactly*
> > USSR-style control.
> Not at all.  What a warped reality you must live in, Loren!  The
> Soviets' disrespect for private property and private property rights
> are what allowed it to engage in such total control, and to destroy the
> environment so entirely.

   The Soviet Government had claimed *EXCLUSIVE* property rights over
essentially *everything* beyond a few personal possessions.

> > Consider that slavery has been in existence for
> > centuries in many societies; 18th-cy. Africans had been more than
> > willing to sell fellow Africans to those honkies who'd come by in
> their
> > big boats.
> And this is an example of the respect for whose property rights?

   The slaveowners' property rights.

   And who decides what is and is not legitimate property?

> >    It IS completely relevant, because acting like a despot is a sign
> > of
> > de facto ownership.
> No, it isn't.  It is, in fact, the demonstration of a complete and
> total disrespect for private property rights.

   Disrespect for private property rights? The despot is claiming to
*be* the owner here.

> >    However, Langrrr's belief that economy vs. environment is either-or
> > would suggest that the xUSSR had done the Right Thing.
> No, it suggests the reasons why socialism is a miserable, unworkable
> economic system that is completely anti-thetical to the notion of
> environmental protection, and shows why socialist regulatory thrusts
> for environmental protection are doomed to failure and environmental
> degradation.

   Thank you for burying your head in the sand and totally ignoring my
point. My point is that Langrrr is persistently claiming that one
cannot have both the environment and the economy, and that one ought to
choose the economy over the environment. The xUSSR's leaders had made
the choice that Langrrr clearly considers the correct one, and he can
do nothing more than use "socialism" as a dirty word.

> >    However, the cleanup effort was government-sponsored.
> And?  You said it yourself - the government asserted ownership rights -
> private property rights in other words. ...

   That's almost too silly to be worth commenting on.

-- 
Loren Petrich
petrich at netcom.com
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train






More information about the Ag-forst mailing list