Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Langrrr Langrrr at aol.com
Wed Nov 8 12:49:16 EST 2000


In article <071120002054195972%petrich at netcom.com>,
  Loren Petrich <petrich at netcom.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Tell you what, Loren, why don't you define _PRECISELY_ what you mean by
collective control, and we'll work from there.  Thus far, your
interpretation of the term precludes a great deal of what would be
collective activity.


> > > 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.
>


Then it isn't really "collective", is it?  Again, tell us what
definition of collective control _YOU_ are using, and we'll work from
there.  Thus far, you've told us what it isn't - now tell us what it is
to you.

> > >    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.
>

You want me to post my operative definition of collectivism?  I'd be
happy to - I just want you to post your's first.  I'm tired of having
to be the one to do it first.

> > >    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.
>

And?

> > 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?
>

I have _NOTHING_ against Solzhenitsyn, despite your vain attempts to
paint my views otherwise (attempts which I have asked you, repeatedly,
to buttress - though you continue to refuse to do so).

My problem, Loren, is with you and your bizarrely one-dimensional view
of the Soviet Union.  Solzhenitsyn only takes you so far.  His books on
the gulag system are second to none, and his writings on post-
revolutionary life are excellent and fascinating.

But they only take you so far.  Hough & Fainsod's "How the Soviet Union
is Governed" was an terrific text (Acutally, Merle Fainsod and Jerry
Hough were two of the world's leading Sovietologists, and most of their
writings are top notch).  Samuel Hendel's "The Soviet Crucible" is
another one.

"Ivan Denisovich" was one of the books which got me started on the path
to USSR studies - but it was an entree, not the end of my learning.
Heck, there are Russian writers I like a lot better.

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

Sure thing.

> > >    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.
>

Do you understand the concept of "the workers' state"?


> > >    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.
>

No, the Soviet government _IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE_ destroyed private
property rights.  But to call it an exercise in dominion control would
be a bit of a misconception.


> > > 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.
>

There are no property rights in slaves, Mr. Petrich.  This is a red
herring you raised before, and which we have discussed thoroughly:

From: Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Road To Riches (Somewhat Off-Topic)
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85bjm6$af6$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>

Then again:

From: Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
Subject: Re: To debate Libertarian Nature Nazis....
Date: 03 Oct 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8rcp1n$o5s$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>

>    This seems too good to be true. I can't wait for Mr. Langrrr to
> start celebrating company towns and slave plantations. Private
> ownership worked wonderfully for slave plantations, didn't it?
>

Mr. Petrich disgustingly once again tries to pin a viewpoint Mr. Langer
doesn't hold on Mr. Langer, even though Mr. Petrich has been told
numerous times what Mr. Langer's opinion on slavery is.  In fact, Mr.
Langer first informed Mr. Petrich of this opinion on January 10th of
this year:

From: Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Road To Riches (Somewhat Off-Topic)
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85bjm6$af6$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84qivr$dn7$1 at nnrp1.deja.com> <856opk$3m4$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
<856vmr$hjm$1 at nntp4.atl.mindspring.net> <857stg$r6p$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
<858sar$pk8$1 at nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client
205.188.199.194
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 10 03:29:23 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDlangrrr
Newsgroups:
sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics
.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; AOL 5.0; Windows
98; DigExt)
In article <858sar$pk8$1 at nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
  petrich at netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> In article <857stg$r6p$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr  <Langrrr at aol.com>
wrote:

> >Obviously, slavery violates the individual rights of the slave.
Thus,
> >there is no legitimization to the slave trade.
>
> 	So that overrides their masters' property rights?
>

Absolutely.  The Master's have no property rights in the violation of
the rights of individuals.

----

Mr. Petrich, as par for the course, didn't respond to that point.  He
did respond to the message, though, snipping the portion which did not
fit his narrow understanding of my views.  But he was told, all the
same.

Then on September 7th, Mr. Petrich was again informed of Mr. Langer's
viewpoints on slavery:

From: Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Lies of Langer: Study Nails Building Costs
Date: 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8p8a87$n6e$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8p5t7d$tnc$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000906164811.08673.00000802 at ng-fv1.aol.com>
<8p6eli$jmd$1 at nnrp1.deja.com> <8p710v$sv8$1 at slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x70.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client
151.200.194.194
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 07 14:55:16 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDlangrrr
Newsgroups: sci.environment
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)
In article <8p710v$sv8$1 at slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
  petrich at netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> In article <8p6eli$jmd$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr  <Langrrr at aol.com>
wrote:
> >No, what is true is that what kind of housing is demanded by people
> >will be provided to them by builders.  Demand creates a market, which
> >is then fulfilled.
>
> 	So if there is a demand for slave labor, it will be fulfilled,
> despite the efforts of infamous Communists like Abraham Lincoln?
>

Are you intentionally obtuse, or really just this dense?  Do you find
your reading comprehension problem limiting in your daily life?  I said
the following above, Mr. Petrich:  "The libertarian philosophy is to
keep to yourself that which violates the rights of others."

Slavery violates the rights of others.  Therefore it is illegal,
regardless of demand.
---End Quoted Material---

>    And who decides what is and is not legitimate property?
>

Oh, there are any one of a dozen ways to answer that question, Mr.
Petrich.

> > >    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.
>

The despot can claim whatever the despot wants, Mr. Petrich.  That
still doesn't change the fact that what it _IS_ is the disrespect for
private property rights.

>
> > >    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.
>

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Petrich.  Either the federal
government was acting as a private landowner in asserting ownership
rights, or it wasn't.

Which is it?

 - 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 mailing list