Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Loren Petrich petrich at netcom.com
Sat Nov 11 01:03:08 EST 2000


In article <8uc3mp$ubs$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
wrote:
> In article <071120002054195972%petrich at netcom.com>,
>   Loren Petrich <petrich at netcom.com> wrote:

> >    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.

   Think again. See below.

> >    Collective control can be control by a single committee or small
> > set
> > of committees.
> Then it isn't really "collective", is it? 

   If control by some committee is not collective control, then the
xUSSR had not been collectively controlled.

>  Again, tell us what
> definition of collective control _YOU_ are using,

   Control by a group.

> >    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"?

   Yes, I do, and I'm smart enough to see that the xUSSR had not been
one at all.

> >    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. 

   I prefer not to be a sucker for the xUSSR's propaganda.

> >    The slaveowners' property rights.
> There are no property rights in slaves, Mr. Petrich. ...

   Convince some slaveowners of that some time.

> > >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.

   Which goes against the presumption of the absolute sacredness of
property claims, especially those of big businesses and rich people.
Which is what slaveowners have been. What do you think that the
plantation owners did with all the cotton and tobacco they raised? It
was certainly more than enough for the use of them and their slaves.

   The answer: they practiced CAPITALISM with that tobacco and cotton.

> >    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.

   Non-answer.

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






More information about the Ag-forst mailing list