Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Paul Bramscher brams006 at tc.umn.edu
Thu Oct 26 09:54:46 EST 2000

David Gossman wrote:

> > something completely different to industry.  Compare Lake Erie to the
> Boundary
> > Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota.  Industrial "stewardship" vs. big
> government
> > stewardship.  I'll take big government, thank you.
> You say that government encouraged this and now you want more?

Since when have we had only two options: restricting ourselves to worst
practices, or abolishing government altogether?  You don't do the cause of
Libertarianism justice --

** You'll need to convince us that sound stewardship which recognizes an
integrated, spatially and temporally broad, ecosystem is a bad approach.  As
such, you'll need to explain that something other than science (for example, a
political dogma) should form the basis of our reasoning.

** You'll need to convince us that Jones can do water quality testing, air
quality testing, ozone testing, soil testing, zoological, botanical,
entomological, ecological, ornithological, etc. studies with his own expertise,
and make his own best judgement as to the long-term environmental impact of his
actions.  And not just Jones, but every individual, private company,
construction project, and enterprise.  You'll need to show us that an ecosystem
isn't sensitive to uneven practices.

** You'll need to convince us that Smith's actions do not impact Jones.  Or
Jone's children.

** You'll need to explain away the history of exploitation, and why businesses
today are smarter, and if left to their own devices will hire scientists,
scholars, and educators to enforce broad policies that recognize a broad, and
complex, ecosystem.  You'll need to explain why consumerism, the basis of the
economy (consumption), is innately pro-environment.

Where did I say I think we ought to keep doing things the way we've been doing
them?  The choices aren't restricted to bad historical examples versus
abolishing government.  It's not sound reasoning, and you do your cause an
injustice by resorting to knee-jerk soundbites.

I'm not arguing that your Liberatianism is bad for business, especially
billionaires and large corporations who'd rather not deal with environmental,
safety, or worker regulations.  For example, when they move a plant to a Third
World country, until it blows up or something.  On the contrary, it would be an
extraordinary windfall for them.

You'd find some great support in alt.org.big.business.  I'd be an idiot if I
went to a pro-business NG, and tried convincing them that Green Party politics
were best for business.  I'll be the first to admit they are not.  Making money
isn't our first priority, nor is individual freedom.  A rational balance between
socio-economic-ecological fairness and individual liberties must be found, so
that one is not gained solely at the expense of the other.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list