Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Langrrr Langrrr at aol.com
Tue Oct 31 10:28:56 EST 2000

In article <301020002029188873%petrich at netcom.com>,
  Loren Petrich <petrich at netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <8tkj0b$2d9$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
> wrote:
> > And I find the statists' approach to the environment to be
> > annihilative.  We'll take what's yours regardless of your need or
> > record, and fail to live up to their management responsbilities
> > they haven't the proper resources or incentive to do so.
>    Cry me a river. I'm not sure how Mr. Langrrr thinks that military
> and police forces are run, but they are run on *exactly* the
> that he professes to decry.

Being a military spouse, I think I have a better indication as to how
the military is run than do you, Mr. Petrich.  You still seem to think
that the United States military isn't a "volunteer" force, even though
each member of the military has volunteered to be there.

Besides that, which principles are you stating that military and police
organizations are run by?  Central planning?  And your point is what?
Military society is one which demands strict discipline by those who
serve within the heirarchical structure, allowing for dissension only
in the most extreme circumstances.

Civilian society, if it is just and equitable, does not make such
demands upon its citizens, it _CANNOT_.

> > You'll note that the worst environmental degradation has always
> > occurred in media that are not solely owned - national forests in
> > United States and Russia, oil spills, air pollution.
>    I'm not sure what Mr. Langrrr means by "solely owned".

Yes you do.  You know precisely what I mean, Mr. Petrich - you have not
been debating these issues without knowing the difference between that
which is held by a private owner and that which is held in common by
the people of a governmental system.

> If not owned
> by a single individual, them most businesses beyond a certain size are
> just plail *evil*, because they are nominally owned by their
> stockholders, and de facto owned by their boards of directors and top
> management.

Red herring.

>    And I note that in the Soviet days, most of the Soviet Union's
> assets had had a sole owner -- the Soviet Government.

BZZZZZZ.  Wrong - the Soviet Government, as it was a marxist-leninist
government, was a government (supposedly) _OF_ the people - and thus
the property of the USSR was the property _OF_ the people of the USSR,
held in common.

In point of fact _ALL_ real property was so owned by the _PEOPLE_ of
the Soviet Union - assigned by the government.

> Ownership that it
> was willing to assert by force, such as against certain pesky Kulaks.
> People could have individual-level property, but nothing more. Imagine
> the Soviet Government as the ultimate in Big Business that inhabited
> its own company town.

Bzzz - because _IF_ the Soviet Government had been a _BIG BUSINESS_ it
would have been interested in maximizing capital in order to create a

And we all know how successful they were at that.

>    And since the Soviet Government had inhabited the territory that it
> had owned, Langrrrian ideology predicts that it would have done
> essentially perfect protection of its environment. But it did not. In
> fact, given Langrrr's insinuations of either-or choices between
> protecting the environment and economic growth, it has made (to him)
> the right choices.

No, it made the only choices that a state-controlled industry would and
could make.  Textbook example of the problems of state-owned and state-
controlled natural resources.  Textbook example, in the extreme, of the
tragedy of the commons.

> > And yet what's your answer?  More of the same!
>    Horse manure. The answer is ***DIFFERENT*** government policies.
> Such as *not* giving away a lot of land and mineral assets.
>    And different government policies ***DO*** work, such as the
> environmental cleanups of several places. Where were the Heroes of
> Capitalist Labor who cleaned up the Cuyahoga River?

Cuyahoga River - another perfect example of the tragedy of the
commons.  Thank you for proving my point so plainly.

 - 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