Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!
petrich at netcom.com
Tue Oct 31 23:43:04 EST 2000
In article <8tmofe$qq3$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, Langrrr <Langrrr at aol.com>
> 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.
However, in practice, US soldiers are mercenaries.
> > 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.
However, most big businesses, by that definition, are collectively
owned, because their owners are almost always only part-owners. And if
ownership by several part-owners is not collectivist, then there is no
such thing as collective ownership of anything, because the supposed
collective is a lot of part-owners.
> > 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.
Thank you for admitting that I'm right on this issue.
> > 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.
Comrade Langrrr has swallowed Soviet propaganda whole.
The Soviet Government only *claimed* stuff like that; in practice,
it acted like it was the owner of all the xUSSR's major assets, as if
the whole nation was one big company town.
> > 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
The xUSSR had tried to do *exactly* that with international trade.
Yes, the xUSSR's leaders were more than willing to act like a bunch of
capitalists. In fact, the Soviet system has sometimes been described as
a form of capitalism where the State is the sole capitalist.
And if a business fails, does that mean that it was therefore not a
> > 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.
Pure horse manure. Calling the Soviet system an example of the T of
the C is such remarkable idiocy that I don't even know where to begin.
The Soviet Government was willing to send people to long stays in
Arctic prison camps for displeasing it, and it attempted to ensure that
nothing published in it ever stated anything that it did not want
people to see. There was an official censorship document that specified
a long list of things not to publish:
* Travel plans of the USSR's leaders
* Details of the censorship system itself
* Activities of various intelligence services
* Crime rates, how many drug addicts, details of prison camps, etc.
* Anything that suggests low armed-forces morale or poor relations with
* Accidents, natural disasters, occupational injuries, etc.
* How many illiterate people
* Overall finances of the USSR and its citizens
* The ruble's value relative to other currencies
* The cost of tourist trips compared to how many tourists arrive
* Hostile actions against Soviet citizens abroad
* Arms exports
* What foreign radio stations are audible
* Athlete training and what sort of prizes that winners get
And this was in the 1970's!
Seen in that light, Mr. Langrrr's position that the xUSSR was little
different from anarchy looks absolutely absurd. And his attacks on
Solzhenitsyn's descriptions of gulags -- I wonder if Langrrr's idea of
a fun vacation is to be dragged off to an Arctic prison camp on absurd
charges, where he must then mine gold in a streambed with a pick and
shovel in subzero weather.
> > 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.
It had been the Tragedy of the Commons due in part to de facto
laissez-faire policies by various governments. When those governments
decided to put their feet down, the T of the C disappeared.
petrich at netcom.com
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
More information about the Ag-forst