Objectivist ignorance about the environment
Mark Plus
environmentalists for valuing trees, as you can see in the following
rant:
On Earth Day Remember: If Environmentalists Succeed, They Will Make
Human Life Impossible , by Michael Berliner (April 20, 2004)
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2697
[begin quote]
Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees.... Of course,
environmentalists invoke the doctrine of intrinsic value not against
wolves that eat sheep or beavers that gnaw trees; they invoke it only
against man, only when *man* wants something.... For the
environmentalists, the "natural" world is a world without man. Man has
no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds and bacteria somehow do....
Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of
one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of
people."
[end quote]
Ironically, just the other day Haiti and the Dominican Republic (two
countries which share the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean) both
experienced catastrophic floods precisely because their hillsides had
been deforested:
Haiti's deforestation led to deadly floods: PM
http://www.terradaily.com/2004/040529001428.7w5797hv.html
[begin quote]
GUADALAJARA, Mexico (AFP) May 29, 2004
Haitian Prime Minister Gerard Latortue on Friday attributed Haiti's
deadly flash floods to the Caribbean country's massive deforestation.
"The deep cause of this situation is the deforestation of Haiti,"
Latortue said at the summit of European and Latin American leaders in
Guadalajara, Mexico.
"We have lost more than 80 percent of forest because people like to
use wood charcoal as a source of energy," said Latortue, adding that
the death toll in Haiti could rise to between 1,000 and 1,200 people.
[end quote]
So maybe valuing trees in their natural environment is consistent with
protecting human life after all!
Ian St. John
> On 30 May 2004 16:26:50 -0700, mark...@hotmail.com (Mark Plus) wrote:
>>
>> "We have lost more than 80 percent of forest because people like to
>> use wood charcoal as a source of energy," said Latortue, adding that
>> the death toll in Haiti could rise to between 1,000 and 1,200 people.
>>
>> [end quote]
>>
>>
>> So maybe valuing trees in their natural environment is consistent
>> with protecting human life after all!
>>
>
> source of energy? Or do you think people need energy just for fun?
None. They would have lived in the tropics. It is only when they try to
expand their environment to harsher climates that they need fuels. It is
also a non-sequitor that says that valuing a tree does not mean that you
cannot use trees. What it says is that you must VALUE the tree and take only
what is appropriate, preserving the ecosystem that the trees are in, rather
than valuing only the exploitation and destruction for short term gain.
Sorry to educate you but you seem to be one of the Objectivist Fools he is
talking about. It is not as if wood is the only heat available to us so the
question does not become 'use it or lose it' so much as making good choices.
Jay
when loggers harvest on public land you have a problem with the logging
company having no incentive to harvest properly. They take as much out of
the land as they can, because they won't have another chance to harvest from
the land later. If however the logging company owned the land, they would
have an economic reason to harvest the timber in a sustaining way, so that
there will be regrowth (or the land could be sold and reused for other
purposes). Clearcutting that you describe is commonly referred to as a
"tragedy of the commons". When a resource is open to use to all, those using
it will try to use up as much of that resource as they can before someone
else gets to it. Private ownership of a resource however encourages wise
use.
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:Levuc.3226$Hn.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Charles Novins
news:3kblb0drcrbcc9n6e...@4ax.com...
> However, given that most enviro-wackos are also commies, they'll never
> accept this simple human reality.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Correct. I'm willing to accept the *possibility* that there could be a role
for government in some narrow or obscure area of environmental regulation.
But until a free-market ever exists anywhere, and an environmental problem
ever *actually* arises out of the operation of that market which cannot be
(and is not) solved privately , the conversation is pointless. And, as far
as anyone reasonable can tell, unnecessary.
Ian St. John
> Did the logging company own the land or did they log on public land?
> Often when loggers harvest on public land you have a problem with the
> logging company having no incentive to harvest properly. They take as
> much out of the land as they can, because they won't have another
> chance to harvest from the land later. If however the logging
> company owned the land, they would have an economic reason to harvest
> the timber in a sustaining way, so that there will be regrowth (or
> the land could be sold and reused for other purposes). Clearcutting
> that you describe is commonly referred to as a "tragedy of the
> commons". When a resource is open to use to all, those using it will
> try to use up as much of that resource as they can before someone
> else gets to it. Private ownership of a resource however encourages
> wise use.
This is the standard claim of the capitalist the ownership give incentive
for good stewardship. It is, of course, bullshit. I can give you the example
of Saltspring Island. The businessman wanted to clearcut the old growth to
maximize his profits and had NO iinterest in waiting till the woods grew
again. It was strictly a 'rape and plunder' effort. He did his best to
strip the island before the local residents could raise the necessary funds
to buy the land from him, so they got the land at his price but only after
he had stripped a major portion of it. I guess they felt the rest was 'worth
saving'.
Mostly the business cycle will not wait fifty years to allow regrowth. They
will only pay for access to the land that has mature trees on it, without
waiting. The 'tree farms' generally feature fast growing wood that is used
for pulp and paper so that they can grow 'crops' in a few years. It has
nothing to do with big timber.
Ian St. John
>>
>> Private ownership of a resource however encourages wise use.
>>
This is false as I explained in my other thread. The private ownership of
land merely encourages quick profit and abandonment unless the 'renewal
cycle' is short relative to the economic cycle. This hardly applies to 100
year old trees.
>
> However, given that most enviro-wackos are also commies, they'll never
> accept this simple human reality.
As you are a wacko, your posts are similarly moronic.
Ian St. John
> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:3kblb0drcrbcc9n6e...@4ax.com...
>> However, given that most enviro-wackos are also commies, they'll
>> never accept this simple human reality.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Correct. I'm willing to accept the *possibility* that there could be
> a role for government in some narrow or obscure area of environmental
> regulation.
Gee. How generous of you. What else are you willing to allow us poor
peasants? A few scraps from your table?
> But until a free-market ever exists anywhere, and an
> environmental problem ever *actually* arises out of the operation of
> that market
Way too late for that. It started with the industial revolution and hasn't
slowed down much.
> which cannot be (and is not) solved privately ,
Unfortunately, paying the 'externalised costs' is against the interest of
the 'private' profiteer. Never happens.
> the conversation is pointless. And, as far as anyone reasonable can
> tell, unnecessary.
Obviously you have your head rammed up so far up your anus you can't see for
shit.
Charles Novins
> Gee. How generous of you. What else are you willing to allow us poor
> peasants? A few scraps from your table?
CHARLES NOVINS:
In your case, a shot - admittedly a long one - at having a clue about how
economics works.
> > But until a free-market ever exists anywhere, and an
> > environmental problem ever *actually* arises out of the operation of
> > that market
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Way too late for that. It started with the industial revolution and hasn't
> slowed down much.
CHARLES NOVINS:
By "it," I'll assume you don't mean doubled or tripled life spans, luxuries
enjoyed by our poor that exceed the dreams of pre-industrial royalty, and so
on.
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Unfortunately, paying the 'externalised costs' is against the interest of
> the 'private' profiteer. Never happens.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Happens all the time, idiot, from private groups like the Nature Conservancy
buying up various lands, to "evil" corporations who keep their campuses in
better shape than even the greatest public parks. Do you have even a clue
as to what's happening at Yosemite National Park (to take one of a zillion
examples) under government stewardship?
"Externalized costs" is just a catchphrase for theft. So you prohibit
theft, get it? No, didn't expect you would. At least try to think about
it. If one spoils the property of another, they can sue for compensation.
End of externalization.
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Obviously you have your head rammed up so far up your anus you can't see
for
> shit.
CHARLES NOVINS:
And oddly there's more information there than you've managed in the entire
non-ass world.
Anssi Porttikivi
...
> This is the standard claim of the capitalist the ownership give incentive
> for good stewardship. It is, of course, bullshit. I can give you the example
> of Saltspring Island. The businessman wanted to clearcut the old growth to
> maximize his profits and had NO iinterest in waiting till the woods grew
> again.
The question is, how much "value" a forest produces uncut, to whom, and
how are they willing to compensate the owner. If a natural resource left
intact produces value a value for many people, and if they are willing
to pay for it, the owner will have an interest to protect the resource.
If a resource does not produce enough value which somebody is willing to
compensate for, then the qustion is that how do you know it is precious?
If the only reason to protect a forest is, that some people somewehre
think it should be protected, then hey will have to put up with the
money. If a billion people give money to WWF and it pays enough annual
rent for protection of private forests, of course they will be protected
by profit-maximizing capitalists.
David Ball
>Did the logging company own the land or did they log on public land? Often
>when loggers harvest on public land you have a problem with the logging
>company having no incentive to harvest properly. They take as much out of
>the land as they can, because they won't have another chance to harvest from
>the land later. If however the logging company owned the land, they would
>have an economic reason to harvest the timber in a sustaining way, so that
>there will be regrowth (or the land could be sold and reused for other
>purposes). Clearcutting that you describe is commonly referred to as a
>"tragedy of the commons". When a resource is open to use to all, those using
>it will try to use up as much of that resource as they can before someone
>else gets to it. Private ownership of a resource however encourages wise
>use.
So who has the right to sell public land? How do you decide
who gets to buy it? Is this going to be a case where you have large
corporate interests owning a substantial chunk of the timber out
there? Does ownership imply that you can do with the land whatever you
want? What happens if that particular stand of timber is home to an
endangered species?
I agree with you that if the land was in private hands (i.e.
people owned it, not corporations) much of what you say "might" be
true. All bets are off when allegiance is to the corporate bottom
line.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:46:24 GMT, "Jay" <red...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>Private ownership of a resource however encourages wise use.
>>
>
>However, given that most enviro-wackos are also commies, they'll never
>accept this simple human reality.
No, they just think differently than you. First of all,
they're guilty of thinking. What's your excuse?
David Ball
LOL. Who exactly are you to mandate anything? The free market
is not the be-all and end-all. Indeed, there are huge problems with
it. There are classes of problems that simply cannot be dealt with
through the free market. In fact, many problem are being created
specifically because of the free market. Climate change is a classic
example. Because the issues involving climate change are so broad
there is no practical way for the free market to react and adjust
itself. Each business looks at its small contribution to the problem
and announced that it doesn't need to change because they aren't the
proximate cause of the problem. Taken together, they are.
David Ball
wrote:
Hmmm...is the stuff of life a "resource"? It will be
interesting, over the next 30 years, to watch what happens with water
resources on this planet. Many areas are water stressed. Is water a
commodity to be bought and sold?
Lloyd Parker
Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:46:24 GMT, "Jay" <red...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>accept this simple human reality.
>
>
>
Biznatch Hadhersnatch
Mark Plus wrote:
> Objectivists and similar free-market religionists ridicule
> environmentalists for valuing trees, as you can see in the following
> rant:
>
If the free market were allowed to grow hemp, we wouldn't need to destroy
our forests.
BH
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:45:33 -0400, "Ian St. John"
><ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Tell me, how many people would have died without access to a cheap
>>> source of energy? Or do you think people need energy just for fun?
>>
>>None. They would have lived in the tropics.
>>
>
>I see. In the tropics people don't need fuel. Thank you, you just
>proved my suspicion that all environmentalists are dumb.
LOL. You're the troll claiming that one extreme has a monopoly
on brains. I hate to break this to you sport, but there's enough
stupidity to go around. You're a walking example of it.
Mark Plus
> Did the logging company own the land or did they log on public land? Often
> when loggers harvest on public land you have a problem with the logging
> company having no incentive to harvest properly. They take as much out of
> the land as they can, because they won't have another chance to harvest from
> the land later. If however the logging company owned the land, they would
> have an economic reason to harvest the timber in a sustaining way, so that
> there will be regrowth (or the land could be sold and reused for other
> purposes). Clearcutting that you describe is commonly referred to as a
> "tragedy of the commons". When a resource is open to use to all, those using
> it will try to use up as much of that resource as they can before someone
> else gets to it. Private ownership of a resource however encourages wise
> use.
We've had well defined property rights for fossil fuels in North
America all along, but they haven't stopped the rapid depletion of oil
and gas. Oil and gas companies now want to privatize and drill holes
in the environmentally protected commons because they've already
exhausted the resources coming from the mineral rights they had
previously owned.
In other words, we also have a "tragedy of property" when it comes to
nonrewable fossil hydrocarbons.
Mark Plus
"Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>Thinking correctly.
LOL. Try again. You don't think at all. Generalizations,
Troll, are the last bastion of the ignorant.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 14:35:15 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:09:23 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>><root@localhost.> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 07:15:43 -0500, David Ball
>>><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:04:18 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>>>><root@localhost.> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:46:24 GMT, "Jay" <red...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Private ownership of a resource however encourages wise use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>However, given that most enviro-wackos are also commies, they'll never
>>>>>accept this simple human reality.
>>>>
>>>> No, they just think differently than you. First of all,
>>>>they're guilty of thinking. What's your excuse?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thinking correctly.
>>
>> LOL. Try again. You don't think at all. Generalizations,
>>Troll, are the last bastion of the ignorant.
>>
>
>Including calling me a troll?
If you insist on behaving like one, using idiotic labels,
stupid generalizations and refuse to enter into honest discussion then
so be it. Here's a novel idea: tone down your rhetoric, change your
alias since it's outright stupidity, and make an attempt to see how
the other half views the world. You might just find your POV isn't
that different from anyone else's.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>I'm not a part of any "half", I'm just part of myself, thank you very
>much. My point of view is that each human being should try to extract
>as much from this value as one wants, without intervention from
>others, as long as the rights to life, liberty and property are
>respect. There, this is my point of view.
Your's is an extreme viewpoint. That being the case, there
must, by definition, be another extreme (i.e. the other half). Your
POV is based on selfishness and ignorance. Human beings didn't evolve
by doing things on their own. That's a good way to become something's
dinner.
I prefer Lysander Spooner's POV: "Vices are those acts by
which a man harms himself or his property. "Crimes are those acts by
which one man harms the person or property of another." In essense, do
what you want up to the point where your activities have an impact on
me. At that point, I have a say in how you conduct your affairs. You
have the right to do whatever the hell you want to yourself. You don't
have the right to apply that to everyone around you.
Property is not a right. It is an acquisition, a thing. You
have no more right to ownership than you have to own a piece of the
sky or a part of the atmosphere. You have no more right to preperty
than a Burrowing Owl or a Wolf. There's nothing special about you.
You're an animal, one of many that live on this planet. Time to learn
the lessons that most 3 year-olds learn: it's good to share.
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:T3zuc.5158$Hn.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Gee. How generous of you. What else are you willing to allow us poor
>> peasants? A few scraps from your table?
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> In your case, a shot - admittedly a long one - at having a clue about
> how economics works.
Unfortunately the economics of priviledge is entirely too well undestood. We
have grown beyond it. You should too.
>
>>> But until a free-market ever exists anywhere, and an
>>> environmental problem ever *actually* arises out of the operation of
>>> that market
>
> IAN ST. JOHN:
>> Way too late for that. It started with the industial revolution and
>> hasn't slowed down much.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> By "it," I'll assume you don't mean doubled or tripled life spans,
> luxuries enjoyed by our poor that exceed the dreams of pre-industrial
> royalty, and so on.
You cannot claim that all of the scientific and technological advances have
been brought by 'free markets'. In fact, most of them arose out of govenment
programs and publicly financed universities dedicated to 'pure science', not
the pursuit of the buck. We can really only credit the 'free market' with
over-exploitation of natural resources ( collapsing fisheries and putting
forests at risk ) and creating the new fad for advertising of unhealthy
products like cigarettes and 'fast food'.
>
> IAN ST. JOHN:
>> Unfortunately, paying the 'externalised costs' is against the
>> interest of the 'private' profiteer. Never happens.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Happens all the time, idiot, from private groups like the Nature
> Conservancy buying up various lands,
Yes, but these are NGOs, NOT the capitalists and mostly supported by the
'little guy' who wants to preserve nature against the interests of those who
could 'make a buck' by exploiting it.
> to "evil" corporations who keep
> their campuses in better shape than even the greatest public parks.
Well neat concrete and glass palaces for the corporations is hardly an
argument that they have 'preserved' anything. They do their pollution out of
their own sight, of course. Only the poor tend to have to live 'close to
work'. What a dimwit. you might have brought up some corporate 'good
citizenship' like Ford and it's grass roof. But, of course, they only went
with it *because it saved money*. Ergo, yes. They will still pollute when it
saves them money.
> Do you have even a clue as to what's happening at Yosemite National
> Park (to take one of a zillion examples) under government stewardship?
Sure. But that is a compromise with the private entrepreneur that exists in
most 'National parks' because the government in under pressure for private
development in the 'public park' industy. They have little chance to fully
protect the parks while also making 'visitors' a priority.
>
> "Externalized costs" is just a catchphrase for theft.
Nice of you to admit it. Also known as "private profit, public costs".
> So you prohibit
> theft, get it? No, didn't expect you would.
Nice idea. However, free markets don't prohibit theft ( aka a bargain ).
Only government regulation can restrain the abuses of capitalism and the
markets. Thus we have no 'free' markets. Only controlled one.
> At least try to think
> about it. If one spoils the property of another, they can sue for
> compensation. End of externalization.
They can try. But the real damage is usually done to the property that is
owned. Either stripped for quick profit ( buying up old growth forest ) or
polluted and abandoned.
>
> IAN ST. JOHN:
>> Obviously you have your head rammed up so far up your anus you can't
>> see for shit.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> And oddly there's more information there than you've managed in the
> entire non-ass world.
Still nothing but shit. You have even gotten to confuse it with reality.
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
> ...
>> This is the standard claim of the capitalist the ownership give
>> incentive for good stewardship. It is, of course, bullshit. I can
>> give you the example of Saltspring Island. The businessman wanted to
>> clearcut the old growth to maximize his profits and had NO iinterest
>> in waiting till the woods grew again.
>
> The question is, how much "value" a forest produces uncut, to whom,
> and how are they willing to compensate the owner. If a natural
> resource left intact produces value a value for many people, and if
> they are willing to pay for it, the owner will have an interest to
> protect the resource.
Not really. When a lumber miller buys a property, it's value as a 'tourism
site' is nill. He isn't interested. That is NOT why he bought it. The fact
is that my point is clear. Ownership is NOT a guarantee of 'good
stewardship'.
>
> If a resource does not produce enough value which somebody is willing
> to compensate for,
So who owes you for public land and why? What reason is there that land MUST
produce a profit for you to allow you to leave it for posterity? Do you HAVE
to rape the land unless it can 'buy you off'?
> then the qustion is that how do you know it is
> precious? If the only reason to protect a forest is, that some people
> somewehre think it should be protected, then hey will have to put up
> with the money. If a billion people give money to WWF and it pays
> enough annual rent for protection of private forests, of course they
> will be protected by profit-maximizing capitalists.
The conservancy groups that 'buy land' to allow it's preservation are a
*reaction* to the fact that private ownership leads to stripping the land of
it's natural resources for quick gain, where ANY value to the land exists.
Only 'wastelands' can be considered 'safe' from their owners.
Ian St. John
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:31:26 +0300, Anssi Porttikivi <a...@iki.fi>
> wrote:
>
>> Ian St. John wrote:
>> If a resource does not produce enough value which somebody is
>> willing to compensate for, then the qustion is that how do you know
>> it is precious? If the only reason to protect a forest is, that some
>> people somewehre think it should be protected, then hey will have to
>> put up with the money. If a billion people give money to WWF and it
>> pays enough annual rent for protection of private forests, of course
>> they will be protected by profit-maximizing capitalists.
>
> Hmmm...is the stuff of life a "resource"? It will be
> interesting, over the next 30 years, to watch what happens with water
> resources on this planet. Many areas are water stressed. Is water a
> commodity to be bought and sold?
Yup. In fact, in South Africa, they force you to pay 'up front' buy buying
meter card that measure the flow you can take. Out of work? Hope it doesn't
last for more than three days ( dehydration kills ) or you have some money
saved up..
Ian St. John
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:45:33 -0400, "Ian St. John"
> <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Tell me, how many people would have died without access to a cheap
>>> source of energy? Or do you think people need energy just for fun?
>>
>> None. They would have lived in the tropics.
>>
>
> I see. In the tropics people don't need fuel.
Not to prevent freezing to death or overheating. Water can keep you cool
enough. Obviously "how many people have died without access to a cheap
source of energy" is zero in the tropics. Try to keep the point clear. The
question was one about danger of death from lack of fuel. Not about 'wanting
fuel' for personal watercraft.
> Thank you, you just
> proved my suspicion that all environmentalists are dumb.
Thank you. You just proved my suspicions that you are a *totally* moronic
troll.
Brandon Berg
news:4886cf3e.04053...@posting.google.com...
> Objectivists and similar free-market religionists ridicule
> environmentalists for valuing trees, as you can see in the following
> rant:
>
> Human Life Impossible , by Michael Berliner (April 20, 2004)
> http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2697
>
> [begin quote]
> Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees.... Of course,
> environmentalists invoke the doctrine of intrinsic value not against
> wolves that eat sheep or beavers that gnaw trees; they invoke it only
> against man, only when *man* wants something....
The story below has nothing to do with the op-ed above. There is a brand of
environmentalism which has nothing to do with the conservation and nurturing
of natural resources for human use and enjoyment, but rather is based on the
belief that the value of "nature" is independent of the benefits which it
confers upon human beings. Who here has not heard it asserted many times
that the world would be better off without humans?
Such naked displays of contempt for humanity and faith in the intrinsic
value of nature as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
(http://www.vehmt.org) are rare, but much of mainstream environmentalism is
subtly tainted by these principles. We see this in appeals to the
preservation of "unspoiled nature" and endangered species. Sometimes these
are legitimate concerns, but far too often it seems that they're intended to
supplant rational, human-centered cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. Berliner may be painting with an overly broad brush in not drawing a
distinction between earth-firsters and sensible conservationists, but so are
you. There has been a great deal of literature on free-market
environmentalism--that is, conservation through the extension of property
rights rather than through socialism. According to free-market
environmentalists, pollution and overuse of natural resources usually occur
as a result of the tragedy of the commons, and good stewardship of natural
resources is much more likely to occur when there is a strong economic
incentive to use them in a way that conserves their future value.
Consider, for example, logging and mining on public lands. Quite often this
occurs as the result of sweetheart deals between politicans and loggers.
Politicians have no incentive to use the land profitably, so it makes
perfect economic sense for them to allow exploitation of resources for a
fraction of their market value in exchange for generous campaign donations.
> Ironically, just the other day Haiti and the Dominican Republic (two
> countries which share the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean) both
> experienced catastrophic floods precisely because their hillsides had
> been deforested:
Case in point. Surely you're not claiming that Haiti is an example of what
happens when you let "free-market religionists" have their way with a
country, are you? Because that would be silly. I'm not intimately familiar
with the timber situation in Haiti, but I'm going to go out on a limb (no
pun intended) and say that this is almost certainly another example of the
tragedy of the commons.
Brandon Berg
Brandon Berg
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:uZyuc.5154$Hn.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> This is the standard claim of the capitalist the ownership give incentive
> for good stewardship. It is, of course, bullshit.
Oh. Well, that settles it, then. I found the "of course" to be particularly
compelling.
> I can give you the example
> of Saltspring Island. The businessman wanted to clearcut the old growth to
> maximize his profits and had NO iinterest in waiting till the woods grew
> again. It was strictly a 'rape and plunder' effort. He did his best to
> strip the island before the local residents could raise the necessary
funds
> to buy the land from him, so they got the land at his price but only after
> he had stripped a major portion of it. I guess they felt the rest was
'worth
> saving'.
That makes no sense whatsoever. He was so hellbent on cutting down the
trees, apparently for the sheer thrill of raping the environment, that he
cut them down as quickly as possible to avoid getting a better offer from
the local residents? That's the standard leftist caricature of loggers, but
I find it rather implausible that it might actually have happened that way.
Either he was a madman, or you're telling the story wrong.
Aside from that, it's entirely possible that logging was the right thing to
do. The environmental left tends to assume that everyone does--or at least
should--share their values, but it just isn't so. Old-growth trees have
value as timber, and they have esthetic value. Neither is inherently more
important than the other--it's a question of personal preference, not of
good and evil. If logging a certain old-growth forest is more profitable
than using it to attract tourists, then the trees are literally worth more
dead than alive. If you're not willing to step up to the plate and outbid
the loggers, then what gives you the right to decide what to do with them?
We live in a world of limited resources, and there are always going to be
disagreements regarding how we use them. The faith of the environmentalist
left in the superiority of their own values is not a valid reason to excuse
their attempt to bypass fair and voluntary market processes and seize
natural resources for their own satisfaction through political coercion. If
environmentalists were as quick to open their wallets as they are to open
their mouths, then there would be no shortage of funds to purchase
old-growth forests, particularly when you consider the abundance of wealthy
entertainers within their ranks.
> Mostly the business cycle will not wait fifty years to allow regrowth.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/adm/comm/DNRNews/march02/wooduse.html
"DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources) is a major source of
utility poles in the western states because DNR grows trees on a 60-year
cycle. Most private industrial timber companies grow trees on a 40-year
cycle."
> They will only pay for access to the land that has mature trees on
> it, without waiting.
Certainly, if a company is given the chance to log mature trees at a
discount, it would be crazy not to take it, just as the land owner would
have to be crazy to give it the chance. Again, this is a strong argument
against government stewardship of natural resources.
> The 'tree farms' generally feature fast growing wood that is used
> for pulp and paper so that they can grow 'crops' in a few years. It has
> nothing to do with big timber.
Certainly there are timber farms, although I'm not sure how much they
produce, as a percentage of the lumber produced in the US. Does anyone have
any statistics on this?
Brandon Berg
Charles Novins
> Unfortunately the economics of priviledge is entirely too well undestood.
We
> have grown beyond it. You should too.
CHARLES NOVINS:
No offense, but you appear to be ineducable on this. I certainly don't have
time to bring you up to spec, but we'll do one more go-round, just for fun.
> > IAN ST. JOHN:
> You cannot claim that all of the scientific and technological advances
have
> been brought by 'free markets'. In fact, most of them arose out of
govenment
> programs and publicly financed universities dedicated to 'pure science',
not
> the pursuit of the buck. We can really only credit the 'free market' with
> over-exploitation of natural resources ( collapsing fisheries and putting
> forests at risk ) and creating the new fad for advertising of unhealthy
> products like cigarettes and 'fast food'.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Government produces nothing, by definition and in fact. It can do has done
nothing more than provide the infrastructure for production, as it were.
Your understanding of government's role and function is on the level of an
infant contemplating its parents.
Try this:
http://tinylink.com/?WEB2L3Pojb
Think of it as a ray of light in your pitch-black world.
>
> >
> > IAN ST. JOHN:
> Yes, but these [Nature Conservancy and the like] are NGOs, NOT the
capitalists and mostly supported by the 'little guy' who wants to preserve
nature against the interests of those who could 'make a buck' by exploiting
it.
CHARLES NOVINS:
The point, which I expected you to miss, is that such NGO's are voluntary in
all rerspects. You probably don't realize it, but your view is that
violence is the key to conservation. I don't expect you to "get" that
either, but them's the facts.
You're basically a war-monger, and you want to wage it on behalf of plants,
trees, sloths and ticks. You should consult the ticks; they are your
intellectual superiors.
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Sure. But that )the degeneracy of Yosemite and other public parks] is a
compromise with the private entrepreneur that exists in most 'National
parks' because the government in under pressure for private development in
the 'public park' industy. They have little chance to fully protect the
parks while also making 'visitors' a priority.
CHARLES NOVINS:
The government land-management people are indeed cronies, but they have no
agenda to protect the park. You have precisely zero idea about how
government agencies work.
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Nice idea. However, free markets don't prohibit theft ( aka a bargain ).
CHARLES NOVINS:
You are no mere idiot. You are a fabulous idiot.
IAN ST. JOHN:
> They can try [to sue].
CHARLES NOVINS:
No, dolt, they can't. Why not? The regulators (such as EPA) prohibit such
suits.
EPA and associated beasts allow pollution up to a certain level, and
prohibit private suits. Did you know this? Don't lie. You have zero clue.
IAN ST. JOHN:
But the real damage is usually done to the property that is
> owned. Either stripped for quick profit ( buying up old growth forest ) or
> polluted and abandoned.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Quiz: More forests in North America now, or 100 years ago?
http://tinylink.com/?h5cBRwgqE9
Alright, I may tolerate you one more time if you come back with something
remotely interesting. Try hard. You may want to seek assistance.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:52:42 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Your's is an extreme viewpoint.
>>
>
>I don't recognize your capacity to judge my viewpoints.
LOL. That's because your eyes are closed and your head is
inserted in a certain orifice.
>
>>
>>Your POV is based on selfishness and ignorance.
>>
>
>I don't owe anyone a thing. Or, in other words, I'm no one's slave.
Do you hunt for your food? Have a job? Pay your hydro bill?
You may not want to, but you're beholden all the same.
>
>>
>>Human beings didn't evolve by doing things on their own.
>>
>
>They didn't evolve to be other people's slaves either.
No, they evolved through co-operation, something apparently
you didn't learn in kindergarten.
>
>>
>>You have the right to do whatever the hell you want to yourself.
>>You don't have the right to apply that to everyone around you.
>>
>
>This is no different than what I said before.
>
>>
>>Property is not a right.
>>
>
>Yeah, I know, all commies say that.
No, reasonably intelligent do. Once again, you're trolling.
Knock off the idiotic rhetoric, fool.
>
>>
>>You're an animal, one of many that live on this planet. Time to learn
>>the lessons that most 3 year-olds learn: it's good to share.
>>
>
>It's good to trade voluntarily. It's not good to be a slave. You
>advocate the latter.
LOL. To a mental midget such as yourself breathing amounts to
slavery. Deal with it.
jmh
> Charles Novins wrote:
>
>>"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>news:T3zuc.5158$Hn.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
> You cannot claim that all of the scientific and technological advances have
> been brought by 'free markets'. In fact, most of them arose out of govenment
> programs and publicly financed universities dedicated to 'pure science', not
> the pursuit of the buck. We can really only credit the 'free market' with
> over-exploitation of natural resources ( collapsing fisheries and putting
> forests at risk ) and creating the new fad for advertising of unhealthy
> products like cigarettes and 'fast food'.
Your claim is no more supportable as quite a lot of
research funding even in state universities comes from
private sources. Also, those doing much of the research
are choosing what research they conduct based on who's
paying the most so the claim that these activities are
"dedicated to 'pure science', not the pursuit of the buck"
is highly problematic.
>
>>IAN ST. JOHN:
>>
>>>Unfortunately, paying the 'externalised costs' is against the
>>>interest of the 'private' profiteer. Never happens.
>>
>>CHARLES NOVINS:
>>Happens all the time, idiot, from private groups like the Nature
>>Conservancy buying up various lands,
>
>
> Yes, but these are NGOs, NOT the capitalists and mostly supported by the
> 'little guy' who wants to preserve nature against the interests of those who
> could 'make a buck' by exploiting it.
So what? I don't think the claim has ever been that specific
people, or even some class will do this, only that within
the context of a market system people have the ability to
engage in conservation individually or as a group. You
simply show that it is in fact occurring.
One of the oddest stories I've ever heard in this
area was about a legal battle between one of the
conservationist groups and one of the big oil companies
over some wet lands in Louisiana(?). After battling things
out in court the conservationist group won. The
conservation group then proceeded to lease the drilling
rights the oil company. They don't seem to be doing
that much better with respect to extraction--and
it would be interesting to be able to run a parallel
universe experiment to see if the impact of the drilling
was much different with the conservation group calling
the shots versus the oil company in terms of local
fauna and flora impact.
jmh
jmh
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:oAOuc.12343$Hn.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>Unfortunately the economics of priviledge is entirely too well undestood.
>
> We
>
>>have grown beyond it. You should too.
>
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> No offense, but you appear to be ineducable on this. I certainly don't have
> time to bring you up to spec, but we'll do one more go-round, just for fun.
>
>
>>>IAN ST. JOHN:
>>
>>You cannot claim that all of the scientific and technological advances
>
> have
>
>>been brought by 'free markets'. In fact, most of them arose out of
>
> govenment
>
>>programs and publicly financed universities dedicated to 'pure science',
>
> not
>
>>the pursuit of the buck. We can really only credit the 'free market' with
>>over-exploitation of natural resources ( collapsing fisheries and putting
>>forests at risk ) and creating the new fad for advertising of unhealthy
>>products like cigarettes and 'fast food'.
>
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Government produces nothing, by definition and in fact. It can do has done
> nothing more than provide the infrastructure for production, as it were.
In many way's it's a shame that you're not correct
in that statement. Government by definition--at least
in the US--is suppose to produce laws and, to some degree
or other, a court system. In fact it produces rents for
special interests and politicians. (I would that thought
Williams might have commented on that--but didn't read
the link so don't know what he actually got into.)
jmh
Charles Novins
> > Government produces nothing, by definition and in fact. It can do has
done
> > nothing more than provide the infrastructure for production, as it were.
"jmh" <j_...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wXSuc.15286$6X.5421@lakeread03...
> In many way's it's a shame that you're not correct
> in that statement. Government by definition--at least
> in the US--is suppose to produce laws and, to some degree
> or other, a court system.
CHARLES NOVINS:
But that's what I was referring to. Although, I must say that you're a bit
off to suggest "production" of laws is a proper governmental function.
Better to say government should concentrate upon refining laws so that they
better reflect and enforce natural rights, which exist before laws come into
being.
JMH:
In fact it produces rents for
> special interests and politicians. (I would that thought
> Williams might have commented on that--but didn't read
> the link so don't know what he actually got into.)
CHARLES NOVINS:
Yeah, I was speaking theoretically and normatively. In fact, what the
government actually does is far worse than even what you suggest.
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:oAOuc.12343$Hn.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Unfortunately the economics of priviledge is entirely too well
>> undestood. We have grown beyond it. You should too.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> No offense, but you appear to be ineducable on this. I certainly
> don't have time to bring you up to spec, but we'll do one more
> go-round, just for fun.
Oh, please do. I find you endlessly amusing but rather dim.
>
>>> IAN ST. JOHN:
>> You cannot claim that all of the scientific and technological
>> advances have been brought by 'free markets'. In fact, most of them
>> arose out of govenment programs and publicly financed universities
>> dedicated to 'pure science', not the pursuit of the buck. We can
>> really only credit the 'free market' with over-exploitation of
>> natural resources ( collapsing fisheries and putting forests at risk
>> ) and creating the new fad for advertising of unhealthy products
>> like cigarettes and 'fast food'.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Government produces nothing, by definition
Goveernment produces nothing by definition? Please cite the source. Fact is
that government has both a source of finance and a 'product' or line of
products. One of them is the education system and support for research which
DOES produce results. Others are public transit, water, sewage, public
health, etc. They are no different than business, receiving money and
producing products. Just not on the 'unfree market'.
I'd like to know where your 'newspeak' dictionary is...
> and in fact. It can do
> has done nothing more than provide the infrastructure for production,
> as it were.
Nope. If you have a drivers license, you paid for a 'product' which is
regulation of the roadways.(police) No different than buying a parking
sticker.
>
> Your understanding of government's role and function is on the level
> of an infant contemplating its parents.
Yah yah. You seem to exist in a vaccum. There is an article on 'unused' or
'remnant' organs, whose function has disappeared, in the latest Discovery
magazine. Perhaps we should include your brain in the list.
Nuff said.
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> Charles Novins wrote:
>>
>>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:T3zuc.5158$Hn.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>
> . . .
>> You cannot claim that all of the scientific and technological
>> advances have been brought by 'free markets'. In fact, most of them
>> arose out of govenment programs and publicly financed universities
>> dedicated to 'pure science', not the pursuit of the buck. We can
>> really only credit the 'free market' with over-exploitation of
>> natural resources ( collapsing fisheries and putting forests at risk
>> ) and creating the new fad for advertising of unhealthy products
>> like cigarettes and 'fast food'.
>
> Your claim is no more supportable as quite a lot of
> research funding even in state universities comes from
> private sources. Also, those doing much of the research
> are choosing what research they conduct based on who's
> paying the most so the claim that these activities are
> "dedicated to 'pure science', not the pursuit of the buck"
> is highly problematic.
The main point is that our modern society is not a 'product' of 'free
enterprise' or 'market systems' so much as the normal progress of technology
developing from the revolution in science and industry that created the
'industrial revoluitonj'. And point is that much of the advance have been
outside of business, usually in the academic scene which is mostly
government funded ( in Canada at least, where we do not have the same 'two
tier' education system as in the U.S. ).
>
>>
>>> IAN ST. JOHN:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, paying the 'externalised costs' is against the
>>>> interest of the 'private' profiteer. Never happens.
>>>
>>> CHARLES NOVINS:
>>> Happens all the time, idiot, from private groups like the Nature
>>> Conservancy buying up various lands,
>>
>>
>> Yes, but these are NGOs, NOT the capitalists and mostly supported by
>> the 'little guy' who wants to preserve nature against the interests
>> of those who could 'make a buck' by exploiting it.
>
> So what?
So the argument that 'private property' and 'business' protects the
environment is crap and anyone that studies the smog and toxic wastes of the
'50s to '70's is only too aware of it. Love Canal has finally been cleaned
up after 21 years and $400 million.
> I don't think the claim has ever been that specific
> people, or even some class will do this, only that within
> the context of a market system people have the ability to
> engage in conservation individually or as a group. You
> simply show that it is in fact occurring.
Market systems do not conserve. They are designed to exploit. The faster and
more actively, the better. It is one characteristic of market systems.
>
> One of the oddest stories I've ever heard in this
> area was about a legal battle between one of the
> conservationist groups and one of the big oil companies
> over some wet lands in Louisiana(?). After battling things
> out in court the conservationist group won. The
> conservation group then proceeded to lease the drilling
> rights the oil company.
Now having the power ( I assume) to make sure that the drilling was without
harm to the local environment instead of letting the oil company do whatever
the hell they wanted? I see.
> They don't seem to be doing
> that much better with respect to extraction--and
> it would be interesting to be able to run a parallel
> universe experiment to see if the impact of the drilling
> was much different with the conservation group calling
> the shots versus the oil company in terms of local
> fauna and flora impact.
It would be interesting but we already have a LONG history that shows how
little business cares ( usually ) when it affects the bottom line.
>
>
> jmh
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:uZyuc.5154$Hn.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> This is the standard claim of the capitalist the ownership give
>> incentive for good stewardship. It is, of course, bullshit.
>
> Oh. Well, that settles it, then. I found the "of course" to be
> particularly compelling.
>
>> I can give you the example
>> of Saltspring Island. The businessman wanted to clearcut the old
>> growth to maximize his profits and had NO iinterest in waiting till
>> the woods grew again. It was strictly a 'rape and plunder' effort.
>> He did his best to strip the island before the local residents could
>> raise the necessary funds to buy the land from him, so they got the
>> land at his price but only after he had stripped a major portion of
>> it. I guess they felt the rest was 'worth saving'.
>
> That makes no sense whatsoever.
Remove your head from your anus and you can read better.
> He was so hellbent on cutting down the
> trees, apparently for the sheer thrill of raping the environment,
nah. For the money dickhead. The prime timber was worth a lot since there is
not that much 'virgin territory' left.
> that he cut them down as quickly as possible to avoid getting a
> better offer from the local residents?
I guess your problem is that you cannot read even the most clearly written
english. The offer for sale of the land did not have a lower price after he
logged half of it. The price he offered to take was fixed, but he could log
all he wanted until they came up with the cash. No discount for wasteland.
> That's the standard leftist
> caricature of loggers, but I find it rather implausible that it might
> actually have happened that way. Either he was a madman, or you're
> telling the story wrong.
If you could just use your head you might be able to understnad the issues
instead of merely spitting out some idiotic red herrings and general
rhetoric about 'leftists'.
>
> Aside from that, it's entirely possible that logging was the right
> thing to do.
From your perspective, of course. You aren't living on the island so you
care about as much as a flea cares which dog he's biting.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>
>>
>>>I don't owe anyone a thing. Or, in other words, I'm no one's slave.
>>
>> Do you hunt for your food? Have a job? Pay your hydro bill?
>>You may not want to, but you're beholden all the same.
>>
>
>I have no problem voluntarily assuming responsibilities in exchange
>for something of greater value to me. Voluntary trade (i.e., freedom
>to exchange one's property), is good. Forced trade is bad.
Wow! How amazingly selfish. It's a good thing everyone doesn't
think like you. We'd be a dead-end on evolutionary tree.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Human beings didn't evolve by doing things on their own.
>>>>
>>>
>>>They didn't evolve to be other people's slaves either.
>>
>> No, they evolved through co-operation, something apparently
>>you didn't learn in kindergarten.
>>
>
>If cooperation is so natural, why do you want to force people to do as
>your point of view prescribes?
Non-sequitur and fallacious. Try again. Please show where
anyone has said force.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Property is not a right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, I know, all commies say that.
>>
>> No, reasonably intelligent do. Once again, you're trolling.
>>Knock off the idiotic rhetoric, fool.
>>
>
>It is true, commies do not recognize the right to private property.
>This is something every educated person knows.
It's true, fool, that no-one has said anything about an
inability to own property, merely that it is not a right. Your right
to own property is right up there with the resident squirrel.
>
>>
>> LOL. To a mental midget such as yourself breathing amounts to
>>slavery. Deal with it.
>>
>
>I'll deal with you if you try to violate my rights.
LOL. I doubt you can even find your way to work, Troll. Don't
threaten. It's a really good way to find a complaint lodged with your
ISP.
Courageous
>If cooperation is so natural, why do you want to force people to do as
>your point of view prescribes?
That one's a real humdinger.
C//
James
gone.
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:%w_uc.88884$tb4.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Charles Novins
> Oh, please do. I find you endlessly amusing but rather dim.
CHARLES NOVINS:
You might want to consider what it would say of you if I were "dim" and this
was sufficient to "endlessly amuse" you.
I have little doubt there is still a mobile hanging over your bed, and that
it too, still has your undivided attention.
As I stated before, I want you to break away from the mobile for some
grown-up talk. I'll be brief (for you) and concise (for the other
grown-ups.)
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Goveernment produces nothing by definition? Please cite the source.
CHARLES NOVINS:
"Production," for grown-ups, is where we start with something, we mix in
effort and brainpower, then wind up with more than we had at the beginning.
I know that you think your doo-doo is "production" because you made it, but
the other grown-ups here have a better view.
In the "non doo-doo" perspective, we see that government produces nothing,
actually, it wastes.
In your view, I force you at gunpoint to pay me $400, and in return I fold
up a perfectly good paper airplane out of a sheet of paper and hand it to
you.
This, to you, proves there was "production." The paper airplane, however,
has more weight than your thinking, and flies better than any of your ideas.
So maybe you were right, after all.
IAN ST. JOHN:
Fact is that government has both a source of finance
CHARLES NOVINS:
OMG, you are such a clueless idiot.
IAN ST. JOHN:
and a 'product' or line of products. One of them is the education system
and support for research which DOES produce results.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Yes, you ARE indeed a "product" of that "educational" system they run.
IAN ST. JOHN:
Others are public transit, water, sewage, public
> health, etc. They are no different than business, receiving money and
> producing products. Just not on the 'unfree market'.
CHARLES NOVINS:
They are no different than other businesses, except the non-government
(i.e., private) businesses are "unfree." Do we have you right?
The only difference between you and George Orwell is about 60 IQ points.
But room-temperature IQ is not sufficient excuse for the views you hold.
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Nope. If you have a drivers license, you paid for a 'product' which is
> regulation of the roadways.(police) No different than buying a parking
> sticker.
CHARLES NOVINS:
This actually shows a modest flash of insight.
You do understand (I'll wager) that this particular arrangement is a
complete, 100%, unequivocal monopoly, enforced by virtually unlimited
firepower? And that you can refrain from using any individual parking lot,
but not from driving generally, right? This is all spiraling out of your
ability to grasp, isn't it?
And I am sure that (combined with your brainless socialism) you understand
the deleterious effects of monopoly?
Uh-huh, "deleterious" means "bad."
IAN ST. JOHN:
> Yah yah. You seem to exist in a vaccum. There is an article on 'unused' or
> 'remnant' organs, whose function has disappeared, in the latest Discovery
> magazine. Perhaps we should include your brain in the list.
CHARLES NOVINS:
That wasn't Discovery, that was the copy of HIGHLIGHTS you shoplifted from
your dentist's office over 20 years ago and still haven't finished reading.
Alright, Ian, I've tired of you, but no hard feelings. Remember this is an
Objectivist newsgroup, and free-market stuff hasn't been voodoo for a very
long time now. It's very textbook stuff by now, so try to read *something*
on the topic and get a clue, because not all correspondents in newsgroups
are patient, kind, and supportive as I have been.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:07:48 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>I have no problem voluntarily assuming responsibilities in exchange
>>>for something of greater value to me. Voluntary trade (i.e., freedom
>>>to exchange one's property), is good. Forced trade is bad.
>>
>> Wow! How amazingly selfish. It's a good thing everyone doesn't
>>think like you. We'd be a dead-end on evolutionary tree.
>>
>
>I'm not surprised you advocate the use of force against innocent
>people. All commies do.
LOL. An outright lie. Is that the best you can do?
>
>>
>>>If cooperation is so natural, why do you want to force people to do as
>>>your point of view prescribes?
>>
>> Non-sequitur and fallacious. Try again. Please show where
>>anyone has said force.
>>
>
>Yes, my friend, force. Your denial doesn't change the fact that you
>want to impose your will on other people. However, given that you are
>a coward, you try to use Government to do it for you.
Another lie. Care to try telling the truth?
>
>>
>>>It is true, commies do not recognize the right to private property.
>>>This is something every educated person knows.
>>
>> It's true, fool, that no-one has said anything about an
>>inability to own property, merely that it is not a right. Your right
>>to own property is right up there with the resident squirrel.
>>
>
>You don't have to cointinue to convince me you are a commie. We all
>know that by now.
ROTFL. Let's try again....No-one has said anything about an
inability to own property, merely that it is not a right. Here's what
you do, Troll: prove me wrong. Post something where I've said anything
about force.
>
>>
>>>I'll deal with you if you try to violate my rights.
>>
>> LOL. I doubt you can even find your way to work, Troll. Don't
>>threaten. It's a really good way to find a complaint lodged with your
>>ISP.
>>
>
>If you try to violate my rights you'll be dealt with appropriately.
>That is another right I have, the right to defend myself against thugs
>like you.
LOL. I suggest you get that prescription re-filled. You're out
of your medicine again.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:42:42 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I'm not surprised you advocate the use of force against innocent
>>>people. All commies do.
>>
>> LOL. An outright lie. Is that the best you can do?
>>
>
>It's not a lie, it's how you come across, as someone who is willing to
>use the guns of Government to further your points of view.
It's a lie. This is a forum for the written word, sir. Unless
it is explicitly written, attempting to guess at the intent of a
poster is a fool's exercise. So far, you're batting 000 with your
silly guesses.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, my friend, force. Your denial doesn't change the fact that you
>>>want to impose your will on other people. However, given that you are
>>>a coward, you try to use Government to do it for you.
>>
>> Another lie. Care to try telling the truth?
>>
>
>I understand you might not like to be exposed for what you are. I'm
>really not sorry for that, though. In any case, you still haven't
>explained the following:
You understand nothing. That's your problem. Don't blame me
because you're a fool. Do something about it. Get informed. Let's try
again...No-one has said anything about an inability to own property,
merely that it is not a right. Here's what you do, Troll: prove me
wrong. Post something where I've said anything about force.
>
>"If cooperation is so natural, why do you want to force people to do
>as your point of view prescribes?"
I never said that, Troll. You did. Is this the best you can
do? Lie.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:15:39 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>It's not a lie, it's how you come across, as someone who is willing to
>>>use the guns of Government to further your points of view.
>>
>> It's a lie. This is a forum for the written word, sir. Unless
>>it is explicitly written, attempting to guess at the intent of a
>>poster is a fool's exercise. So far, you're batting 000 with your
>>silly guesses.
>>
>
>So, tell us that you are neither a communist nor a socialist. Tell us!
LOL. I'm neither.
>
>>
>>No-one has said anything about an inability to own property,
>>merely that it is not a right.
>>
>
>If it's not a right, what is it, then?
A statement of fact. Deal with it.
Mark Plus
>
> > Ironically, just the other day Haiti and the Dominican Republic (two
> > countries which share the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean) both
> > experienced catastrophic floods precisely because their hillsides had
> > been deforested:
>
> Case in point. Surely you're not claiming that Haiti is an example of what
> happens when you let "free-market religionists" have their way with a
> country, are you? Because that would be silly. I'm not intimately familiar
> with the timber situation in Haiti, but I'm going to go out on a limb (no
> pun intended) and say that this is almost certainly another example of the
> tragedy of the commons.
>
> Brandon Berg
How are forests in Haiti any different from the rapidly depleting oil
and gas resources in North America, for which well defined property
rights have existed all along? Assigning property rights to a resource
doesn't make it last forever. That forests can eventually grow back is
beside the point. Presumably current geological processes are forming
more petroleum in the earth, but not on timescales that will do us any
good.
Regards,
Mark Plus
"Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!
Lloyd Parker
Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>I have no problem voluntarily assuming responsibilities in exchange
>>>for something of greater value to me. Voluntary trade (i.e., freedom
>>>to exchange one's property), is good. Forced trade is bad.
>>
>> Wow! How amazingly selfish. It's a good thing everyone doesn't
>>think like you. We'd be a dead-end on evolutionary tree.
>>
>
>people. All commies do.
>
So do all fascists, pal.
>>
>>>If cooperation is so natural, why do you want to force people to do as
>>>your point of view prescribes?
>>
>> Non-sequitur and fallacious. Try again. Please show where
>>anyone has said force.
>>
>
>Yes, my friend, force. Your denial doesn't change the fact that you
>want to impose your will on other people.
And you don't? So it's OK for people to kill? Rob banks? Drive on the left
side of the road?
>However, given that you are
>a coward, you try to use Government to do it for you.
>
>>
>>>It is true, commies do not recognize the right to private property.
>>>This is something every educated person knows.
>>
>> It's true, fool, that no-one has said anything about an
>>inability to own property, merely that it is not a right. Your right
>>to own property is right up there with the resident squirrel.
>>
>
>You don't have to cointinue to convince me you are a commie. We all
>know that by now.
"Red under every bed" is soooo 60s!
>
>>
>>>I'll deal with you if you try to violate my rights.
>>
>> LOL. I doubt you can even find your way to work, Troll. Don't
>>threaten. It's a really good way to find a complaint lodged with your
>>ISP.
>>
>
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:59:50 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So, tell us that you are neither a communist nor a socialist. Tell us!
>>
>> LOL. I'm neither.
>>
>
>Tell us what you are, then.
A fiscal conservative...It must be painful to be so ignorant.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>No-one has said anything about an inability to own property,
>>>>merely that it is not a right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it's not a right, what is it, then?
>>
>> A statement of fact. Deal with it.
>>
>
>Your two halk-baked neurons can't do better, can they?
You're the one having difficulty dealing with facts.
David Schwartz
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:288mb0lu0rtitb4hl...@4ax.com...
> So who has the right to sell public land?
The public.
> How do you decide
> who gets to buy it?
By what sale best advances the interests of the public.
> Is this going to be a case where you have large
> corporate interests owning a substantial chunk of the timber out
> there?
Yes.
> Does ownership imply that you can do with the land whatever you
> want?
Yes.
> What happens if that particular stand of timber is home to an
> endangered species?
It depends. An endangered species is not a value in itself. It's only a
value if there's some way to get value out of it. If there's some way to get
value out of it, destroying it would be a loss to the person who did the
destroying.
> I agree with you that if the land was in private hands (i.e.
> people owned it, not corporations) much of what you say "might" be
> true. All bets are off when allegiance is to the corporate bottom
> line.
All best are even more off when allegiance is to the next election.
DS
Josh Halpern
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:15:39 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>>It's not a lie, it's how you come across, as someone who is willing to
>>>use the guns of Government to further your points of view.
>>>
>>>
>> It's a lie. This is a forum for the written word, sir. Unless
>>it is explicitly written, attempting to guess at the intent of a
>>poster is a fool's exercise. So far, you're batting 000 with your
>>silly guesses.
>>
>>
>So, tell us that you are neither a communist nor a socialist. Tell us!
>
anarchist, now go away.
>>No-one has said anything about an inability to own property,
>>merely that it is not a right.
>>
>>
>If it's not a right, what is it, then?
>
>
Something granted by the government. BTW, care to show me title to any
property which is not rooted in violence?
josh halpern
>
>
>
>
David Ball
<dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:288mb0lu0rtitb4hl...@4ax.com...
>
>> So who has the right to sell public land?
>
> The public.
>
>> How do you decide
>> who gets to buy it?
>
> By what sale best advances the interests of the public.
And who decides what that is? The government?
>
>> Is this going to be a case where you have large
>> corporate interests owning a substantial chunk of the timber out
>> there?
>
> Yes.
Never.
>
>> Does ownership imply that you can do with the land whatever you
>> want?
>
> Yes.
Only in your dreams or my nightmares.
>
>> What happens if that particular stand of timber is home to an
>> endangered species?
>
> It depends. An endangered species is not a value in itself. It's only a
>value if there's some way to get value out of it. If there's some way to get
>value out of it, destroying it would be a loss to the person who did the
>destroying.
No, it doesn't. Once again, if your interests don't impact on
me, that's fine. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Believe it or
not, things have value over and above the monetary.
>
>> I agree with you that if the land was in private hands (i.e.
>> people owned it, not corporations) much of what you say "might" be
>> true. All bets are off when allegiance is to the corporate bottom
>> line.
>
> All best are even more off when allegiance is to the next election.
>
That depends on whether you live in a democracy or someplace
where the courts decide who wins.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:41:40 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> A fiscal conservative...It must be painful to be so ignorant.
>>
>
>So, you are a fascist, huh? Same crap, different bucket.
LOL. No, Troll, a fiscal conservative. You know, you pay for
things with money you have in your hand. You don't borrow to do it.
>
>>
>>>>>If it's not a right, what is it, then?
>>>>
>>>> A statement of fact. Deal with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your two halk-baked neurons can't do better, can they?
>>
>> You're the one having difficulty dealing with facts.
>>
>
>Well, you fail to recognize that there is a difference between "what
>is" versus "what ought to be". That puts you into the retarded
>category.
You really are quite dim. Of course, given your cowardly
moniker - why not use your real name, Troll? - I'm not surprised you'd
want to hide. No one as pig-ignorant as you wants people to know it.
Josh Halpern
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:09:51 GMT, Josh Halpern
><j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>anarchist, now go away.
>>
>>
>
>For an anarchist, you sound too much of an authoritarian to me, boy.
>
>
We take no one gladly and that includes you leech.
>>>If it's not a right, what is it, then?
>>>
>>>
>>Something granted by the government.
>>
>>
>
>You mean, a privilege? Who gives the Government that power?
>
>
No, I don't mean privilege. I mean own. Regulating property ownership
is one of those things governments do and they don't ask permission.
Note, I am an anarchist.
>>BTW, care to show me title to any
>>property which is not rooted in violence?
>>
>>
>
>I certainly could. All I possess was either bought by me or built by
>me. Never used violence against no one.
>
Note the word rooted. Now assuming you live in the US, who do you think
originally owned the land you are squatting on. Why do you think they
or their decendents don't have any chance whatsoever of getting title.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:27:53 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> That depends on whether you live in a democracy or someplace
>>where the courts decide who wins.
>>
>
>Democracy: where two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner.
Better 51% than a handful of unelected judges.
John Browne Jr.
declares 'gravity' as his authority. Fair enough. Make soil, then; and
that shall be your legacy to the Next gravitationally-advantaged
plunderer. ^..^
ps It was Sally Hemmings who stated that "A democracy is nothing more
than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the
other 49." Mr. Jefferson's comment at that time went (I believe)
something like this: "hmmmp uhmmp hmmMMMhph hmmP HMmp"
^..^
JHBrowne, Jr.
Vashon Island, Wa
Eric Swanson
>
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:56:32 GMT, Josh Halpern<j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You mean, a privilege? Who gives the Government that power?
>>>
>>>
>>No, I don't mean privilege. I mean own. Regulating property ownership
>>is one of those things governments do and they don't ask permission.
>>Note, I am an anarchist.
>>
>
>about what Government ought to do, not what it does.
>
>>>I certainly could. All I possess was either bought by me or built by
>>>me. Never used violence against no one.
>>>
>>
>>Note the word rooted. Now assuming you live in the US, who do you think
>>originally owned the land you are squatting on.
>>
>
As you probably live in the U.S., I'm sure you understand that the white
invaders took the land from the so-called "indians". That the continent
looked rather empty by the time the major influx of Europeans arrived was
the result of the previous introduction of smallpox and other diseases,
which killed off a major fraction of the previous population.
A I understand things, the Indians didn't have the concept of "ownership"
of land, that is, they didn't divide the land up into neat rectangular
parcels by drawing lines on maps and placing markers in the dirt at the
corners. When the Europeans arrived, they claimed the "virgin wilderness"
for their respective governments and killed anybody who disagreed. The
successive governments doled out the land to the waves of immigrants, while
retaining the "power of imminent domain", thus the government still retains
the ultimate title and the right to use the land as it sees fit. You are
only renting it, as evidenced by the property taxes you pay.
> Gravity, for the most part, took care of the process.
Shit flows down hill. What does that have with the location of your butt?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:02:28 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Democracy: where two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner.
>>
>> Better 51% than a handful of unelected judges.
>
>Well, 50% of all people have IQ's below average.
LOL. You mean 50% have IQ's below the median. Sometimes the
mean and median are close to being the same, sometimes they're not. It
depends on the distribution.
michael price
Why? If the worst comes to the worst I might be able to defeat a handful
of judges. I don't fancy my chances against 10,000,001 aussies.
michael price
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:45:01 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:288mb0lu0rtitb4hl...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> So who has the right to sell public land?
> >
> > The public.
> >
> >> How do you decide who gets to buy it?
> >
> > By what sale best advances the interests of the public.
>
> And who decides what that is? The government?
>
> >
> >> Is this going to be a case where you have large
> >> corporate interests owning a substantial chunk of the timber out
> >> there?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Never.
>
> >
> >> Does ownership imply that you can do with the land whatever you
> >> want?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Only in your dreams or my nightmares.
>
(including their bodies).
> >
> >> What happens if that particular stand of timber is home to an
> >> endangered species?
> >
> > It depends. An endangered species is not a value in itself. It's only a
> >value if there's some way to get value out of it. If there's some way to get
> >value out of it, destroying it would be a loss to the person who did the
> >destroying.
>
> No, it doesn't. Once again, if your interests don't impact on
> me, that's fine. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Believe it or
> not, things have value over and above the monetary.
>
your interests to buy the stand of trees inhabited by an endangered
species then do it. But don't expect that you can take it by force
of arms and be anything but a crook.
> >
> >> I agree with you that if the land was in private hands (i.e.
> >> people owned it, not corporations) much of what you say "might" be
> >> true. All bets are off when allegiance is to the corporate bottom
> >> line.
> >
> > All best are even more off when allegiance is to the next election.
> >
> That depends on whether you live in a democracy or someplace
> where the courts decide who wins.
Either way, all bets are off.
michael price
> Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:09:51 GMT, Josh Halpern
> ><j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>anarchist, now go away.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >For an anarchist, you sound too much of an authoritarian to me, boy.
> >
> >
>
> We take no one gladly and that includes you leech.
>
> >>>If it's not a right, what is it, then?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Something granted by the government.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You mean, a privilege? Who gives the Government that power?
> >
> >
> No, I don't mean privilege. I mean own. Regulating property ownership
> is one of those things governments do and they don't ask permission.
That doesn't mean it is legitimate.
> Note, I am an anarchist.
I've heard people say that before. They aren't always telling the
truth.
>
> >>BTW, care to show me title to any
> >>property which is not rooted in violence?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I certainly could. All I possess was either bought by me or built by
> >me. Never used violence against no one.
> >
>
> Note the word rooted. Now assuming you live in the US, who do you think
> originally owned the land you are squatting on. Why do you think they
> or their decendents don't have any chance whatsoever of getting title.
Well, they do. If the title has always been acquired by trade then
it's legit.
Ian St. John
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:36:39 -0500, David Ball
> <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:24:25 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:41:40 -0500, David Ball
>>> <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A fiscal conservative...It must be painful to be so ignorant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you are a fascist, huh? Same crap, different bucket.
>>
>> LOL. No, Troll, a fiscal conservative. You know, you pay for
>> things with money you have in your hand. You don't borrow to do it.
>>
>
Obviously, fools can think they 'know' a lot. That is why we have 'rules of
evidence' to week out the idiots like this.
> given that you like to impose on others your point of view
What a clueless thing to say! To discuss and point out the 'better way' is
not imposing anything. Rather, the NEOcons are doing the imposing by runnign
up the national debts, and it is the DUTY of every citizen to 'discuss' it
and even, if necessary, do something about it ( as voters, in civil
disobedience, or in a revolution ).
> using the Guns of Government if necessary.
If you have had the 'Guns of Government ', aka the police after you, I can
only suspect that your idiocy extends to criminal behavior.
> If you are not a communist, a socialist and a fascist,
> maybe you need to take this simple test to know what you are:
>
> http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
A 'test' designed by 'advocates'? Hahahahahhahahahhahah How clueless do you
think we are???
Try a good test, moron. It's from the social scientists.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
My score was -3/-3 so I am a 'centrist' with leanings towards socialism and
libertarianism. However, they have changed the test, and I now get -4,-2.62
is I am now more of a socialist and less of a libertarian ( or the test is
now skewed a bit more towards the right ).
I expect that, from your 'absolutist' leanings that you are the basic
totalitarian, certain of his right to make judgements and force compliance.
Even forcing people to choose to be as free as you by forcing them to choose
the path of chaos. Chaos is very freeing. No rules = anything goes.
>
>>
>>> Well, you fail to recognize that there is a difference between "what
>>> is" versus "what ought to be". That puts you into the retarded
>>> category.
>>
>> You really are quite dim. Of course, given your cowardly
>> moniker - why not use your real name, Troll? - I'm not surprised
>> you'd want to hide. No one as pig-ignorant as you wants people to
>> know it.
>>
>
> And you always fail to address the issues. This puts you in the
> moronic retard category. Besides being an authoritarian scumbag, this
> is.
The issue here is you and your moronic postings. Guess you lose.
Ian St. John
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:02:28 -0500, David Ball
> <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Democracy: where two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner.
>>
>> Better 51% than a handful of unelected judges.
Republic: Where the wolves OWN the sheep farm.
>
> Well, 50% of all people have IQ's below average.
non-sequitor. They may vote for you anyway. In fact it is your 'natural
constituency' though you may get some votes from the brighter ones.
>
> Besides, the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, thank
> goodness.
The rule by the unelected aristocracy is what democracy was invented to fix.
Apparently the U.S. political system is still rooted in the 1700's and rule
by 'hereditary leadership' mostly through inheritance of money and
influence.
jmh
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:24:25 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:41:40 -0500, David Ball
>><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> A fiscal conservative...It must be painful to be so ignorant.
>>>
>>
>>So, you are a fascist, huh? Same crap, different bucket.
>
>
> LOL. No, Troll, a fiscal conservative. You know, you pay for
> things with money you have in your hand. You don't borrow to do it.
Are you suggesting that all debt financing be avoided or
something more limited, like no public debt?
jmh
Courageous
> Value is in the eye of the beholder. Believe it or
>not, things have value over and above the monetary.
The often repeated assertion of someone who's values
are in the minority...
C//
Courageous
>The rule by the unelected aristocracy is what democracy was invented to fix.
>Apparently the U.S. political system is still rooted in the 1700's and rule
>by 'hereditary leadership' mostly through inheritance of money and
>influence.
Just prior to the formation of the Republic, we tried a Democracy.
One of the things that happened was that the people "voted away"
all private debt. It seemed like a good idea at the time........
C//
Ian St. John
America has never been a democracy. It started out, and remained a republic.
You can blame your 'leadership' for that fault. And I can find no reference
to the public voting away private debt. However, I did find this interesting
article on how the oligarchy played with the money supply to their own
advantage.
http://www.siue.edu/~rblain/usdebt.htm
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg may have said that the new nation was
"conceived in liberty" but the Constitution was conceived in debt."
Why did they do it?
If such a system had caused bankruptcy is so many cases in Europe, why did
members of the First Congress adopt it?
"On January 28, 1790, a few days before his speech to the First Congress
predicting a debt explosion, James Jackson gave another speech in which he
accused Congressmen of sending agents throughout the country to buy up the
depreciated debt certificates before Hamilton's plan became known to the
public. In this way, these Congressmen would own the certificates when the
Funding Act was passed into law and the value of the certificates
appreciated to their face value. Then, they and their friends would become
stockholders in the new Bank of the United States and profit from interest
and growing debt."
In fact, there has never been much of a leaning towards democracy in the
U.S. which considers it a form of 'socialism' to have the 'peons' having a
say in the affairs of the aristocracy. Thus, they pretend to hold elections
and the public pretends to care. Maybe they should have argued more for
George Washington to become the 'King'.
>
> C//
Lloyd Parker
Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not surprised you advocate the use of force against innocent
>>>people. All commies do.
>>>
>>
>>So do all fascists, pal.
>>
>
>Indeed. Commies, socialists and fascists and all kinds of authoritians
>are the the scum of the Earth.
You do realize your remarks show you to be a fascist, right? The diametric
opposite of socialist?
>
>>
>>>Yes, my friend, force. Your denial doesn't change the fact that you
>>>want to impose your will on other people.
>>
>>And you don't? So it's OK for people to kill? Rob banks? Drive on the
left
>>side of the road?
>>
>
>No, I don't. I believe it's wrong to initiate force against other
>individual human beings.
So doesn't someone have to force their will on these people then?
>
>
>
Lloyd Parker
Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:24:25 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>><root@localhost.> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:41:40 -0500, David Ball
>>><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A fiscal conservative...It must be painful to be so ignorant.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So, you are a fascist, huh? Same crap, different bucket.
>>
>> LOL. No, Troll, a fiscal conservative. You know, you pay for
>>things with money you have in your hand. You don't borrow to do it.
>>
>
>impose on others your point of view using the Guns of Government if
>necessary.
Like keeping people from robbing banks, say.
Sounds like you're an anarchist.
Lloyd Parker
Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Democracy: where two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner.
>>
>> Better 51% than a handful of unelected judges.
>
>
>goodness.
>
>
government; it doesn't mean the representatives are elected. China is
technically a republic. We do elect ours, hence we're a democratic republic.
Lloyd Parker
Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
><j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>anarchist, now go away.
>>
>
>For an anarchist, you sound too much of an authoritarian to me, boy.
>
>>
>>
>>Something granted by the government.
>>
>
>You mean, a privilege? Who gives the Government that power?
In a democracy, the governed. In, say, 17th century France, God.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:16:46 +0000 (UTC), swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric
>Swanson) wrote:
>>
>>As you probably live in the U.S., I'm sure you understand that the white
>>invaders took the land from the so-called "indians".
>>
>
>What do you mean, "took the land"? Unimproved land is no one's land.
>Whoever grabs it first and improves on it, gets it.
LOL. Improves it? I hate to break this to you, sport, but land
in its natural state doesn't need "improvement". It's fine just the
way it is.
David Ball
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:17:05 -0500, David Ball
><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:14:50 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>><root@localhost.> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:02:28 -0500, David Ball
>>><wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Democracy: where two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner.
>>>>
>>>> Better 51% than a handful of unelected judges.
>>>
>>>Well, 50% of all people have IQ's below average.
>>
>> LOL. You mean 50% have IQ's below the median. Sometimes the
>>mean and median are close to being the same, sometimes they're not. It
>>depends on the distribution.
>>
>
>Indeed, although if there is a skew, it's probably towards stupidity.
You'd know about stupidity far better than I. You're a living
breathing example of it.
Lloyd Parker
these have values in your warped little mind?