From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:25:33 GMT

In article <-1364143371snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>In article <8ezzokm00Uh7E3focL@andrew.cmu.edu> ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:

> > I used the word "communistic" to avoid just this type of confusion. The
> > Soviet Union was a "communist" country; Australia, if its notion of
> > property is the one Gil suggests, is communistic, by which I mean a
> > system that gives precedence to the will of the "community" over the
> > will of the individual. 

>Goodness, you have a vivid imagination. Why not simply take what is
>said to you at face value instead of reading whatever else might have
>popped into your mind into their correspondence? Lest you have missed
>it somehow, Australia is already well known to have had a democratic
>constitution in place since 1901, yes?

I agree that confusing "communistic" ideas with "collectivistic" ones is a
mistake (communism is a "brand name" of a perticular kind of collectivism
invented by Marx and perfected by Stalin, Castro, and Mao, while collectivism
is the broader term which includes all societies which put the will of the
majority above the rights of the individual).

You are quite wrong though to think that collectivism (or even communism for
that matter) is the opposite of democracy.  It is (at least temporarily)
possible to have a collectivistic society in which "the voice of the people"
comes from a democratic vote rather than a dictator.  I don't see that 
such a situation is any better than a dictatorship.  In fact, the case could
be made that such a democracy is actually WORSE than a dictatorship since
a dictator could at least have a long-term plan to which he might subscribe.
An absolute democracy would not even have that.  It would eventually result in 
a mindless looting of all by all.

>The system we have in place is one which anticipates that people will
>negotiate land use, rather than one in which one or a few individuals
>hold absolute property rights to land precluding any negotiations or
>agreement being reached on how it might best be used, how it might be
>protected, and so on.

Upon what legal principle do you find this to be justified?  It is true
that over the last 75 years or so the absolute ownership of property (of
all kinds) has been eroding, but that is NOT how the underlying law of
the land was originally written.

>I'm sorry, but you are the one for reasons I have yet to fathom who
>referred to the Australian system of land tenure as "communistic". I
>am simply not going to argue with you about how your definition of
>"communist" might differ from your other definition of "communistic",
>beyond accepting the ordinary use of such terms in the international
>arena, and do suggest again that you might do some homework in order
>that I might be able to discuss anything at all resembling the real
>world with you.

If you used the word "collectivistic" instead, his comments would be right on.
Of course, Australia isn't as collectivistic as China or Cuba, but it's more
collectivistic than many others.

--Brian