From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:15:23 GMT
            <h2=nrt-.phil@netcom.com>
            <p028tt0@fido.asd.sgi.com>
            <17ds7mINNlfq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <17ds7mINNlfq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
 by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU:

: In article <p028tt0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
:> In article <h2=nrt-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
:>
:>> So, 1. Put the property in private ownership.
:>> 2. Sue anybody that fucks with your property. This requires a system
:>> of justice of course where the "sue-ee" does not coercively own
:>> the court system.
:>
:> I see one major problem with this....  If you put the property in private
:> ownership, that owner will fuck up the bay without anyone taking them to
:> task.  
:>
:> Can you think of a single group which could afford to buy the bay who would
:> be concerned with the wildlife around the bay, the quality of the water in
:> the bay, other people polluting the bay?
:>
:> FWA
:
: The about two points would only make matters worst... Mr. Ronzone is a person
: who wants corp to have full ownership and responsibility.  We have already
:    seen
: this in terms of lumber companies who clear-cut their privately owned lands,
: and in many cases leave them for extended periods of time without 
:    replanting.

Well ... it's their land ... their loss.  In 20 short years, they'll
wish they'd planted immediately ... except, oh wait, we still have all
this nice Public land waiting for them!

: It is my view that corps don't really want to own the places they are 
:    located
: because they can damage it, then leave, and let the taxpayer (consumer) pick
:    up the tab.

That's a severe problem today.  This probably helps explain why they
leave their own land destroyed: they can always depend on taxpayer 
support, whether we like it or even know about it or not.

: Unfortunately the gov't has also learned this trick, and this is
: because they get benefits from the corps.

Yep.  Real Good and Trustworthy, our govt.

: I will still stand by the idea that we do not need more out of control 
:    capitalism we need a fundamental change in philosophy.

"Out of control capitalism" IS a fundamental change in philosophy.  To
be more precise, Free Market, or Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

: But those who benefit the most from a 
: capitalist society (and they are the few) want to retain the status quo.  

But, you see, those who are benefitting from today's system are NOT
benefitting from the free market aspects.  Lumber companies, to cite
your example, are benefitting from getting free logging rights, at
taxpayer expense.  That is NOT laissez-faire.

Indeed, that's probably one of the better examples of partial-socialism 
you can come up with.  The Forest Service allows free logging under the 
guise of a "mixed-use" policy.  De Facto, they are deciding how "The 
People's Forest" is to be used.  They might as well be headquartered in
Moscow.

Under a more laissez-faire system, logging companies would have two
choices.  One, log their own land.  Two, pay a market rent/lease/fee
to log someone else's land.  None of this "free" nonsense.

Either case means they have to start thinking more long-term for the
sake of mere survival.  If they clear-cut their own land without
re-planting, they are guaranteeing a day when there will be nothing left
for them to cut.  The sooner they re-plant, the better off they are.

: Point 2) above is part of this mine mine mine mentality, which in the end 
:    gains nothing for anyone,

I disagree.  The alternative is to give everything away, in hopes that
someone out there will give you something too.  This is the "Love will 
Save the World" philosophy.  It can't work for a number of reasons, 
including the fact that it's against human nature.  Even were it not, 
it's impossible to guarantee any kind of distribution; what if 3 people 
give to the same 4th person, but forget a 5th?

"Mine mine mine" works perfectly well, once people are also allowed to
suffer from their mistakes, as well as benefit from their successes.
We've got too many "safety nets" for the rich and poor that makes this
kind of feedback impossible.

: Stephen Hauskins

: Use everything as though it were the only one. - me  ;->

Does this include the air molecule I'm about to breathe?  Whoops, too
late!  B-{)

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Dammit, how many times do I have to tell you?
FIRST you rape, THEN you pillage!!
Newsgroups: ca.politics