The reference to "takings" that you cite below, Mr/Ms MIM, sounds more
like the "Wise Use" (Wide Abuse?) Mvt. Perhaps you misunderstood what I
meant about libertarians and their view on collective resposibility. Even
the "petit bourgoise", laissez faire, socially liberal, libertarians
support "corporate accoutability". They say you should sue large corps.
around pollution based on the concept of "tresspass". They are green
allies.
I do disagree w/ the free mkt libertarians around my belief in collective
resposibility in healthcare, education, and nat'l resource mngt (green
issues).
Btw, is your critique of anarchism only against the anarcho-pacifist kind
from the '70's anti-nuke mvt? This kind of anarchism was introduced to the
no. Cal EF! by Judi Bari and friends. I am closest to their political
philosophy.
Or do you include the neo-luddite "adventurist/voluntarist, eco-terrorist"
ALF/ELF trend? I see this form of anarchism the same as maoism,
"peitit-bourgoise ultra-leftism".
In your last paragraph you refer to re-education camps for
pro-capitalists. Will you set up separate gulags for us "libertarian
socialists" (aka anarchists)? Or will I be in the same cell as Larry
Flynt? (Now that's a cool capitialist) :-)
Ron
In article <36A7DB00.57C7947D@geocities.com>,
mim3@mim.org
wrote:
> consie@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> > In article
<36A43CD8.78B0684B@geocities.com>,
> > mim3@mim.org
wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The real communists are greener
than the Greens, because there is no way
> > > to individualize the
environment--as if we could box up the air and
> > > water and put
it on department store shelves. The Greens talk about
> > >
tolerating polluting lifestyles without use of force or without
> >
> 3socializing2 the costs of pollution clean-up. This latter part about
> > > 3internalizing costs2 is demagogy of the capitalist sort
accepted even
> > > by George Bush.
> >
> >
[...]
> > Puhleeeeeze...even conservative hunting and fishing groups
recognize
> > a collective social resposibilty in regulating private
land. Check
> > out their position on Headwaters and salmon
restoration.
> > Libertarians even use the concept of "tresspass" to
push regulation
> > on the environment.
> >
>
> mim3@mim.org replies: This is an example of why Greens have to get as
serious
> about politics and economics as ecological science. Ron does
not seem to have
> any idea what is going on politically in the U$A,
which is what this thread is
> about thus far. He rebuts me instead of
the post which attacked collectivism
> at the beginning of this thread.
>
> Ron wants to let the individualists of the mainstream and the
ruling class in
> the U$A off the hook by mentioning a few kooky
exceptions. Well you need to
> read a little about what is actually
happening in our courts and Congress.
>
> "In the 1980s 'Takings'
became the mantra of free market environmentalists
> [a.k.a.
pseudo-environmentalists -- mim3@mim.org] and the war cry of
>
landholders large and small who claimed, mostly in the small and relatively
> obscure United States Court of Federal Claims, that environmental rules
and
> regulations, by diminishing the development potential of their
land, had
> affected its value. The takings initiative is backed by
extractive industry
> associations like the American Mining Congress and
the American Petroleum
> Institute, in concert with the American Farm
Bureau and the National
> Association of Realtors. The main conduit of
their support is Defenders of
> Property Rights, founded in 1991 by Roger
and Nancie Marzulla, both former
> Justice Department attorneys in the
Reagan Administration."
>
> Losing Ground: American
Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century
>
> by Mark
Dowie (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), pp. 98-.
>
> The problem
is they are right--the "Defenders of Property Rights." There are
> no two
ways about this. Being Green means opposing property rights--communism.
>
> In 1993 Bob Dole nearly made Reagan's executive order supporting the
"takings"
> movement into law. So while Ron is referencing a handful of
self-contradictory
> individualists, the anti-collective majority of
Amerika and the ruling class
> disagrees with him.
>
> You
can say Dole lost his amendment, but Reagan enforced its meaning and the
> takings folks are doing well in court.
>
> These
"takings" folks belive the air, water and land is their property and
>
they have the "right" to pollute and hence give the rest of us toxic
>
environments. In contrast, people with a proletarian outlook have the basic
> needs as clear priorities.
>
> The "right" to property
cannot be higher than the non-negotiable right to life
> itself. That
means food, clothing, shelter and a non-toxic environment. The
> people
who believe their right to profit is higher than someone else's right
>
to live need to be put in prison (re-education camp) until they can see
>
straight.
>
>
Subject: Re: Maoists on Rainforest Action Week & Greens
Date: 23 Jan
1999 01:15:07 GMT
From: mimist3@geocities.com
Reply-To: mim3@mim.org
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.greens, alt.org.earth-first
consie@mailexcite.com
wrote:
> The reference to "takings" that you cite below, Mr/Ms MIM, sounds more
> like the "Wise Use" (Wide Abuse?) Mvt. Perhaps you misunderstood what I
> meant about libertarians and their view on collective resposibility.
Even
> the "petit bourgoise", laissez faire, socially liberal,
libertarians
> support "corporate accoutability". They say you should sue
large corps.
> around pollution based on the concept of "tresspass". They
are green
> allies.
mim3@mim.org: The concept of "trespass" will then go to a court and end up in
one
property right being argued against the other. Judges at best will split
things down
the middle, except under extreme pressure from a collectivist
movement.
Hence, I remain unconvinced that there is other than a collective
environmentalism.
A non-toxic environment to put it in language fit for
Amerikan ears is a
"non-negotiable right."
Let these libertarians arrange to get us a half-loaf, because of the pressure
they
feel from the green movement, but let's not give them the credit of
being green.
There is no such thing as an individualist green.
Individualists are so contradictory, that sometimes one starts as one and
becomes
collectivist without knowing it. If you believe the court should
rule for green
trespass every time against the other property rights that
will be asserted in
court, then you are no longer individualist. Think about
it.
> In your last paragraph you refer to re-education camps for
>
pro-capitalists. Will you set up separate gulags for us "libertarian
>
socialists" (aka anarchists)? Or will I be in the same cell as Larry
>
Flynt? (Now that's a cool capitialist) :-)
>
> Ron
mim3@mim.org: Why don't you answer this question for me? Will you have to be
put in
re-education camp (which for one thing during the Cultural Revolution
was not always
considered as "punishment")? Consider two stages:
1. Will you place the "right" to profit or property above the right to eat,
clothing, medicine and a non-militarist and non-toxic environment of other
people?
2. If you have the urge to oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat, can
you keep
it under wraps?
If your answers are yes and no to the questions above respectively, then
welcome to
re-education camp.
I will note that these concepts have some historical parallel in the United
$tates,
most especially after the Civil War when many were deprived of
citizenship. Did you
think it was good to use organized force to end
slavery?
Also, we always have some ideas about dictatorship in our prison system.
Unless the
courts and media screwed up big-time, Jeffrey Dahmer was a
cannibal. He had a sick
urge and he acted on it. Hopefully he would have
been caught for something and sent
to re-education camp before he acted on
it. (Such serial killers are much more rare
outside the individualistically
crazy United $tates.)