Re: The Property Protocol

Michael Lorrey (
Thu, 07 Nov 1996 03:20:47 -0500

Suresh Naidu wrote:
> > Mike:
> > And government is the master at media manipulation. THey don't promise
> > they'll clean it up, they just want to LOOK like they are advocating
> > regulation that have the apparent purpose of makeing someone else clean
> > things up, when the reason things were dumped before was because
> > government gave them tax breaks to invest in certain industries, then
> > refused to build the waste disposal facilities that the businesses
> > needed to get rid of the waste. Sotring it was an OSHA health hazard, so
> > they had to get rid of it somewhere. Where they put is was not the
> > governments responsibility, so long as they didn't dump any where IN MY
> The government was as short sighted as can be, as usual. But the
> businesses are still the ones who dumped the waste. The businesses made
> profit off the polluting industries, then, when told they had to take care
> of the harmful side effects. If the taxpayers gave these people money in
> order to make a profit (admittedly, jobs were created, but there is a
> better way than environmental degradation), then why should the taxpayers
> pay for the byproducts. It's like giving them money twice for them to
> make even more money.

If they are short sighted, why do you want them to have the authority?
If the businesses invested under the instigation of the government, the
government has a responsibility to fulfill its end of the bargain.

Nuclear Power is a phenomenal example: The reason why nuclear power
costs are so high is that, legal costs aside, over 25% of the cost of a
kWh here in the US from a nuke plant are government fees. These fees are
collected, as a part of the licensing agreement, for the specific
purpose of building long term, safe, radioactive waste containment
facilities. The trust fund is now HUGE (about 200 billion dollars), far
more than is needed to build the waste site. Yet does has the government
YET opened a waste site, 50 years after starting this program? Nope.
They just finished building a low level site, which is being contested
by the state gov't it is in, but the high level site, under Yuma
Mountain in the Nevada Desert, where there isn't a drop of water to
pollute, a fault to tremble, ar a person to scare, for at least 100
miles, is still being fought over, basically because the congressional
delegation from Nevada can't get enough pork barrel project funding from
the congress, and California won't give up the fight it's in with Nevada
of water rights in a completely different issue.

Meanwhile, all the nuke plants across the country must build their own
"temporary" storeage facilities, the cost of which is also added onto
the cost of power generated, plus all the legal fights brought up by the
mere existence of the storeage facility is being there, so the community
gets ticked off...

See what I mean?
> >
> > >
> > > Businesses are subsidized more than taxed. During Reagan's "regime", they
> > > had a large tax cut for businesses, but the poor were still worse off than
> > > before.
> >
> > Excuse me, but income taxes have gone down, and anyone in the US who
> > makes less than 20,000 dollars a year pays no net taxes at all, on
> > average. Business taxes have gone up, especially on small businesses,
> > typically owned by a husband and wife, employing less than 50 people.
> > Big monopolistic, non-laissez faire corporations get all the tax breaks.
> >
> That I can believe. But as soon as a business gets powerful, the government
> accepts them as part of the elite, and gives them tax breaks. Taxes,
> however, do not generally starve people.

That is only if the people allow a system of government that enables
such oligarcal/monoplistic practices. As Benjamin Franklin said,"A
nation which would give up a certain measure of freedom for greater
security will wind up with neither. People get the government they vote
for, and deservedly so. Just take a look at the election here in the US
as a phenomenal example.....

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Look at a company like Shell. They give us nice products like oil, right?
> > > > > They get it at the expense of people who can't afford to buy any of it.
> > > > > THe Ogoni in Nigeria. Yet, because they have our economic support, they
> > > > > don't need anybody else's.
> > > >
> > > > IAN: Africa has followed socialism far far more than laissez
> > > > faire, yet you condemn laissez faire for the problems there.
> > >
> > > I can't thik of a single socialist government in Africa, especially not
> > > Nigeria. Nigeria is a fine capitalism, regardless of the military regime.
> >
> > You are obviously blind. Try Ethiopia, Botswana, Angola just to name a
> > few off the top of my head. Due to the long history of tribal tradition,
> > paternalistic, socialist regiemes experience high popularity.
> Angola is currently waging war against it's people. I don't know much
> about Botswana. Ethiopia is doing relatively well, if it wasn't dealing
> with internal breakup with Eritea. Tribalism would not lead to socialism,
> as least not the type you see. YOu might get socialism within a tribe,
> but a doubt tribalism would accede to a centralize socialist government.
> Which is a good thing.

The funny thing Suresh, you quote Marx, Lenin, what have you, but you
completely ignore the KEY tenet of marxist socialist philosophy: that
EVERY economy must first pass through an industrial/capitalist phase to
fully develop the information based society that enables perfect
socialism. To try to force socialism prematurely is a waste, and can
cause much conflict, bloodshed, tyranny, and even a retrogression into a
fuedalistic state. Not only do you need to get some experience in the
world, but you need to read your Marx a bit more. I did. I followed Sun
Tzu's advice:"Know your enemy, and know yourself."
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Socialism does not imply totalitarianism. It's completely different.
> > > >
> > > > IAN: Socialism = universal social debt = totalitarianism.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's an excellent blanket statement, but not much logic behind it. I
> > > don't see many socialist democracies having a much oppression.
> >
> > Officially, no. Instead, dissidents are branded as lunatics. If you
> > conception of reality does not concord with the official majority
> > concept of reality, them you must be insane (that is the accepted
> > definition of insanity). So consequently, you get "socialized", or
> > "helped", or "reeducated" or simply drugged and electroshocked "for your
> > own good". See our way is so fine and good that you must agree that we
> > are helping you get along. You do want to get along don't you..... Here
> > in the US, one is not "politically correct", or is a sexist, racist,
> > homophobe, "capitalist" (as if thats a bad thing), or baby seal killer,
> > even though one is not any of those things.
> Do you have any evidence? I've talked to many people from those
> countries(Netherlands, other europeans countries like that) , even rabid
> skinheads from those places, and they don't compain of any ministry of
> truth. I don't hear any reports of the ministry of love coming to pick
> people up. This could be because I hang out on the wrong side of the net,
> but that's my experience.

Thats because it's called the Ministry of Health, Education, and Welfare
And of course, nobody hears about it, if they did, they would be insane
too, because such things do not happen in a socialist democracy. One is
hallucinatory if they report such things....

> > >
> > > They left the economy alone, which I think means laissez-faire in the
> > > traditional sense. In fact, most of these geographic areas that are
> > > considered "good investing", have a history of human rights violations.
> > > A bank teller tried to convince me to put my money in Latin America or
> > > South East Asia, two areas that haven't had the best track records for
> > > freedom.
> > > Funny, huh.
> >
> > yeah funny like: Cuba, Sandinista Nicaragua, Totalitarian El Salvador,
> > Guatamala, and Chile. None of which are ( or were in the case of
> > Nicaragua), laissez faire economies
> El Salvador certainly was. If the U.S. hadn't pumped 6 billion into
> keeping the rich in power, there would be a popular government. Chile was
> since pinochet came into power, but
> under the socialist democratic government, there weren't the same blatant
> disregard for human rights. Nicaragua had a far better record for human
> rights under the Sandinistas than under Somoza. Guatamala is a U.S.
> puppet state, so companies like United Fruit can exploit the labour,
> prevent any attempt at social reform, and make more money.

Now you are blaming everyone but the people for their problems. They get
the government they are willing to put up with. if not they can will and
should get another one. If they like getting repressed, they'll get

Nicaragua had a good record in the human rights that the liberal media
cares about. The central one, being able to vote for your leaders, was
curiously denied.
> >
> > >
> > > If you're going to have capitalism, you're going to have government. I
> > > still say we drop both of them.
> > >
> > > >
> > What then? How are people going to live? Is everyone going to have their
> > own farm, their own factory that makes everything, and their own power
> > plant? Granted, if (and thats still a big IF) nanotechnology fufills
> > its sci-fi promise, then we can each have all those things, and the only
> > two bases for trade will be information and relationships/entertainment,
> > but that still requires free trade )i.e. laissez faire capitalism to
> > work for maximum benefit for all, but that is still at a very minimum
> > 20-50 years down the road. Don't hold your breath.
> You can still have trade. Under any system that allows it, people are going
> exchange stuff. It's when people who have capital dictate terms to those
> who don't that trade fails. Fair trade works, free trade doesn't,

If I've got something, and you want it, I'm only going to give it to
you if I can profit at selling it. If thats too much for you then you
need to find someone else who has it cheaper. Thats free trade. What you
are talking about is what is fair for YOU, not anyone else.

Sorry the world does not work that way. There ain't no such thing as a
free lunch, buddy.
Yes, I
> agree that people should take care of themselves
> first, but they shouldn't do it at the expense of other people.
> I would like people to become self-sufficient, but that's not going to
> happen anytime soon. Factories and farms are owned by the community, thus
> everybody gets a say on what activities the business is doing. No this is
> not state socialism. It's a business run democratically, so both the
> consumers and the workers have input, as to the residents of the area of
> the factory.

Yes it is. It's called giving every one a free and equal chance to screw
things up. Look at the Kibbutzes in Isreal: if the government wasn't
subsidizing them, they'd be ghost towns.

Sure polluters should be held liable but should also be given a way to
take care of the problems. 99% of the time, things don't get fixed cause
there is a government regulation in the way.

You want to talk about businesses ripping people off? Try the
environmental remediation businesses, that are typically owned by people
who used to be government environmental experts who got the laws passed
to clean things up certain ways. They then get their bureaucrat buddies
to create HUGE out of proportion fines, and mandate the certain cleanup
methods that the former bureacrats now are in business to provide.
Consequently, they charge HUGE rates, far above costs, more than any
other business I've even seen, when what they usually do is just mix
dirt with dishwashing soap and then rinse it. (of course, its
conveniently repackaged as "remediation" material, not something that
can be bough for pennies at CostCo.

No, you REALLY need to get some experience in living in the real world.
youseem to be a good natured sort, but you tend to wish the world worked
in a way that would best suite YOU. Funny thing is Suresh, thats the
basis for free trade. We ALL want the world to work that way, but we are
rational enough to see tha if it did, we would be stepping on everyone
elses toes. We just try to get whats best for us so long as the people
we deal with feel that they are getting whats best for them. That is
free trade. That IS fair and equitable.

You just don't like people having power over you to make you do what you
don't want to do. Here's a secret: the government has the power to do it
the most. Businesses you can sue to the high heavens, but government
only lets you sue them if they agree to let you sue them. Business only
acts like a government when the government is in their pocket, and it
takes YOU to vote it that way.

Figure out who your real target is.....