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.)