NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/econ/6545

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-25 | 6.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
From: [e-mail] (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Re: The Moral Basis of Property   was Libertarian history
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:59:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 123

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Graham Flower) writes:
>> fact toyed with the idea, than property rights. Property rights would have
>> taken priority I'm sure, they were extremely important to the founders, and
>> were seen as a basic human right.
>
>>I must have missed out on this fascinating aspect of American history. Care
>>to provide a pointer to the, no doubt, voluminous writings in which the
>>"founders" advance this idea? Certainly the Hamiltonians and Adams advocated
>>the a strong state to impose the "rights" of the rich on others, but
>>they were quite clearly repudiated by the electorate and were a minority
>>faction of the revolutionary and constitutional leadership.
>
>Try a biography of little known figures like George Washington, or
>Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps Flexners Washigton the Indispensible Man or

I've read most of Jefferson, and have somehow missed out on this aspect
of his political thought. Perhaps you can give me a more explicit
reference. You might want to look at Jefferson's letters to Monroe
on France and on inheritance, however.

>As far as human rights vs property rights the constitution has another
>example of how the founders dealt with this issue of rights vs property rights.
>The 3/5ths compromise which basically allowed slavery to continue and
>allowed slaves to be considered .6 of a person for representation purposes
>is basically a concession to property owners at the expense of human rights.
>>

So, if the founders, in your view, respected slavery more than human
rights, does this mean that slavery is morally justified?


 >This is utter bullshit. The GNP per capita for South Africa is a meaningless
 >figure because the of the two tiered apartheid economy. White South
 >Africans live in a 1st world economy, black South Africans live
 >in a 3rd world economy -- averaging the two is a meaningless operation.
 >Compare life expectencies for black South Africans to life expectencies
 >for the "Average Russian". Or just look at living standards in the Transkei
 >and Soweto and try to imagine human beings actually surviving at a lower
 >standard of living.  The dishonest numbers shuffling it require to "prove" that
> I stand by the statement. It is enshrined in the Senate Intelligence Com
> hearings on the Soviet Union. Information is usually there every year. Your

It can be enshrined anywhere you want, but it remains misleading nonsense.
The white population systematically looted the black population, and
thus gained a very high standard of living. If you then average white
and black standards of living together, you arrive at a false description
of the standard of living of the "average" south african. In Transkei where
life expectencies are in the mid 30's, or in the workers Hostels where
men spend years of their lives living in squalid overcrowded baracks
amidst prison-like conditions, forbidden to visit with wives or children
and working in the worlds most dangerous mines for terrible salaries,
the notion that averaging out standards of living with white suburbanites
in the JHB suburbs produces an impressive number, might not be appreciated.

>> In any case, you miss the point entirely. Slovo was admitting to the
>>failure of Soviet Communism, but point out the obvious failures of
>>US-style capitalism. While Stalinists and their ideological compatriots
>
> The failure of the US economy = 21,000 dollars per capita instead of 1700.
> Thats a hell of a failure isnt it.

A little statistics is a dangerous thing.

> They are adopting our concepts because they dont work I suppose.
> The US government just hired 194 Soviet nuclear weapons scientists. Cost
> was reported to be 90k a year or about 500 dollars a year. Wow we could
> really make out over there, huh Victor. I bet you could get hired for
> upwards of 25 dollars a month. I really think this would be your earning
> power, and its pretty good for russia.

You persist in this odd belief that I am defending the Soviet Union, despite
my explicit statements to the contrary.

>  And as for South Africa, flawed as it is blacks pour over the border from
> the Socialist Meccas to the north so they too can be abused by Apartheid,
:w
> but earn a better living. The situation is similar to the Mexican-American
> border. Go look in your almanac for GNP data on these African Socialist
> countries like Zimbabwe, or Zaire or Mauritania they are mostly down around
> 100-200 dollars a year GNP per capita. Other great examples of why we should
> be socialists, success stories, all of them.

South Africa benefits from 2/3 of the "free-world's" gold deposits, plus
vast coal, diamond, uranium, and silver deposits. Furthermore South
Africa has excellent ports, comparatively great water supplies, and
much more arable land than Zambia. Zaire, you should know, was almost
a socialist nation at one time, but was saved from this terrible fate
by Belgian troops and US spooks, and has been since blessed with membership
in the free-world.


>>  worse as snapshots like Chernobyl have shown. You realize that much of the
>>  food grown in that region is being dispersed throughout russia and sold.
>
>Much as Windscale contaminated mutton is sold in the UK.
>
> Well Victor If you want to defend the Soviet  ecological record so be it.
> I think it makes it pretty clear where your coming from. You should have
> more dignity than to defend it. (change the subject or ignore it)
> I think the Soviet Ecological record is pretty poor, and I think we'll
> get to see alot more information coming out.

I realize that it would simplify your rhetorical task if I were defending
the Soviet record, but since I am not, you will have to try to defend
your position on its own dubious merits.

> The basic problem of socialism appears to be motivation. No socialist society
> has yet produced a standard of living comparable to Western European or
> American standards. Until they do I want nothing to do with socialism, its
> a failure, and I think its likely to remain one .

You need define your terms a little better before you can make any sense.
If Mobutu's Zaire is "socialist", but Sweden is not, you are using a
very nonstandard definition.




--


[e-mail]