Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!BROWNVM!PL436000
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Yet another one....
Message-ID: <90043.2315.PL436000@BROWNVM>
Date: 12 Feb 90 23:15:09 GMT
Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM>
Reply-To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM>
Lines: 75
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM Gateway

From Ralph Harris:

> Actually the government seems to exploit the land more sometimes,
> since it can work around its own laws.
But what I said was that private land is exploited more, not that it
is in every case exploited more than every piece of Fed. land. And as
long as the Fed. holds the land, we can control what happens to it.
Once it's sold off to developers, it's gone.

I must say, even on a "natural rights" view of property, I don't see
what possible basis there is for demanding the auctioning off of
public land. Don't I have as much natural right to the Grand Canyon
as any other person? If I do, I will certainly veto any attempt to
develop it for private use.
On the democratic theory of property, I admit that if you could make
a good case that selling off Yosemite park would preserve it better
than keeping it Federally owned, there would be as perfect a
justification as there could be for selling it off. But I doubt you
could make this convincing case.


Regarding an ESOP:
> The common term for it is Syndicalism.  As von Mises defines it in
> "Socialism"--"Every measure which takes the ownership of the means of
> production from the entrepreneurs, capitalists, and landlords without
> transferring it to the WHOLE of the citizens of the economic area,
> is to be regarded as Syndicalism."

As though whatever von Mises says is the definition of a term must BE
the definition, by fiat.

It is pointless to quibble about terminology, though. The point was
that democratic control of the steal factory worked in practice.
Call it whatever you want.

> Unfortunately Syndicalism isn't the best way to good about capitalism
> Most Syndicalist schemes are static.
It may not be the best way to go about capitalism, but it's the best
way to go about democracy. Could we see some evidence for the claim
that syndicalist schemes are "static"?

[about 137 questions deleted]

The answers to the questions depend, obvously, on which variety of
scheme you are talking about. It is an interesting question what is
the best way of arranging enfranchisement of the workplace, and
a question that needs to be investigated. If that was your point,
I agree.

> von Mises:
> "As an aim Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it
> has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly
> in its favor.
...
>  Syndicalism has never been anything else than the ideal of plundering
> hordes."

A magnificent argument. What has been demonstrated, I take it, is that
von Mises is very fond of name calling. This I already knew. It
suggests also that he knew very little about intellectual history--
many people have advocated and <gasp!> actually practiced! various
varieties of syndicalism.

> ps:  for an explanation of why socialism doesn't work, see the
> rest of his boo
I am told that it is von Mises' worst book. That's saying some.
But I admit I have come upon Mises only recently--he may have other
books that are much worse.

> -Ralph Harris
> "I know who John Galt is...I just want to find him!"

The rest of us will have to make do with reality.

Jamie