poli-sci (08/12/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Thu Aug 12 05:03:56 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Thu 12 Aug 82 Volume 2 Number 163 Contents: Define Property Bechtel, etc (2 msgs) Fascism (3 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Aug 1982 2348-EDT From: Larry Kolodney <RMS.G.LKK at MIT-OZ at MIT-AI> Subject: Property definition Question: Can anyone on this list give me a good definition of property that is different from: "Property is what the state says it is."? ATTENTION: Libertarians and Objectivists! -Larry Kolodney ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 1982 23:06:43 EDT (Monday) From: David Mankins <dm at BBN-RSM> Subject: Bechtel, Schultz, and the Secretary of State I hardly think that Schultz would have been "open to embarrassing attack" on the issues mentioned in the summary of an article in \In These Times/ sent in by David Mankins <dm at BBN-RSM>. How anyone can possibly condone Bechtel's close relations with various Arab nations is beyond me. Suppose that Schultz was personally responsible for these relationships (something he would deny, and rightly so). So he is on good terms with the arabs. Does that leave him open to "embarrassing attack?" If so, then most politicians, and any good ones, should also be so "attacked," especially those who religiously support Israel. [McGrath] I don't know about the \In These Times/ (ITT) article's intent as to "condoning" Bechtel's close relations with various Arab nations. I submitted the article because I found it interesting that our foreign policy is being shaped by people (Caspar Weinberger, Sec. of Defense and George Schultz, Sec. of State), who came to their office fresh from the headquarters of such a company. Bechtel is free to do what it wants. Our Secretaries of State and Defense can be expected to represent the views of our country in the arena of foreign affairs. Therefore, it is appropriate for Congress to examine the behaviour of these men, both during public service and their previous private careers. If Bechtel's foreign policy is acceptable to the people of the United States, fine. If George Schultz, one of Bechtel's vice presidents (no doubt there are many) can show that he had little to do with the disagreeable aspects of Bechtel's foreign policy, also fine. However, it is certainly fair to ask George Schultz how much he had to do with things like having the corporate lobbyists in Washington (and South Dakota, no less) lobby Congress for the sale of the AWACS to Saudi Arabia. An even more embarrassing issue was introduced by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Ca.). Bechtel, which builds nuclear power plants around the world, played an important role in trying to prevent the Ford administration from stopping West Germany's sale of plutonium and reprocessing equipment to Brazil in 1975. Cranston revealed a letter from a Bechtel official to the Brazilian government offering to sell the fuel if West Germany could not--actions that placed Bechtel squarely in opposition to the official U.S. attempt to halt nuclear proliferation. [ITT, as quoted by me] Say again? That makes no sense at all. Obviously someone in Bechtel, seeing that the West Germans may not be able to deliver, wanted the sale. If there was any sort of concerted action in Bechtel (which there obviously had to be if Schultz was getting personally involved with someone elses sale) would not it make sense for them to SUPPORT the Ford administration in trying to kill the West German sale? This paragraph, more than anything else, demonstrates that the authors had absolutely no idea of how Bechtel is run, or even how business in general is run. [McGrath] While I agree that the choice of wording "played an important role in trying to prevent the Ford administration from stopping West Germany's sale of plutonium and reprocessing equipment to Brazil" is poor, I think it is clear that the intended issue here isn't "Who will sell plutonium and reprocessing equipment to the Brazilians" its "Should ANYONE sell plutonium to the Brazilians?" The Ford administration said "No", the low-level bureaucrat at Bechtel said "Yes." That sounds like opposition to me. You'll notice that the ITT article went on to detail Schultz's reply (that the letter in question was sent by some middle-level executive acting beyond his authority). The authors of the article went on to ask if the executive had been disciplined or promoted after acting beyond his authority. That's a perfectly valid question to ask of our Secretary of State. Now, as I said above, Bechtel is free to do business. George Schultz was free to do business when he worked for Becthel. Now he's on our payroll, and we get to ask him how much he had to do with the actions described in the ITT article. I happen to find some of those actions (lobbying for the AWACS sale, offering to ship plutonium and reprocessing equipment to Brazil, contractually agreeing to abide by the Arab boycott of companies that do business with Israel) objectionable, and I think George Schultz owes me an explanation before he becomes my Secretary of State. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 1982 2358-EDT From: Daniel Breslau <MDC.BRESLA at MIT-OZ at MIT-AI> Subject: Bechtel >From JPM: If there was any sort of concerted action in Bechtel (which there obviously had to be if Schultz was getting personally involved with someone elses sale) would not it make sense for them to SUPPORT the Ford administration in trying to kill the West German sale? Bechtel is a construction firm, not a fuel supplier. Obviously, they can't convince someone to build a reactor if fuel isn't available; so by offering to sell fuel, they can possibly corner both markets (construction and fuel). This paragraph, more than anything else, demonstrates that the authors had absolutely no idea of how Bechtel is run, or even how business in general is run. Evidently things aren't all as they seem to some. I wonder -- Is Jim a businessman? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 1982 15:52:47-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: definition of fascism I have seen Fonda and Hayden described by both their friends and their enemies, and nowhere has there been a suggestion that they fit several key parts of your/Webster's definition of fascism: "exalts nation ... above the individual": this accusation commonly appears from people who object to the restraint on their freedom to rape and pillage the rest of the country. "exalts ... race above the individual": I'll grant you that some of the weaker minds exalt any minority race above the majority; not only is this uncommon, it is the reverse of the norm in fascism. "centralized autocratic government": as has been argued before, centralization in government depends on your perspective; is it offensively central for the federal government to tell the states they can't abuse their citizens? Autocracy---not the way I was taught that term, and not in the presented context. "forcible suppression of opposition"---where did you find this in their platform? "severe economic and social regimentation": see above points. Note the humorous definitions here recently; as I recall, socialism was "government takes your cows and gives everyone milk" while fascism was "government takes cows and shoots you". I don't like many of the proposed solutions; I think CED has at least its fair share (for a new political movement) of crackpots; the more I read of ECOTOPIA RISING the less I like chunks of the prospect (e.g., I'm not a Pournelle-class fanatic but I do support the space program). But the current prospects are at least as unappetizing, representing (as they do) economic decisions made as the private oligarchies perceive that they will benefit the small stockholding fraction of the population. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 1982 1319-PDT From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: Fascism I must admit I haven't been keeping up on Jane Fonda's politics lately, but I am surprised that Josh claims she is fascist by virtue of his opinion that she stands for "a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader", "severe social regimentation", and "forcible suppression of opposition". My personal impression is that Fonda and Hayden would be very much against all these things, and I wonder why Josh thinks they fit this definition. They may want more private contribution to the public good than Josh does, but that does not mean they support complete oppression of individuals. I think they are intelligent people with good humanistic goals; they just happen to disagree with some of us about what will achieve those goals. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 1982 0659-EDT From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS> Subject: Re: definition of fascism Fonda and Hayden were extensively documented as fascist in the Reason article that first called public attention that the CED got most of its financial support from Fonda's exersize book and salons instead of direct contributions as claimed (not exactly a lie, after all Fonda was a "contributor"...). The major distinguishing characteristic of a fascist government is strict, thoroughgoing control of the economy by the state, without actual state ownership of the means of production; and a philosophy which subjugates individual rights to "the good of the people", meaning in reality the people in power. The CED exhibits both of these in full measure. Obviously no political party is going declare "forcible suppression of opposition" in its platform--they don't even advertise it after they're in power. cjh says: "`exalts nation ... above the individual': this accusation commonly appears from people who object to the restraint on their freedom to rape and pillage the rest of the country." Continue the thought-- "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existance of the nation as a whole...and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties...of the individual."--as it was tidily summed up by Adolf Hitler, who was freely elected in perfectly democratic elections. --JoSH ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------