orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/07/86)
> I would just like to thank Bill for taking the time to make the point > that comparing the human rights situation in the US to that of the > USSR is a 'big lie'. I am totally weary of the attempts to make the > two situations SEEM the same. I *never* claimed that the US and USSR were equivalent. I have enormous admiration for our freedoms and defense of people's human rights in this country. What I *AM* concerned about is concentrations of power which threaten such freedoms and human rights and threaten to make our country more and more like the Soviet Union. I have stated this again and again - apparently however any criticism of disturbing trends in our own country is not tolerated by some people. More disturbing is the following: > > Just joking Tim, we all know that you REALLY post all these articles > to stimulate discussion. Right? You really don't think that if > the Communists take over the world (excepting the vile part know - > in a typically ethnocentric way - as America), right Tim? > This is an age-old tactic: any criticism of one's own country is labelled as "consorting with the enemy". This tactic *is* one which is used in many countries, the USSR as well as the US. The difference as has been properly pointed out is the degree to which such attacks result in actual repression. In the Soviet Union one can be sent to a Gulag for repeated dissent branded as "unpatriotic". In the US one may be sent to jail for a short legally defined term. Unless one is in a stage of right-wing hysteria such as McCarthyism during the 50's when people were systematically blacklisted for years. Even then this is obviously better than being lined up before a firing squad as happened in the Stalinist purges. But is either behavior to be condoned? I hardly think so. Does anyone on the net? tim sevener whuxn!orb
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/10/86)
>> I would just like to thank Bill for taking the time to make the point >> that comparing the human rights situation in the US to that of the >> USSR is a 'big lie'. I am totally weary of the attempts to make the >> two situations SEEM the same. >I *never* claimed that the US and USSR were equivalent. I have >enormous admiration for our freedoms and defense of people's human >rights in this country. What I *AM* concerned about is concentrations >of power which threaten such freedoms and human rights and threaten >to make our country more and more like the Soviet Union. I have >stated this again and again - apparently however any criticism of >disturbing trends in our own country is not tolerated by some people. Never explictly claimed? Yes. Tend to give unbalanced presentations that imply that? I think so. Perhaps I'm not alone in this perception >More disturbing is the following: >> >> Just joking Tim, we all know that you REALLY post all these articles >> to stimulate discussion. Right? You really don't think that if >> the Communists take over the world (excepting the vile part know - >> in a typically ethnocentric way - as America), right Tim? >> >This is an age-old tactic: any criticism of one's own country is >labelled as "consorting with the enemy". This tactic *is* one which >is used in many countries, the USSR as well as the US. The difference >as has been properly pointed out is the degree to which such attacks >result in actual repression. In the Soviet Union one can be sent to >a Gulag for repeated dissent branded as "unpatriotic". In the US >one may be sent to jail for a short legally defined term. Unless >one is in a stage of right-wing hysteria such as McCarthyism during >the 50's when people were systematically blacklisted for years. >Even then this is obviously better than being lined up before a >firing squad as happened in the Stalinist purges. But is either >behavior to be condoned? I hardly think so. >Does anyone on the net? > tim sevener whuxn!orb Not actually. I _was_ hoping that you would say that you do not think that the Communists should take over the world except for the US. The reason I exclude the US is that very few people in the US are willing to say that they think the US should have a Marxist-Leninist form of government. There is a group of people who seem to think that Communisim is fine for the rest of the world. Try saying it Tim. That's right, don't discuss McCarthyism (just exactly what is that, anyway?), just say that you DON'T WANT THE COMMUNISTS TO WIN. Try to keep criticisms of the US out of the paragraph in which you (hopefully) do this. Once this is done we can discuss what reasonable steps can be taken to prevent our little red friends from 'building socialism" all over the place. Incidentally, my posting compared the possible penalties for trespassing to the penalties for 'slandering the Soviet state'. Of course, _criticising_ the US will not get you put in jail at all, not even for "short legally defined term". My understanding of the 'blacklisting' issue is that people were denied employment on political grounds. This is not the same as a prison term. Also, can you think of any period of 'left-wing hysteria', or is it only right-wingers who are subject to this form of mental disturbance? guy
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/14/86)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 11:28 am Mar 7, 1986 */ >What I *AM* concerned about is concentrations >of power which threaten such freedoms and human rights and threaten >to make our country more and more like the Soviet Union. A critical distinction, which you failed to mention, is that we are talking about two different types of power, economic and political. Economic power is maintained in a free society by continuously pleasing consumers, while political power is maintained in a non-free society by frightening the populace into submission through violence and the threat thereof. It is thus difficult to imagine that our economic freedoms could lead to abuse of human rights, while it seems that the abuse of human rights is necessary for the maintenance of power by the communist party in the Soviet Union, at least in the long term. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mike Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/24/86)
>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 4:48 pm Mar 17, 1986 */ > >A critical observation, which you failed to make, is that Sevener was >removed from the mall by political power, not economic power (by YOUR He was removed from the mall by physical force. He would have been removed by the same agent, i.e., the government, whether in the mall or in your own living room, if you found his presence offensive. Note that in such a situation, you would not have been called upon to give a reason for having him removed. I don't know what you mean by saying that "Sevener was removed from the mall by political power, not economic power." Please elaborate. As to your reference to pleased consumers, it would be more likely for him to be removed by displeased consumres. >But then your division of power into political and economic is sadly >flawed, as they are interconvertable and blend imperceptibly one into the >other. Marcos provides a fine example of conversion in one direction: >converted the money into economic power by investing in a host of >corporations that satisfy consumers. I can't comment much on this, since I don't know the deatils of Marcos' abuses. Nonetheless, I maintain that in a free society, economic power and political power are separate, by definition. Since Mracos' Philipines was not a free society, I don't see how the criticism applies. > And surely examples of economic >power being converted to political power are abundant in the USA: >such as the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc. Why didn't the people of the U.S., thru the electoral process, put an end to such abuses? >As a matter of fact the whole idea of property is a fine example of the >intergradation of your two categories. While "economic power" may be the >means of acquisition, only "political power" prevents others from making >use of someone's property. It seems to me that only physical force or the threat thereof prevents others who might wish to appropriate one's property from doing so? Is this the same thing as "political power?" >Sykora's notions of economic and political power are here just a red >herring distracting from the real question of what property rights our >society should be willing to allow. These rights are not innate: they >are societal conventions that we create. I believe that such rights are morally justified. Moreover, this discussion began with considerations of whether absolute property rights were morally justified, rather than practically justified. You may well be right about what the important question is, but why do you assert that I am responsible for steering the conversation towards its present course? >Private property ownership has never been absolute in the US. Eminent >domain, common and traditional usage, zoning, taxation, and a host of >other exceptions make this clear. This is quite true. Nonetheless, the mere existence of such policies does not justify, either morally or practically, government interference with property rights. >The case of expelling Sevener from a mall where he was leafletting >shows the first signs of the dangers of unbridled libertarianism: >corporate feudalism. It is interesting that you introduce the term "corporate feudalism" with no elaboration as to what it means. Is it such a well-known phrase that explanation is unnnecessary? If so, why haven't I seen it on the net lately? Most importantly, what does it mean? Are corporations the lords and we the serfs? If so, how do you justify this analogy? > Where are the checks and balances? It is not clear to me what you are asking. Please elaborate. > If the mall >served a similar sociological function to the town square of previous >generations, why should we defend corporate control for what were >previously free and public functions? Beacuse it's their property. I mean this as both a practical and moral justification. Besides, if mall patrons wish to here Sevener, they'll let the mall managers know. >The fact is that we need to jealously protect our rights. No, we need to defend our rights to the extent that they need defending. By the way, what are our rights? I'd like to know so that when we hit another "milieu" we can call you on the carpet if you claim some new ones. > As our >culture changes, we need to bring our rights with us to the new milieu. >If our culture becomes more intimately oriented around new institutions >such as malls, then in order for us to assert our rights, the malls >must give up some of their conflicting rights. Apparently, you and I differ in a fundamental way over just what a right constitutes. As far as I'm concerned, the right of free speech is the right not to be prevented from speaking, it is not the right to be supplied with a microphone aor an auditorium at another's expense. Nor is it the right to be heard, i.e., the right to have an audience. > This example is >relatively unimportant, but illustrates the general principle that needs >to be applied to libertarian ideas: there ain't no such thing as a free >lunch. I fail to see how this (free-market oriented phrase) illustrates your argument. Please elaborate. > While libertarianism may provide improved rights of some sorts, >it inevitably is doing so by a tradeoff. I don't want the trade to work >in the direction of feudalism. Libertarianism => feudalism. Very imaginative. >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Mike Sykora
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/25/86)
In article <3630074@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 4:48 pm Mar 17, 1986 */ >>But then your division of power into political and economic is sadly >>flawed, as they are interconvertable and blend imperceptibly one into the >>other. Marcos provides a fine example of conversion in one direction: >>converted the money into economic power by investing in a host of >>corporations that satisfy consumers. > >I can't comment much on this, since I don't know the deatils of Marcos' >abuses. Nonetheless, I maintain that in a free society, economic >power and political power are separate, by definition. Since >Mracos' Philipines was not a free society, I don't see how the >criticism applies. Look around you, then. Read newspapers and history books. Just because 'economic' and 'political' have distinct definitions does not mean 'economic power' and 'political power' are separate. Mike did not claim they were identical. In an intelligent and well-informed society run by an honest government, the two powers would be completely distinct. But in our 'free' society, the electorate is easily influenced by advertising, which costs money, and members of the government can easily abuse its powers to gain personal wealth. >> And surely examples of economic >>power being converted to political power are abundant in the USA: >>such as the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc. > >Why didn't the people of the U.S., thru the electoral process, put an end >to such abuses? What does your question tell you about the power of the people? Can they via the electoral process end such abuses or can't they? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (03/27/86)
In article <718@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: > for 'slandering the Soviet state'. Of course, _criticising_ the US will not > get you put in jail at all, not even for "short legally defined term". > My understanding of the 'blacklisting' issue is that people were denied > employment on political grounds. This is not the same as a prison term. > Also, can you think of any period of 'left-wing hysteria', or is it only > right-wingers who are subject to this form of mental disturbance? > I am sure that many people were blacklisted in the 1950's; it is not a made up story. I consider that a very unfortunate chapter in our history. However, it might be well to keep some perspective on what was going on in those days. The Soviet Union was colonizing (and in the process murdering a lot of innocent people) many countries that just wanted to be left alone (can any of us here in the U.S. really understand what Poland has gone through in the past 47 years?). Many people, well meaning I am sure, did identify themselves with the philosophy if not the government of the Soviet Union in the 1930's and 40's. Some of them took an awfully long time to wake up to the reality that the Soviety Union represented brutality and repression. Also, it is bad enough to be blacklisted in a given industry, but another thing to be blacklisted in a country that has only one employer; namely the government. I might also mention that there has been quite a bit of what I would call McCarthyism on the left in this country. Do you remember the Carter cabinet member in 1980 who almost literally called Reagen a racist? Reagen may lack a lot of good qualities (such as seeing reality), but he is basically a man of decent motives. I think branding him a racist is leftwing McCarthyism. That is not the only example I could mention, but I will spare you. The issue is freedom. It is bad when one person unjustly represses the freedom of another. It is wrong when a government unjustly represses the freedom (such as freedom to breathe) of its citizens. But, imperfect as it is, the United States, even at its worst, stands for values far more humane and positive than the Soviet Union. If we cannot agree on that point, I fear we will not do well in competition with the Soviet Union.