[46] in peace2
Re: Columbia (news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (The Macomber Family)
Mon Jan 24 09:00:11 2000
Message-Id: <388C5AA6.82F6FF06@micron.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 06:59:03 -0700
From: The Macomber Family <artmacom@micron.net>
Reply-To: artmacom@micron.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: M Chui <maisiechui@hotmail.com>
Cc: auyeung@MIT.EDU, peace2@MIT.EDU, jbarrera@MIT.EDU, zan@MIT.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Maisie!
With regards to the U'wa and the Oxy dispute. Without recognized property
boundaries there is no way to adjudicate the problem without a political
decision, that is, without liable ownership, the decisions are going to made by
people without a stake in the outcome - i.e. politicians - except for their
interests in the next voting cycle. It is not clear that Oxy would perceive it
to be in their interests to pollute on purpose, that is a bad assumption because
even tho' we haven't figured out how to privatize the air and water, the land
(whoops, at least U.S. land), has some environmental protection under law AND
Oxy has clear interests in getting as much oil to market as possible, at $30 per
gallon.
Politicians want to get elected and exercise power. The law is designed, or is
supposed to be designed in the U.S., so that the power is exercised within
strict and limited boundaries on behalf of stuff that we cannot do ourselves:
provide for domestic tranquility by punishing violent aggressors, protect
against foreign aggression, and defend against fraud contracts in courts of
law. The primary problem with asking political entities to protect natural
resources without the legal protections of private property is that politics
changes - and protected today may be vulnerable tomorrow. Carter's global
cooling turns into Clinton's global warming, and Reagan's Star Wars turns into
Clinton's relaxation of U.S. defenses. Natural resources are too valuable to
leave to the politicians, private property and the law to back it up is its only
hope - IMHO.
To your query about Gore. Al Gore is dangerous because he represents a double
layer of elitism and government action. Al Gore believes that I have no right
to run my life except within the parameters of his governmentally-defined world
with regards to health, wealth, and the environment. In other words, the
history of his politics is the history of people who wake up in the morning and
believe they have the answers for the rest of us. And want to legislate that!!
There is no understanding of organic change and the ecology of niches - his
world is all aggregate - and the government bludgeon is his tool.
Al's world is not spontaneous, it is planned, it is not virtuous, it is
political, it is not free, it is regulated. Al Gore believes that universal
health care is good - and even possible, even tho' there is not one society that
has tried it and had it function better than competing systems using freedom of
individual action within a legally-protected contractual system using freely set
pricing as their base. To others within earshot: My cousin and mother-inlaw
are both Canadians, so please don't throw Canadian canards - socialism is a
dismal failure, especially in health care. Environmentally, Gore appears to
have swallowed the environmentalist's arguments whole. That is, he agrees that
the government has the will and capability to protect the environment -
regardless of the property interests involved. This is also unproven and, in
many cases, a violation of the 5th Amendment against government "takings."
In other words, he is a BIG GOVERNMENT person, through and through, and
therefore against individual rights and liberty. He is against the Second
Amendment - even tho' police cannot be held liable in those jurisdictions where
guns are outlawed and people cannot protect themselves - thus putting Gore
directly against the interests of elderly, disabled, and minority populations in
rough areas who need guns to equalize the situation in neighborhoods already
blighted by LBJ, another Big Brother like Mr. Gore. I was politically active at
the neighborhood level in Oakland, CA; I have seen this firsthand. He is for
the increasing Federalization of crimes and escalation of the drug war, which
are, respectively, positions against individualism because of the dilution of
State's rights (see 9th and 10th Amendments), and the rights of individuals to
control their own bodies. If you are for abortion rights, you should be against
the drug laws - Al Gore is mixed-up on the concept of self-ownership of our
minds and bodies.
Some of his positions work hand-in-hand to keep Government powerful and
individuals powerless: Drug laws maintain high drug prices and keep even
minimal regulation away from that market, thus ensuring that illegal gun usage
will be used to protect those illegal markets by market entrants who are lured
in by the market pricing and the exorbidant profits available. So, peaceful
inner-city populations who are disarmed by his gun laws cannot use guns to
protect themselves against market players in his governmentally-supported
inner-city markets in illegal drugs. And, the hyper-vigilant police in these
environments make drug-profiling of minorities a necessity. Totally
anti-individual, totally Gore.
I hope this makes my feelings on Mr. Gore a bit clearer. The guy is on the
wrong side of just about everything, if not philosophically, then in
implementation, again, IMHO.
What do you think, Maisie? I hope that was not a burn!!
-Art
--------
M Chui wrote:
> Hi Art,
> I caught the same lines as you, and am a little perplexed in rgds to who the
> land actually belongs to and what kind of rights the U'wa have to this land.
> At the same time, I'm torn by my other thoughts, being.. that since the
> drilling is so close to their ancestral land, chances are, the drillers
> won't be careful on where they trample and where their machinery spills..
> therefore, it is better to contain the situation now than for that matter to
> arise later when the damage is already done. But again, the arguement does
> not look completely as tho its on 'legal' grounds.
> And on the side, the Gore issue..
> If he bought the stocks himself, I think it'd would definitely make him a
> hypocrite. But, i read down some more and the fact is, he inherited those
> shares. --From his dad that died December of 1998. Personally, i don't
> think what his dad does/believes in, should be a reflection of the VP
> himself. But i suppose, sure enough, that if he really thought of the
> ramifications -of his sitting on those shares that arrived through
> inheritance- would in turn suggest he approves, then perhaps he might've
> gotten rid of them sooner than it coming out in the open now.
>
> >Moreover, I also agree that Al Gore is an inherent danger on many >levels
> >to the safe and secure exercise of individual rights - on a >global basis -
> >so to keep him out of the Presidency is a good thing >all around.
> Art, besides the article we read, what are your grounds for this reasoning?
>
> ...Alright, I wrote this to gain perspective, please don't burn me.
> Thanks!
>
> Maisie
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
