🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep17.115730.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep16.192625.9399@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
 
>>>Come on now! What they are doing is destroying property which does not belong
>>>to them.............. 

>  I was under the impression that logging is taking place on publicly
>owned land. 

Some is and some is not.  The vandals don't much seem to distinguish between
a government-ownede tree and a privately owned tree.

>The reason for the environmental activists concern is the
>way the government has totally ignored the publics desire's in the way
>the land is being used. 

When this issue is put before the public (as it was with the "Big Green" 
initiative in California last year) the public does not show that it is
in agreement with the aco-radicals, but that is beside the point.  If
those folks choose to ignore the legal options to control the government,
they ought to expect to be punished.  As I see it, the government has for a
long time been caving in to the demands of the environmentalists, but the
final answer is for the government to get out of the business of owning
natual resources in the first place.  That will allow the various interested
parties to compete on a level field using mutual agreement as a basis on 
which to reach recource allocation decisions rather than physical force 
(initiated either by the government or the eco-criminals).

>Like the California insurance problem, and the
>Prop 103 debacle, government clearly places the interests of the
>corporations ahead of the voters/taxpayers. 

But corporations and their stockholders and their employees ARE citizens.
You seem to oppose freedom for anyone who wants to produce goods and 
services for the public in a corporate setting.  If you want to get the
government to stop favoring one group over another, why not join me in
demanding that the government get out of the business of controlling land
and other natural resources and allowing the market to operate freely?

>And it is done in such a blatent
>fashion that people feel justifiably disenfranchised with their
>government. 

You mean, some environmentalists do't like the fact that the government won't
disenfranchise businessmen.  It is an insult to be told by a bunch of 
busybodies what one may or may not do with one's property.  Much more of an
insult than being told that you will not be allowed to control the property of
someone else.

>Working within the system clearly does NOT work. What's left?
>Working withOUT the system. 

What would you consider to be "working"?  The elimination of all logging?
Mining?  Private property?  Factories?  How much is enough?

--Brian