🚀 go-pugleaf

>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 -
-------