Originally posted by FyreByrd
Originally posted by solomons path
Well . . . Other than they attribute any of these policies to the philosophies of Ayn Rand, which has nothing to do with this issue . . . but, I see
they have quite a few articles referencing her (not sure what their hang up with Individualism is). This article is not overflowing with any
untruths. They are right about the issues with privatization of public land.
It does seem a little socialist leaning though . . .
FYI, this is a Liberatarian dream, and Ayn Rand would love privitization because then the, what was his name, Hank Roark's of this world would rule
everything with no PUBLIC lands or resrouces or vote......
You seem to be confused about Libertarianism, Objectivism (Rand), and Privatization. Just like the author of the article . . . or maybe you are
looking to push the same agenda?
Privatization is the practice of turning over Federal (Public) land to "corporate benefactors" for conservatorship. The Corps then use this ownership
to degradade and strip the land for profit by disallowing public use or right to use, while also collecting fees and subsidies to maintain. It is a
Collectivist practice and the very antithesis of the Free Market, Libertarianism, and Objectivism, which stem from Liberalism and Individualism. As I
stated above, Monsanto using their patents on living things (corn, soy, etc) to destroy the independent farmer, with the backing of all gov agencies
and the court system is a perfect example. Another example of this practice is for the tax payer to pay for a highway, then have the state sell it to
a corp . . . the corp then starts to charge a "toll" on the highway, even though they did pay to build it. The corp is supposed to use the "toll" for
upkeep, signage, paying local municipalites (police, EMT, fire) to monitor but they keep all tolls as profit because it's not profitable to
shareholders to maintain. Road falls into disrepair . . . unsafe . . . people die . . . highway goes away, etc, corp rakes in the dough.
I realize each side of the spectrum likes to subvert words, movements, and meanings today, in order to keep people on their side and to make them seem
like they are the good guys, but just as the author doesn't seem (or more likely intentionally) know the difference or the real ideas behind this
practice . . . either do you obviously.
Maybe study the meanings of what all those terms (labels and isms) are and read up on Agenda 21 . . . then if you want to discuss your OP again, after
you know what you are talking about, we can.
I was going to give the author of the article a pass and assume he was misinformed, but maybe it is just cleaverly crafted for a target base who
doesn't know what they are reading.
ETA : All from their wiki pages -
Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that emphasize the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary
association. Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.
In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been
renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of
"conservative" and "liberal" in the United States), as well a foreign policy of non-interventionism
Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through
sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the
proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this
morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans'
metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond
During the post-World War II reconstruction period in Europe, corporatism was favoured by Christian democrats, national conservatives, and social
democrats in opposition to liberal capitalism. This type of corporatism became unfashionable but revived again in the 1960s and 1970s as
"neo-corporatism" in response to the new economic threat of recession-inflation. Neo-corporatism favoured economic tripartism which involved strong
labour unions, employers' unions, and governments that cooperated as "social partners" to negotiate and manage a national economy
Attempts in the United States to create neo-corporatist capital-labour arrangements were unsuccessfully advocated by Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis in
the 1980s. Robert Reich as U.S. Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration promoted neo-corporatist reforms
Liberal corporatism was an influential component of the Progressivism in the United States that has been referred to as "interest group
liberalism". The support by U.S. labor representatives of liberal corporatism of the U.S. progressives is believed to have been influenced by the
syndicalism and particularly the anarcho-syndicalism at the time in Europe. In the United States, economic corporatism involving capital-labour
cooperation was influential in the New Deal economic program of the United States in the 1930s as well as in Keynesianism and even Fordism
edit on 3/13/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/13/13 by solomons path because: (no reason