I wrote: as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had
to respond
to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power
was
originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power.
Dennis Rodman -- no, Redmond -- wrote:
Not what the historical
thank you for your interesting comments, david.
i hope you will keep tuned to these edifying discussions at PEN-L and please
comment on my amateur questions and statements because i like to check them
out with the Left, Center and Right perspectives. part of the learning
process, as they say.
and others who would identify themselves as
conservative.
David Shemano
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikalac Norman S
NSSC
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:58 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:5852] RE: RE: Re: Private Property
At 07:58 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote:
i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the
Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as
presented in PEN-L.* do they exist?
what, the Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads don't strive for intellectual
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, David Shemano wrote:
space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will
provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a
single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer.
And if one person owns
At 05:20 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote:
Let me generally answer the questions as follows. The issue, from my
perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to
be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent
can exist under capitalism. Not that
At 08:18 AM 12/7/00 -0800, you wrote:
And if one person owns literally *everything*, the way that, say, Mao
Zedong once owned mainland China through that Absolutist-style holding
company otherwise known as the CCP?
as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond
to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was
originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power.
Not what the historical record says. Mao
I am
a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism
without
bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell).
Some of us here belong to the wor;d's third oldest profession and there are
legal discussions intermittwently; pitch in if you have idea. Btw, I am a
believer in
Let me generally answer the questions as follows. The issue, from my
perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to
be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and
consent can
exist under capitalism. Not that those are not important issues,
If you
believe that there is something inherently noble in democratic decision
making regardless of the results of the decision making, then you have
chosen an end which I do not share.
We have a fundamental disagreement, then, david. I think that democratic
decisionmaking, including wrong
11 matches
Mail list logo
