orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/10/85)
Libertarians on the net have been constantly reiterating a concern with the "force" of government. This is certainly a legitimate concern and I am glad that our Constitution puts certain limits on that force. However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property will mean the end of all force is an error. Property can only be maintained by force. How do I insure someone doesn't come on my land? I use force, either calling in the force of the State or using my own force. Either way excluding others from the use of my property requires the use of force. That Libertarians and their philosophy may not lead to reduced force and violence can be seen in their response to the problem of gun control and the Goetz case. I will not say that all Libertarians have argued in favor of the untrammelled distribution of guns but some certainly have. And why? To inflict potentially lethal force on people threatening their PROPERTY. So it turns out that this proposed diminution of force is a chimera. Force is justified (for Libertarians) in the defense of private property. I would argue that force is to some extent *necessary* for the existence of private property. Once again we return to the example of the American Indians who had no concept of land ownership. How then did the European settlers manage to impose their definition of land ownership and claim untamed land as private property? By brutal force. If you wish to read about such force I would suggest "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". It contains history and not fantasy about the force involved in staking private property claims. "As I was walking that ribbon of highway I saw a sign said , "No trespassing" But the other side of the sign said nothing That sign was made for you and me" Woody Guthrie tim sevener whuxl!orb
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/12/85)
[] >Libertarians on the net have been constantly reiterating a concern >with the "force" of government. This is certainly a legitimate concern >and I am glad that our Constitution puts certain limits on that force. >However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property >will mean the end of all force is an error. Property can only be >maintained by force. How do I insure someone doesn't come on my land? >I use force, either calling in the force of the State or using my own >force. Either way excluding others from the use of my property requires >the use of force. If you enter my property without my permission, you have, in effect, initiated the use of force against me. Thus such force as is needed to get you off of where you have not been invited is justified. > That Libertarians and their philosophy may not lead >to reduced force and violence can be seen in their response to the >problem of gun control and the Goetz case. As I understand the situation, Mr. Goetz believed that force was begin initiated against him. > I will not say that all >Libertarians have argued in favor of the untrammelled distribution of >guns but some certainly have. And why? To inflict potentially lethal >force on people threatening their PROPERTY. So it turns out that >this proposed diminution of force is a chimera. So far as I can tell, your chimera exists only when Libertarians are threatened by others' force. In any other situation, true Libertarians simply would not use their guns (or any other kind of force). > Force >is justified (for Libertarians) in the defense of private property. >I would argue that force is to some extent *necessary* for the >existence of private property. Only in the presence of thieves and swindlers. >Once again we return to the example of the American Indians who had >no concept of land ownership. How then did the European settlers >manage to impose their definition of land ownership and claim >untamed land as private property? By brutal force. >If you wish to read about such force I would suggest "Bury My Heart >at Wounded Knee". It contains history and not fantasy about >the force involved in staking private property claims. I'll try to get a copy. > "As I was walking that ribbon of highway > I saw a sign said , "No trespassing" > But the other side of the sign said nothing > That sign was made for you and me" Woody Guthrie Why should land not be subject to the same inviolateness as any other kind of property? >tim sevener whuxl!orb -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
jhull@spp2.UUCP (01/16/85)
In article <423@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Libertarians on the net have been constantly reiterating a concern >with the "force" of government. ... >... Property can only be maintained by force. ... Force >is justified (for Libertarians) in the defense of private property. >I would argue that force is to some extent *necessary* for the >existence of private property. > >Once again we return to the example of the American Indians who had >no concept of land ownership. ... >tim sevener whuxl!orb I think Tim has made an important point here, one that I think will generate a lot of discussion. As we go forward, I would like to suggest that we distinguish between privately-owned real property and privately-owned created property. I am not sure how to justify the former but, clearly, I have some rights to the latter. After all, it was my life, my time, my effort, that created it. If I worked for it, it belongs to me! (In other words, I do NOT support wealth redistribution schemes.) -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {ihnp4}trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/16/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 6:32 pm Jan 11, 1985 >Libertarians on the net have been constantly reiterating a concern >with the "force" of government. This is certainly a legitimate concern >and I am glad that our Constitution puts certain limits on that force. >However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property >will mean the end of all force is an error. Excuse me, but I don't recall hearing any libertarian advance that position. To tell people that your opponents make points that your opponents do not in fact make is called "building a straw man". >Property can only be >maintained by force. How do I insure someone doesn't come on my land? >I use force, either calling in the force of the State or using my own >force. Either way excluding others from the use of my property requires >the use of force. Agreed. You do not mention that the threat of force is enough, but as this is a variety of force, it counts. Of course, no actual physical violence need occur if people are scared to come on your property because they know you will defend it. >That Libertarians and their philosophy may not lead >to reduced force and violence can be seen in their response to the >problem of gun control and the Goetz case. Note the smooth introduction of violence here. Let's be clear on this point: are you suggesting that widespread libertarian society would involve less FORCE? Or less VIOLENCE? I wouldn't mind a society where everyone wore guns (lots of FORCE) if the Homicide rate were 1/100th of ours (less VIOLENCE). As I understand it, Goetz felt threatened by the four youths who asked him for money. He reacted. Do you disagree with his right to defend himself? As for the relationship between gun control and the Goetz incident -- Goetz's gun was illegal -- he was denied a permit when he applied for one after being mugged in Canal Street Station in New York City. The issue of gun control should not be a big part of this discussion because gun control was IN FORCE against Goetz. Sure did a lot of good, huh? >I will not say that all >Libertarians have argued in favor of the untrammelled distribution of >guns but some certainly have. And why? To inflict potentially lethal >force on people threatening their PROPERTY. Somebody had a good quote about this: "You are not being hanged because you stole a horse -- you are being hanged so that horses will not be stolen". Another good one: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute". The notion that people made defenseless and then defended by an inadequate, oddly-controlled police department will be less in jeopardy of their lives than a similar bunch of people able to defend themselves echoes through your argument. People tend not to attack those who they know can defend themselves -- that's why self defense experts emphasize that one should walk decisively in a "bad" neighborhood at night (if one must walk in such a place at all). >So it turns out that >this proposed diminution of force is a chimera. PING! My bogosity meter just sounded off there -- IF you can prove that gun control, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, reduces violence, THEN you can make the statement that any society with gun control would be less violent than one without it. That's about it. In the case of Mr. Goetz, you are FAR from being able to prove it. He'd been mugged before in the subway -- that time he didn't have a gun. This time he did have one. How many times would you prefer that Goetz get beaten up or shaken down on the subway before you concede that he's got a right to defend himself? If statistics show a drop in such crimes in the next couple of months, will you dismiss this as "not really a diminution" in violence? By the way, somebody recently posted an article to net.flame suggesting that all four of Goetz's victims had criminal records. >Force >is justified (for Libertarians) in the defense of private property. >I would argue that force is to some extent *necessary* for the >existence of private property. No argument there. It's worth repeating here, though, that libertarians do not support the INITIATION of force or fraud, and that it is perfectly possible to have private property if nobody initiates force, or if force may be used to protect such property. An important point, one you seemingly overlook, is that force is to some extent *necessary* for the existence of public property also. The State historically has a hard time convincing anyone to not vandalize short of force. The state also tends to want to protect the "worker's paradise", and, owning everything, may have to enforce its property rights by confiscating your apartment, your food, your religious articles, and sending you off to Siberia. Very seldom do people go along with this sort of conduct without at least the implication that force will be used to back up the State's claim. If you want to argue that NOBODY should own property (including the state) I suggest you examine the consequences of that idea. If you wish to argue that private property leads to more violence than public property, let's return to the Indians.... >Once again we return to the example of the American Indians who had >no concept of land ownership. How then did the European settlers >manage to impose their definition of land ownership and claim >untamed land as private property? OH SILLY ME! And here I thought that the claim of land was made by governments acting contrary to libertarian philosophy! Silly me! I should have known that the Mayflower Compact was a private undertaking, with no backing by the state! Naturally, no state, particularly a socialist state, would ever use force against an indigenous population, and certainly not to the extent that PRIVATE COMPANIES did in the New World (or could that be wrong?). Yessir, that privately-run US cavalry was certainly to blame, or whoever was in charge of it, the stockholders, I guess (or could that be wrong?). Yes, it's a good thing that no governmental force was used to kick the Indians off land they'd a legitimate claim to, and no "Trail of Tears" enforced by governmental power. And of course, the fact that treaties were not kept with the Indians was surely the result of private entities corrupting the private arbitration services (somehow) right? If not, your argument misses the point. Look, if the colonial, or later, US government had been truly libertarian, it would have been impossible to convince it to kick the Indians around to satisfy the claims of settlers (unless the settlers could show a better claim). Settlers did coexist with Indians on other than "Kill them if they show up" terms, you know, and its no great stretch of the imagination to imagine a libertarian government being a lot more difficult to prod into action than the one we had. >By brutal force. >If you wish to read about such force I would suggest "Bury My Heart >at Wounded Knee". It contains history and not fantasy about >the force involved in staking private property claims. Excuse me, but I don't recall just what fantasy you're referring to. If it was the notion that libertarian (perhaps private) entities (as opposed to governments) took this land from the Indians, you're right, but that's YOUR fantasy.
mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/23/85)
>Earlier I pointed out how naked FORCE had been used to claim the Indians >territory (they had no concept of "owning" land, merely staked out >territories). Before you pontificate about Indian concepts, you'd best learn a thing or two. I suggest that you start with some research on the Zuni Indians. >Did not the kings claim that they in some sense "owned" all the land in their >realm? Is this then a case of Libertarianism? If not, why not? It's not a case of Libertarianism. In the Libertarian paradigm, ownership of previously unowned property is NOT established by simply declaring it yours; ownership is established by putting such property into productive use (homesteading). Libertarians disagree among themselves as to what constitutes productive use, and whether to include a Proviso like that of Locke or Nozick. Your assorted examples of aristocratic claims would thus not be acknowledged as legitimate. >If some corporation or individual comes to control (or group of corporations >and individuals) most of the economy what does the freedom of property >mean to the vast majority who own nothing? >THIS is the problem for Libertarianism: If such a thing came about in a Free Economy, it could only be by a set of voluntary decisions; Fiat justitia et pereat mundus. I might also add that while this may be an interesting hypothetical construct, it is an economic impossibility; if and when you develop an understanding of the Price System, I'll explain why. > it is the problem I have already >raised with case of industrial monopoly. It's been pointed out to you, more than once, that we are not living in a Free Economy, that we are, in fact, living in an economy governed by rules more closely corresponding to those that you desire, and that these rules are the source of the economic concentration that so repulses you. > It is the problem posed by >saying property rights are absolutely sacred without considering the >justification or original source of such rights, nor their consequences. In point of fact, Libertarians DO consider the justification and original source of such rights, as you would know if you read the philosophical journals that Libertarians appear in, or if you read a Libertarian philosophical treatise (such as, say, *Anarchy, State, and Utopia* by Robert Nozick). It's awfully stupid (or dishonest) of you to make such claims without first investigating. Up to my waist in disgust, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan 9120 Hawthorn Pt Westerville, OH 43081-9605