nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 12:35 pm Jan 10, 1985 >> Gary F. York, ihuxl!elron >> The only restriction libertarians place on all the "freedom to"s is that they >> be accomplished without coercion. You may not achieve your own "freedom to" >> at the expense of another's "freedom from". >> >> I can conceive of innumerable things worth doing which do not at all involve >> coercing others. Can't you? >> > >Is this really true? Doesn't the Libertarian acceptance of private property >imply an exclusion of others people's freedom to enjoy or use such private >property? Now *THERE*'s something you don't see every day -- orb's riposte has (as near as I can tell) completely ignored the point of elron. Remarkable: elron says: "One person's freedom limited according to the need to grant freedom to others", and orb says (in reply): "Doesn't the belief in private property limit the freedom of others?". My answer to orb is, "Yes indeedy! That's ****EXACTLY**** what elron was getting at." >This was precisely the problem the American Indians had with the >European settlers. The American Indians were used to their freedom to roam >woods and plains unimpeded by fences or notions of private property. Had you ridden your horse over some historic American Indian's tent on the grounds that you were used to your "freedom to roam woods and plains unimpeded by fences or notions of private property", you would have probably gotten a stone axe through your chest. >How could fencing off an area so that all others are no longer free to use >it increase everyone's freedom? Certainly in the most obvious sense, it does not increase the freedom of the people who don't own the land. On the other hand, this isn't kindergarten (at least, I hope not) so let's look a little deeper. If you cede, to everybody, the right to own land, and parcel it out somehow, you increase everybody's freedom because they are now free to use their parcel of land without consulting "everybody else". Get the picture? If you can't own land, you can't build on it (one of the other people, just a-roamin through, might object (he's used to roaming, remember), and then where would you be?) Of course, you can't have an industrial base without factories and such, and you can't have cities without agriculture, and agriculture sort of depends on the ability to plant farms without having a bunch of people come roaming through and telling you to put things back the way they were. Do you wish to argue that industrialization and agriculture haven't made people freer? >To the American Indians one could no sooner >"own" land than one could own the stars or the moon or the wind. >Nature was free for all to enjoy and use. Any chance you're romanticizing here? It seems to me (I don't have any references on it) that some Indians were agricultural, and that others fought wars with each other. When the "open range" policy was followed out west, it led to range wars between ranchers. Everybody was free to enjoy the land, so whoever got there first would overgraze it, causing others quite a few problems. >Because the National Parks and local parks are owned by the community >ALL are free to enjoy them. This increases everybody's freedom as opposed >to private estates which exclude all but the private owners from enjoying >their beauty or use. It also means that Congress is, and James Watt was (to a lesser degree) free to destroy the parks. It also means that you can't move in and build a log cabin there. It also means that that the federal government will demand a little money from everybody via the IRS, under threat of imprisonment, to support what some people in the government think is a sufficient park system. Oddly, I find that when I went to Yellowstone, they wouldn't let me in unless I paid a fee! Imagine! It was before I started hearing this stuff from you, Tim, otherwise I would have told the Ranger that he had no right to take $10 from me, that Tim Sevener had assured me that I was free to enjoy the park (it was owned by the community of which I was a part). >I think this is the point an earlier poster was trying to make about the >difference between anarchism and libertarianism-- that once the libertarian >accepts the concept of private property then it DOES imply the exclusion >of others freedoms to use that property. >I am immensely glad that the community as a whole still owns some things >such as the National Parks so that EVERYBODY and not just the few with >property are able to enjoy them. Excuse me, but YOU try getting in there without the $10. I should point out here that by arguing that community ownership of land is a "good thing", Tim has partly undone the point he made originally, that ownership of land itself was a "bad thing" -- at least to those noble Indians he talks about. Remember -- the GOVERNMENT owns "community owned" land, and will do with it what the government chooses to do (not always what you'd like, eh Love Canal fans?). On the other hand, you might go to Central Park in New York. In the 1800's, when they charged $0.10 admission, it was considered a nice place to walk at night. Nowadays, well, I invite you to read the signs: "PARK CLOSED AT 10:00PM", I believe they read. Actually, private parks (there's some large island off Canada that is supposedly a pretty nice one) tend to be quite cheap, and, based as they are on covenants between the "owners", are probably more stably parks than parts the national Park Service. In a Libertarian society, those who like national parks could use land they owned for that (if they chose). I'm told that Robert Redford has bought up large amounts of land out west in order to preserve it. On the other hand, if you try to do that in (say) Cambridge, MA, you'll find that you must pay taxes on the land in order to keep it. This in turn means that you must pay more than simply opportunity cost to keep land wild -- you must pay "rent" on it. >Private Property DOES imply the exclusion of others freedoms in very >important respects. It certainly implies that some freedoms override others. That the word "freedom" has been misapplied widely in the past to lend power to any number of ideas not associated with liberty ("the freedom to strike", "the freedom of being left alone") should not mean that any act forbidden by one's allowance of another's freedom is some sort of hideous restriction. The trick is to avoid the trap of restricting individual freedom for governmental convenience, or for economic simplicity.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/17/85)
In Canada, if you buy an island in order to ``preserve it'' you still have to pay taxes on it. But if you don't build on it the taxes are lower. In some areas, a lot of the taxes one pays (say for schooling, and to pay the fire department and whatever) are hinged on you having a ``permanent residence'' where you live. For this reason a few friends of mine bought an island in northern B.C. and have not raised a permanent structure there...just lots of temporary ones. I suspect they will run into trouble if/when they get around to producing the family they intend to raise there, or at least when the children reach school age. Last I heard they were still adamant about not sending thier children to any school... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura