orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/08/85)
> 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? 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. How could fencing off an area so that all others are no longer free to use it increase everyone's freedom? 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. 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. 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. Private Property DOES imply the exclusion of others freedoms in very important respects. tim sevener whuxl!orb