orb@whuts.UUCP (07/18/86)
> In article <860@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >I think we have already seen that both Libertarians and Objectivists > >do not really value *liberty* when we consider their opposition to > >citizens rights to free speech at public shopping malls. > >When it comes to a conflict between *individuals* basic civil liberties > >and the rights of property, many of both schools show their true colors > >by defending the rights of property. Which hardly demonstrates a > >valueing of anything other than greed and selfishness. > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > > In anticipation of a reply that "if you aren't a greedy rich mogul with > property, you don't have free speech," you don't need much to spread > your ideas. Talk to people on the street. Circulate a petition. Rent > a parking lot and hold a rally. Xerox a newsletter at a copying shop > and distribute it. THAT'S what free speech is about: expressing your > ideas using your own possessions and persuasion. Just consider the > people in Communist countries who have to get their typewriters > registered before they can use them. > > Marc Campos, GenRad Inc. {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc I don't think you have fully comprehended the true extent of what libertarians are saying in terms of private property. You say "talk to people on the street". According to Murray Rothbard and many other Libertarians there will be *NO PUBLIC STREETS* - all will be privately owned. If as you argue there is no protection for free speech in public places like shopping malls which hold public events and even call themselves names like "Rockaway *TOWNSQUARE* Mall" then what will be the protections for privately owned streets? You say "rent a parking lot". What if the owners of the parking lot (all of which will be privately owned after the Libertarian nightmare takes over, of course) decide they don't WANT to rent to you at any price? Just like the owners of dozens of TV stations around the country who have refused to sell ad time to groups opposing the War in Central America? Then what? How about freedom of speech in the workplace? When the labor movement began workers were summarily fired for even talking about their rights or starting a Union. Shall we go back to those days? How about the very good point raised by Bill Tanenbaum: that segregation was defended on the basis that business owners could refuse to serve anybody they didn't like? Shall we go back to segregated restaurants, hotels, bathrooms, and so forth? This will increase "freedom"?? This is not a trivial issue but a severe challenge to Libertarian claims to be for "freedom" when, in fact, it would end up taking away basic freedoms we already have. tim sevener whuxn!orb