orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/14/86)
> > The truth is, however, that Libertarianism deserves only one > fundamental criticism: *it does not value liberty*. > > The article goes on to defend this statement and does a superb job of > demolishing Libertarianism's pretensions to being a proponent of liberty. 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. This should hardly be news when one of Ayn Rand's major works is titled "The Virtue of Selfishness". tim sevener whuxn!orb
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (07/15/86)
> 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. Yes, we know you do. You've said it many times. And you're still wrong. I have never seen such a thing as a *public* shopping mall. Shopping malls are *private* places. There is simply no difference between the rights I have in a shopping mall and rights I have when you have invited me into your home. If I say something in your home that you don't like, you have every right to kick me out. If I say something in a mall that the owner doesn't like, the owner has every right to kick me out.
mxc@teddy.UUCP (Marc Campos) (07/16/86)
In article <860@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> >> The truth is, however, that Libertarianism deserves only one >> fundamental criticism: *it does not value liberty*. >> >> The article goes on to defend this statement and does a superb job of >> demolishing Libertarianism's pretensions to being a proponent of liberty. > >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. > >This should hardly be news when one of Ayn Rand's major works is >titled "The Virtue of Selfishness". > tim sevener whuxn!orb Come now, Tim, don't just sneer "greed and selfishness" instead of considering the issue. It's not a question of the "rights of property" vs. the "rights of individuals", since all property is (or should be) owned by some INDIVIDUAL or group of individuals. The right to manage one's own property is just as basic a right as the "civil liberties" you mention. Of course, all individuals have the right to free speech. But that doesn't mean that they have the right to use SOMEONE ELSE'S property as a podium. The owners of those shopping malls have a right to determine how their malls will be used. They choose to allow the general public to shop there, but that doesn't mean those malls are a "public" place. I think someone has already mentioned this argument, but suppose a group decided that your own front yard was public property, and staged rallies there. Oh, you let the "general public" knock on your door, so therefore your home is open to the public, right? The "civil liberties" of these folks overrides your "right to property", correct? Of course not. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you have to provide them with a podium, just like freedom of the press doesn't imply that you have to offer them a printing press. 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. Tim, have you read "The Virtue of Selfishness"? Do you know what "selfishness" Rand is talking about? (It's rational self-interest.) Do you know that "greed" is not part of it? Before you sneer at something, at least know what it's talking about. -- Marc Campos, GenRad Inc. {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 USA (617) 369-4400 x2336
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (07/16/86)
> > [Tim Sevener] > > 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. -------- > [Andrew Koenig] > Yes, we know you do. You've said it many times. And you're still wrong. > > I have never seen such a thing as a *public* shopping mall. > Shopping malls are *private* places. There is simply no > difference between the rights I have in a shopping mall and > rights I have when you have invited me into your home. > If I say something in your home that you don't like, you have > every right to kick me out. If I say something in a mall that > the owner doesn't like, the owner has every right to kick me out. ------- You should know better than to expect Tim Sevener to ever retain any fact that doesn't fit into his grand world view. Nevertheless, the fact that the mall may be private property does not make it the equivalent of a private home. I have the right to choose who enters my home (with a few exceptions, such as police with valid warrants). I do not have the same right to bar people from my hardware store. For example, I cannot eject you from my store because I don't like your race or religion. I CAN do this in my home. Absolute property rights, as apparently advocated by Andrew Koenig, are not the law of the land. Personally, I find the concept offensive. Do you remember the segregated facilities of the 1950s and early 1960s, Andrew? Do you care? Or have I misunderstood you? -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan