orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/18/85)
> > > > There is also often more *freedom* under public ownership. For example: > > shopping malls, since they are privately owned, have taken it as their > > right to deny the public the right of free speech and assembly in such > > malls. Those advocating viewpoints which the mall's management disagrees > > with have been kicked out - "we own the mall, we can kick anybody out > > we choose, free speech or not". On public streets there are no such > > restrictions - since they are public, the rights of free speech and > > assembly must be respected whether public officials like it or not. > > Personally I am *very* glad there are still many such places left, as well > > as public parks, public libraries, and public monuments and museums. > > > > "As I was walking I saw a sign up > > the sign said "No Trespassing" > > But the other side of the sign said Nothin' > > That sign was made for you and me!" > > Woodrow Wilson Guthrie > > > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Mr. Sevener: I have decided that I have a right to free speech and assembly > in your residence at any time --- your private ownership is interfering > with my desire to hold protest demonstrations against the government. Please > let me know when my crowd can come in to a place that you have paid money > to either rent or buy, and start using it any way we feel is fit. These are two rather different things, although you raise a good point about the implications of a totally anarchistic, propertyless society. If there were no property then our current expectations would have to change drastically. Ursula LeGuin's excellent novel, "The Dispossessed", dealt with some of these problems very well. But my point was the implications of the opposite: what would happen if there were *no* public property which some Libertarians seem to support? What grounds would there be for rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and our other precious freedoms versus the sacred right of property? The suggestion that the right to assembly is exactly the same for private residences as it is for public shopping areas like malls is untenable and obscures the basic point. A private residence enjoys certain special protections under the law which public places do not. For example, protection against illegal search and seizure. This is a part of the general protection of the right to privacy for private residences. But a shopping mall is hardly a private place, it is a pre-eminently public place which would have no existence and no function if the public did not use it. In fact, the shopping malls owner's ejection of leafletters and others espousing viewpoints s/he doesn't like is simply a discriminatory ban of part of the public, not the public as a whole, nor the protection of any right of privacy. In fact, fortunately some Courts in New Jersey have ruled that malls can *not* ban free speech or leafletting since they are indeed public places regardless of their nominal private ownership. Libertarians should be glad for this protection of our vital liberties. Notwithstanding these rulings I am glad that there are public places owned by all of us in which we are guaranteed rights to expression. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/19/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:52 am Jun 18, 1985 */ >In fact, the shopping malls owner's >ejection of leafletters and others espousing viewpoints s/he doesn't like >is simply a discriminatory ban of part of the public, not the public as >a whole, nor the protection of any right of privacy. Do you exclude the public as a whole from your place of residence, or only a part of it? >In fact, fortunately some Courts in New Jersey have ruled that malls >can *not* ban free speech or leafletting since they are indeed >public places regardless of their nominal private ownership. Will you think it fortunate when the courts declare that 1+1=3? > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykoa
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/24/85)
> >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:52 am Jun 18, 1985 */ > > >In fact, the shopping malls owner's > >ejection of leafletters and others espousing viewpoints s/he doesn't like > >is simply a discriminatory ban of part of the public, not the public as > >a whole, nor the protection of any right of privacy. > > Do you exclude the public as a whole from your place of residence, or > only a part of it? > I exclude the public as a whole from my home as it is a private place. I do not make money from inviting the public at large to buy or sell goods or services in my home. Therefore my right to privacy is protected. > >In fact, fortunately some Courts in New Jersey have ruled that malls > >can *not* ban free speech or leafletting since they are indeed > >public places regardless of their nominal private ownership. > > Will you think it fortunate when the courts declare that 1+1=3? > > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Mike Sykoa Would you think it fortunate if all property now publicly held were placed in private hands and the Courts ruled that there was no freedom of speech or assembly in *any* private property? Tis a curious liberty the "Libert"atians defend! Is the true color of "Libert"arians "liberty" now revealed? tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/28/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 12:57 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >I exclude the public as a whole from my home as it is a private place. >I do not make money from inviting the public at large to buy or sell >goods or services in my home. Therefore my right to privacy is >protected. Why does the mere fact that someone engages in business transactions in a place make that place non-private. Why is a private business deal between two parties a special case of interpersonal interaction that has such ramifications? How did yo aquire you house? Using money? Then perhaps it should not be considered private. >Would you think it fortunate if all property now publicly held were >placed in private hands and the Courts ruled that there was no freedom >of speech or assembly in *any* private property? I don't think the property should be "placed" in anyone's hands. Instead, the government should either just give it up, or sell it. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/02/85)
> >From me: > >Would you think it fortunate if all property now publicly held were > >placed in private hands and the Courts ruled that there was no freedom > >of speech or assembly in *any* private property? > > I don't think the property should be "placed" in anyone's hands. Instead, > the government should either just give it up, or sell it. > > Mike Sykora You didn't answer the question Mr. Sykora. The question is a *very important one* which emerges from considering the implications of your philosophy and past statements. That question is what kind of freedom of speech and assembly remains for the general public if: 1)there is no longer *any* public property, parks or even streets 2)even in public places such as streets, malls or markets there is no guarantee of freedom of speech for speech not liked by the private owner or manager from these two statements I conclude that there would be no freedom of speech left. If private owners have no obligation to respect free speech, and all property is privately owned then it follows that no guarantee of free speech remains. Demonstrations typically take place on public streets and public parks. Where will they occur if all such property is privately owned and the owners don't like such dissent? Dissemination of leaflets typically occurs on public sidewalks. Where will it occur if the private owners of all sidewalks decide they don't like it? Is this really promoting either freedom or liberty? tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/03/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 9:10 am Jul 2, 1985 */ >from these two statements I conclude that there would be no freedom of >speech left. I disagree, since I believe "freedom of speech" means that neither the government nor private individuals can shcoerce one to stop speaking, unless such speaking violate someone's right to life, liberty and justly-acquired property. >Demonstrations typically take place on public streets and public parks. >Where will they occur if all such property is privately owned and >the owners don't like such dissent? I suppose they won't. I don't see this as necessarily bad. >Is this really promoting either freedom or liberty? Absolutely. It is impossible for everyone to be completely free and at the same time have rights. A system based on rights to life, liberty and justly-acquired property seems best able to maximize freedom without anarchy. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/05/85)
> From Michael Sykora: > I disagree, since I believe "freedom of speech" means that neither the > government nor private individuals can shcoerce one to stop speaking, > unless such speaking violate someone's right to life, liberty and > justly-acquired property. So in other words, workers cannot be fired for attempting to organize a union or in other ways expressing their opinions. A commendable stand. > > >Demonstrations typically take place on public streets and public parks. > >Where will they occur if all such property is privately owned and > >the owners don't like such dissent? > > I suppose they won't. I don't see this as necessarily bad. Then where will people (the minority whose rights Libertarians claim to be so eager to defend) voice their opinions? Shouting in closets, while beneficial to the powers that be, has never been a very effective way to challenge existing policies whether the government be a democratic one or not. The Women's Suffrage Movement, the Union Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Vietnam War Movement would have had quite a difficult time without the right to *public* dissent. Indeed our own Revolution had its own public demonstrations which helped to bring this free and democratic country into existence. I agree with the Civil Liberties Union (which has always promoted *true* civil liberties and not just those of property-holders) that even groups like the Nazis have every right to march in public. This is one of our precious freedoms as U.S. citizens. > > >Is this really promoting either freedom or liberty? > > Absolutely. It is impossible for everyone to be completely free and > at the same time have rights. A system based on rights to life, liberty > and justly-acquired property seems best able to maximize freedom > without anarchy. > Mike Sykora Ah, I am glad that you begin to see that there is some need to balance individuals' rights. But I find it curious that you are so willing to take away a basic right of citizens in this country since its inception in order to protect the rights of "justly acquired property". Curious, but hardly surprising..... tim sevener whuxl!orb
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/06/85)
The following, from net.politics.theory, must qualify as the best (unintentional) joke on the net in recent weeks. To justify keeping this followup in net.politics.theory as well as net.jokes, look at it in context of another posting that accused severner of misquoting Sykora's position, and saying at the same time "the truth shall set you free" or some such. Truth ... Hah! >=========== >>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 9:10 am Jul 2, 1985 */ > >>from these two statements I conclude that there would be no freedom of >>speech left. > >I disagree, since I believe "freedom of speech" means that neither the >government nor private individuals can shcoerce one to stop speaking, >unless such speaking violate someone's right to life, liberty and >justly-acquired property. > >>Demonstrations typically take place on public streets and public parks. >>Where will they occur if all such property is privately owned and >>the owners don't like such dissent? > >I suppose they won't. I don't see this as necessarily bad. > >>Is this really promoting either freedom or liberty? > >Absolutely. It is impossible for everyone to be completely free and >at the same time have rights. A system based on rights to life, liberty >and justly-acquired property seems best able to maximize freedom >without anarchy. > >> tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Mike Sykora In other words, as Severner originally said: When all property is privately owned and the owners control what can be said on that property, there can be no freedom of speech, even though Sykora will argue that if there had been any remaining public property, speech there would have been absolutely free, and therefore freedom of speech is not abridged. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/09/85)
>/* mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) / 12:53 pm Jul 6, 1985 */ >The following, from net.politics.theory, must qualify as the best >(unintentional) joke on the net in recent weeks. To justify keeping >this followup in net.politics.theory as well as net.jokes, look at >it in context of another posting that accused severner of misquoting >Sykora's position, and saying at the same time "the truth shall set >you free" or some such. Truth ... Hah! Martin, private jokes are impolite in a public forum. Please let us in on this one. You failed to consider the possibility that there will be real property that will be owned by no one, and therefore usable by everyone, yet not "public" in the sense that the government controls its use. Mike Sykora
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (07/10/85)
> You failed to consider the possibility that there will be real property > that will be owned by no one, and therefore usable by everyone, yet not > "public" in the sense that the government controls its use. > > Mike Sykora Such property, like parking spaces during a sale, would have a life expectancy of about 15 seconds. Gary Samuelson
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/13/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:36 am Jul 11, 1985 */ >They don't? Well what if the absurd Murray Rothbard scheme of private roads >(which at least some Libertarians have supported) were implemented then >one person's single acre won't be worth much if they can't get anywhere >else from it. What if such private road owners decide they don't >like blacks using their roads or "unsavory" elements they don't like? >What Libertarians are actually proposing is not an advance but a >regression to the feudal system in which kings and nobles ostensibly >"owned" everything- "public" roads? There was no such thing- they were >all the "king's roads" at his personal whim and disposal. >The only difference would be ownership by corporations and their >wealthy stockholders rather than an aristocracy. The repression of >public rights would be the same. > tim sevener whuxl!orb What purpose is served by misrepresenting the views of libertarians?
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (07/16/85)
> You failed to consider the possibility that there will be real property > that will be owned by no one, and therefore usable by everyone, yet not > "public" in the sense that the government controls its use. > > Mike Sykora Such land should become the property of the first person(s) to use it and make a claim to it.