nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/06/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / umcp-cs!mangoe / 8:23 pm Jul 3, 1985 ****/ >And the third >important question: how do you prevent the rich from subverting a system in >which the right to property is supreme? The right to property is not "supreme" in the sense that it gives you other rights. In particular, a person who owns a million acres has no choices about what you do on your single acre. > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe >/* ---------- */ >
nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/08/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 3:22 pm Jul 5, 1985 ****/ >> 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. Are you seriously trying to interpret Sykora that way? I don't see ANYTHING in his statement saying that one has the right to a particular job. >> >> >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. > >This is one of our precious freedoms as U.S. citizens. Where will demonstrations be held if all private citizens are locked up for tax evasion in OUR society? Absurd? The very word! But just as likely as a libertarian society where no property owner agrees with a particular set if ideas, and no property owner is willing to tolerate ANY set of ideas being touted. >> >> >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. "Begin to see"? Tsk, Sevener. It seems to me that Mike has said nothing that contradicts other things he's said. >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..... What basic right is that? I don't recall that freedom of assembly on private property against the will of the owner was ever codified in the constitution. I don't recall that libertarians (particularly minarchist libertarians) have ever argued that all land would be in the hands of private individuals (remember, please, that I have consistently argued on a "first claim and use" basis). In particular, I've pointed out that an obvious thing for the each ACLU chapter to do, should they find themselves in a libertarian society, is to buy some land, get a trust fund to administer it (as a park, say) and guarantee free speech to anyone who wants to speak there. Given the traffic in net.politics, they could probably even make money at it by charging a dime for admission (or asking, but not insisting, on a donation). Of course, depending on how the libertarian society came into being, such an explicit pigeonhole for free speech would probably be unnecessary. > tim sevener whuxl!orb >/* ---------- */ >
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/11/85)
> From nrh who never signs his name: > >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / umcp-cs!mangoe / 8:23 pm Jul 3, 1985 ****/ > >And the third > >important question: how do you prevent the rich from subverting a system in > >which the right to property is supreme? > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe > > The right to property is not "supreme" in the sense that it gives you > other rights. In particular, a person who owns a million acres has > no choices about what you do on your single acre. > 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