nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/06/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 9:10 am Jul 2, 1985 ****/ >> >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. I see. The implication is that there would be no halls for hire? No "City Club Forum"? No private owners willing to back your view (while other private owners backed OTHER people's view?) In short, your conclusion is utterly unwarranted. >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? Allowing (just for a moment) the assumption that ALL owners wouldn't like such dissent, Mr. Sevener is still making a very static assumption: that because such things are done that way now, they must be done that way in the future or they will not be done. Just as a counterexample Tim, the fact that YOU can read these words implies that political advocacy has OTHER channels than public streets and parks. As to the assumption that all the owners didn't like such dissent..... Well, once again, you can read these words even though there are doubtless anti-libertarian systems types between where I am and where you are. They don't interefere, because they like free speech (thanks, guys & gals!). Such a unanimity and commitment as would be required to stamp out discussion would be a remarkable achievement, and even then would not stop you from inviting friends over to hear you talk.... >Is this really promoting either freedom or liberty? If by "this" you mean the clarification of libertarian ideas, why yes indeed!