Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!rhg2
From: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: how many people are enough?
Message-ID: <21713@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 90 20:24:58 GMT
References: <499@smcnet.UUCP> <386@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <504@smcnet.UUCP> <21453@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1869@osc.COM>
Reply-To: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 54

In article <1869@osc.COM> tma@osc.UUCP (Tim Atkins) writes:

>No, I am a free individual supposedly in a country that knows that
>the responsibility of government is the protection (not creation) of
>individual rights.

Maybe this assertion about the proper role of govt. is true for the
basis of the US, I'm not going to pretend to know one way or the other.
But when it comes to the role of govt's in general, isn't it true that
the proper role is whatever its members decide it to be?

>Ownership is a concept logical growing out of individual rights.  If 
>individual rights are "inalienable" then property rights follow 
>immediately.  The gov't based notion is nothing but the legal paper
>(some of it fit for the w.c.) that the government encodes its purportedly
>protective policies upon.  Its validity can only be judged by reference
>to the concept of property rights.  Yes, they are independent of gov't
>daffy-nition.

This is not so far from what I'm saying as you might think.  People come
together from time to time and draw up some formal system of rules and
agree to abide by them because they reflect to some extent their notions
(or philosophies) of fairness, "rightness", or whatever.  

One example is our system of govt. (such as it is) which reflects our
notions concerning individual rights.  I'm willing to concede property
rights following from individual rights, though I'm going to have to
give it some more consideration.

Where we disagree, or more accurately, what you believe and I question,
is whether and in what form "individual rights" actually exist.  I
think they're a grand idea, I'll raise my hand in favor of them every
time, things do run a lot smoother with them around.  But do they exist
in the physical world somehow, or are they a purely human convention
similar to, say, the rules for basketball or (what's his name's) Rules
of Order?

>About as utterly pragmatic and anti-conceptual statement as I've seen in
>many a post.  Catches the other signs of ownership but says nothing about
>the concept itself.  Of course, the entire post seems to wish to deny that
>such a concept has any real meaning.

Should I be pleased or disappointed that you consider my statement
pragmatic and anti-conceptual?  I'm trying to catch ALL the signs of
ownership, and I've expressed as many as I've found on personal
reflection.  And finally, am I really "wishing to deny" the "real"
meaning, or am I searching for it?  I've been asking for the "real"
meaning for a while, and today two people have suggested that it is a
natural extension of the concept of personal rights.  This forces me to
give greater consideration to the concept of personal rights.
-- 
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu