Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: the FORCE of Property
Message-ID: <781@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 21:01:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ratex.781
Posted: Tue Jan 22 21:01:26 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 19:30:20 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Terran Mystery Poodles
Lines: 53


>Earlier I pointed out how naked FORCE had been used to claim the Indians
>territory (they had no concept of "owning" land, merely staked out 
>territories).

Before you pontificate about Indian concepts, you'd best learn a thing or two.
I suggest that you start with some research on the Zuni Indians.

>Did not the kings claim that they in some sense "owned" all the land in their 
>realm?  Is this then a case of Libertarianism? If not, why not?

It's not a case of Libertarianism.  In the Libertarian paradigm, ownership of
previously unowned property is NOT established by simply declaring it yours;
ownership is established by putting such property into productive use 
(homesteading).  Libertarians disagree among themselves as to what constitutes
productive use, and whether to include a Proviso like that of Locke or Nozick.
Your assorted examples of aristocratic claims would thus not be acknowledged as
legitimate.

>If some corporation or individual comes to control (or group of corporations
>and individuals) most of the economy what does the freedom of property 
>mean to the vast majority who own nothing?
>THIS is the problem for Libertarianism:

If such a thing came about in a Free Economy, it could only be by a set of
voluntary decisions; Fiat justitia et pereat mundus.  I might also add that
while this may be an interesting hypothetical construct, it is an economic
impossibility; if and when you develop an understanding of the Price System,
I'll explain why.

>                                        it is the problem I have already
>raised with case of industrial monopoly.

It's been pointed out to you, more than once, that we are not living in a Free
Economy, that we are, in fact, living in an economy governed by rules more
closely corresponding to those that you desire, and that these rules are the
source of the economic concentration that so repulses you.

>                                         It is the problem posed by
>saying property rights are absolutely sacred without considering the
>justification or original source of such rights, nor their consequences.
 
In point of fact, Libertarians DO consider the justification and original
source of such rights, as you would know if you read the philosophical journals
that Libertarians appear in, or if you read a Libertarian philosophical
treatise (such as, say, *Anarchy, State, and Utopia* by Robert Nozick).  It's
awfully stupid (or dishonest) of you to make such claims without first
investigating.

                                        Up to my waist in disgust,
                                        Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
                                        9120 Hawthorn Pt
                                        Westerville, OH  43081-9605