Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Property,justice,freedom Message-ID: <28200287@inmet.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 19:36:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200287 Posted: Tue Nov 12 19:36:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:24:27 EST References: <238@gargoyle.UUCP> Lines: 130 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-23800:inmet:28200287:000:7060 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Nov 12 19:36:00 1985 >/* Written 5:10 pm Nov 9, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics.t */ >In article <238@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >>In Libertaria you would be forcibly prevented from driving someone >>else's car without his or her permission. > >I neglected to add that you would not be free to drive on the streets >without the permission of the owner of the streets or payment of his >fee, at least in some versions of Libertaria. When libertarians >figure out how air and sunlight (or the sun itself) can be privately >owned, you will have to pay for these too (if the owners wish to >sell). How amusing! My article on private property from which it is obvious that one cannot claim the sun unless there are no other users of it no sooner comes out than Richard spouts this line! No, Richard, ownership of the Sun (like ownership of the whole earth) is NOT in the picture (at least not for Rothbardian Libertarians, and, I suspect, for many others). Suggest you apologize for straw man-ism. Ownership of sunlight and air, of course, are interesting cases. Do I have the right to block your light by building on my own property? Do I have the right to mix my exhaust into the air shared by all of us? A clear system of property rights to things like photons and clean air would no doubt go far towards resolving questions like these, and you will notice that any government regulation of such things involves the government's claiming at least partial ownership of them. Do you really care to trust your right to breathe to James Watt? Or a committee of James Watts? Or, better yet, a committee of workers somewhere, who are well-connected with party machinery? >So much for the claim of libertarians to be defenders of >freedom. "Libertaria," in fact, is a gross misnomer -- the concept >of Libertaria (in its various versions) has no particularly close >relation to liberty. But "liberty" is one of those >doubleplusfeelgood words. The signs on the barbed-wire fences >surrounding the hypothetical libertarian society should read >something like: "Private Propertaria -- Keep Out." Richard, Libertarians have consistently stood for freedom of immigration into the US. I think you should apologize for straw man #2. >Turning from a hypothetical to a historical example, in the various >enclosure movements in England, the ownership of the "commons" (the >tracts of land that were available to all for the grazing of sheep, >growing of crops, habitation, etc.) was transferred from joint >ownership to private ownership. This was a significant diminution of >the freedom of the commonfolk (as of course it still is), and was >perceived as such. As a Norfolk laborer said: "You do as you like, >you rob the poor of the Commons right, plough the grass up that God >sends to grow, that a poor man may feed a Cow, Pig, Horse, or Ass; >lay muck and stones on the road to prevent the grass growing." >(Quoted in E.P. Thompson's great study, *The Making of the English >Working Class* [pp. 230-231], which should be force-fed to >libertarians; or alternatively they should be forced to read it.) How delightful! Richard, there's nothing more pleasing to me than the fact that nobody is in a position to FORCE me to read a given book (except, perhaps, the IRS). Are these "commons", perhaps the classic ones used in the phrase "tragedy of the commons" to refer to the pitfalls of joint ownership? I am of course, not proud of my ignorance. I've placed Thompson's book on my "try to read this" list. May I suggest to you "Capitalism and the Historians" (I forget the author)? >"Libertarian" principles also diminish such civil liberties as >freedom of speech and assembly, in that quote-unquote libertarians >(let's call them "entitlement theorists") hold these freedoms to >derive entirely from the rights of private property. Without a >"public space" in which to speak or assemble, the proponents of views >unpopular with large property-owners (like the abolition of >capitalist private property) will find it difficult to publicize >their views. Ah, but much freer than in Mexico, say, where there is supposedly a free press, but the Government controls the supply of newsprint; or in the Soviet Union, where it controls newsprint AND printing presses, AND xerox machines, and operates the KGB, supposedly for the benefit of a collectivist society. Gentle (and not so gentle) readers: Richard is once again trying to befuddle you with rhetoric. Implicit, but unsupported in his statement is the notion that all people who own property would tend towards some grand uniformity of opinion (and thus squeeze out unpopular ideas). This is manifestly false: one can rent halls, even if one doesn't own them, and while it might be difficult to get assembly space if you're a member, say, of the "Don Black Admiration Society", it's unlikely that NONE of the people subscribing to your (unpopular) idea will own property or be well connected. In a command society of any sort, socialist or fascist, you must get government approval of assembly. In a free society (like the US, in this respect) or in libertaria, you need only find one or two crazy millionaires, or a bunch of people who share some land, or some unclaimed land, and you may hold all the meetings you like. The difference is important: in a command society you must get CERTAIN other people to agree with you. In the relatively free society, you need have only SOME people agreeing with you. (You may own property yourself, of course, and require no additional space -- much more likely than finding your ideas are unpopular BUT you are in the power elite of a command society). If Richard is REALLY for unlimited right to assembly, he won't be able to protest on any principled ground when I convene the "Libertarians for Loud Van Halen :-)" meeting in his living room, but I suspect that he isn't. Richard, you will note, refers to views unpopular with "large property-owners". In Libertaria, it *doesn't matter* if the plantation next door is owned by someone who dislikes your ideas -- all you need to have is a backyard, or a theater. In Socialista, unless you find government approval for your cause (or at least not government condemnation) you are simply out of luck -- the backyards and theaters will be barred to you. >If the owners of Usenet decide that Marxist ideas are a >little too much to tolerate on their network, then it's hasta la >vista for some of us. It's remarkable that Richard should flaunt such a statement as if it meant something. I would think it quite remarkable if any large percentage (20%, say) of the "owners of Usenet" agreed enough on such a proposition to do anything about it. I concede that they may well kill "net.politics.*", but I would be very, very, surprised if they simply said "no more socialism" (and if they did say it, how would they enforce it? Remember, "gargoyle" could talk directly to "inmet" without any help from "fascist-property-system").