Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Property,justice,freedom
Message-ID: <254@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 15:37:21 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.254
Posted: Thu Nov 21 15:37:21 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:32:21 EST
References: <238@gargoyle.UUCP> <28200290@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 57
Summary: 

Nat Howard:

>To explain a little more: if people really acted against their own
>interests (by imprisoning the people in the interior of the island, and
>the interior folks by not taking care to use regularly a path to the shore,
>(so as to deny complete ownership acquisition to the "outsiders")) then
>there would indeed be unfortunate circumstances.  Why stop there, though?
>Why not simply posit that the libertarians (all of them) decided not to 
>eat or drink anything?  This would be JUST as consistent with their 
>principles (as libertarians, anyhow), and just as likely to happen.

The point of my example has nothing to do with the fact that the
result is an undesirable state of affairs.  Those in the interior are
*imprisoned* and would have to have the permission of their neighbors
to move about the island freely.  Yet according to "libertarians,"
their liberty has not been reduced a whit, since no "libertarian"
principles have been violated, and "libertarians" proclaim that they
are opposed, on basic principle, to any social or legal constraints
on individual liberty.  If so then there is something wrong with the
way "libertarians" conceive liberty (= freedom), and I claim that
they consistently abuse the concept.  

The point may be clearer with another example.  A and B discover
Planet X and establish ownership claims on various areas of land
through the appropriate processes.  Now A fences in an arbitrary area
that she owns privately.  B is now imprisoned, since the land area of
the planet is finite.  Why is it a constraint on B's freedom to fence
her in but not to fence her out?  And why should the proportion of
the total land area that A encloses make any difference?  If A puts
an electrified fence around 99% of the total land area, leaving B
with 1% (but still enough to live on), could one plausibly say that
B is not imprisoned on her 1% ?  

So here is a new definition of a "libertarian":  A "libertarian" is a
person who believes that East Berliners are now imprisoned by the
Communist government that erected the Berlin Wall, but that they
would be free if an Arabian sheik purchased West Berlin and the Wall
and refused to let them enter his private property.  Or if not
perfectly free (since they would still live under Communism), at
least freer than at present.

>On the other hand, it might not be that hard to get ownership of the
>Andromeda Galaxy, provided you could think of some way to USE it all.....
>and assuming that it was unused by anyone else.....

I'll repeat the question I posed to Adam Reed.  In my planet X
example, why does A have the natural right to privately appropriate
*any* of the land area or other natural resources of the planet,
unilaterally and without consulting with anyone else?  (Perhaps we
should stick to terrestrial examples.)  As far as I can tell, it is a
fundamental tenet of all variants of "libertarianism" that she does
have this right, but I haven't seen a reasoned defense of this
position.  I grant that I haven't refuted it either.  But you can't
just assume without argument that individuals have the right to own
privately the means of production.
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes