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!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Property,justice,freedom
Message-ID: <28200333@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 16:57:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200333
Posted: Sun Nov 24 16:57:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:11:42 EST
References: <254@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 146
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-25400:inmet:28200333:000:7543
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Nov 24 16:57:00 1985


>/* Written  3:37 pm  Nov 21, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Property,justice,freedom" ---------- */
>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.  

Au Contraire.  Your example assumes that the libertarians on the
island would *NOT* act according to their own interests consistent
with  libertarian principles (avoiding an undesirable state of affairs
is a pretty standard  definition of pursuing one's own interests).  In
particular, I point out above that they could KEEP from being
imprisoned simply by regularly taking certain paths from the land they
own to the ocean.

The point of MY article was that it's fine and good to come up with
examples of libertarian conduct that result in sad outcomes (part of
freedom is having the chance of sad outcomes) but not monumentally silly 
things that involve large groups of people acting uniformly 
against their interests as they perceive them.  GIVEN that people
would not do this, your example, depending as it does on people
acting very stupidly, becomes pretty stupid.  It's as if you had
suggested that libertarians might all commit suicide and what about that?

>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. 

AND ONE MORE TIME: the libertarians who commit suicide all at once
have not had THEIR freedom lessened, either right?  Wrong.  They've
had their freedom lessened (they are dead) consistent with their
actions.  Similarly for the incredibly stupid libertarians in your
trumped-up example: they've LOST freedom, BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.  In ANY
society, one could do this by the simple expedient of jumping off a
building, or bricking oneself into a doorless, windowless room, and if
this is the worst criticism you can find of libertarianism, I'm
surprised you haven't joined the Party.

>If so then there is something wrong with the
>way "libertarians" conceive liberty (= freedom), and I claim that
>they consistently abuse the concept.  

Ho-hum.  Not a very impressive claim, I think.  Libertarian
society includes obligations and prohibitions having to do with
your relationships with other people.  It is *possible* in a 
libertarian society to put yourself in a situation in which you've
ceded a dangerous amount of your freedom of movement to others,
just as it's possible for people in any society to 
open their own veins and bleed to death.   It's hardly likely,
it's certainly not something that any large number of people are
going to do.  Examples depending on the notion that a large number
of people DO voluntarily screw themselves up when it's easy
to avoid it are, in my opinion, time-wasters.

>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% ?  

I am, of course, delighted to hear that B has somehow established
claim and use of different areas WITHOUT HAVING TO VISIT THEM
REGULARLY, and thus either preventing A from achieving ownership of
her route, or finding himself OBVIOUSLY dependent on A for her access,
doesn't realize that she should treat with A in this matter.  

Do you intend to tell us just how this was done?  Or are you once
again depending on B to fall on her sword in order to make your
example plausible?

>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.

Tsk!  Not quite as bad as the usual flamage, but poorly constructed,
and bound to backfire:  It was not Libertarians, Propertarians, 
Randians, or private-property types who built the Berlin wall, but
Socialists. In that flamingly Libertarian book, the "Information Please
Almanac", I find the following interesting notes:

	1. On page 120, in "Headline History", I find:
		1961 East Germans erect Berlin between East and West
		Berlin to halt flood of refugees (Aug 13)

Well, Richard, do you suppose they did it to keep the Westerners
from availing themselves of the great benefits of Socialism?

	2. On page 192, in the country entry for East Germany,
	subheading Government, we find	this:
		The major political party is the Socialist Unity
		(Communist) Party.....

Let's avoid any squirming: That the current party membership in power
did not build the Wall is obvious to me, as is the fact that they DO
maintain the wall.

Need more be said on the relative propensity for wall-building
and area-imprisonment of Socialists and Libertarians?

Were some libertarian, private investor to buy the Berlin wall,
and assuming that for some reason the Socialists didn't simply build a
new one BEHIND the old one, it would seem to me most unlikely that he
would simply leave the wall in place, continuing to staff it with
soldiers.  He'd do much better (and remember, these are the sort of
libertarians, who, unlike socialists, ruthlessly exploit their 
fellow man) to sell passes through to West Berlin, probably on the basis
of some low fare plus a percentage of wealth.   The folks in the
"worker's paradise" would probably be glad to do it, and their first
exposure to (rather raw) capitalism would be much more pleasant than
the alternative their state had left them.

Their state said to them: "Nein".  The (worst-case) capitalist says:
"For a fee....".  In short, Richard, they'd go for the deal, glad to
have it.

Oh, would our Wall-owning type ONLY allow the wealthy across?  No, 
Richard.  Not if he's trying to maximize his gains.

It is unclear to me how legal (in a libertarian sense) it would be
for the Wall-owner to shoot at people who were merely crossing the
wall.  On one hand, the wall IS private property.  On the other hand,
violation of one's property cannot be an unlimited license for
retaliation.  Believe it or not....