Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbjade!mwm From: mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Freedom and property, round 2 Message-ID: <183@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 22:11:52 EST Article-I.D.: ucbjade.183 Posted: Fri Dec 6 22:11:52 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 21:00:26 EST References: <1137@mtuxo.UUCP> <280@l5.uucp> <1739@dciem.UUCP> <169@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1740@dciem.UUCP> Sender: network@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 67 In article <1740@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >> == mwm@ucbopal (me) >>The reasoning behind this is that Humanity, as a race, has the >>same rights to modify the ecology as any other race. > >Oh, so you DO accept the principle that "might makes right," do you? No, I am not a statist. I DO accept the principle that "ability makes right; until it interferes with another persons rights." That's nothing more than a restatement of what I call use-right, a weaker version of the propertarian use/ownership equivalence. Now, I believe that animals are *not* persons. Therefore, there isn't any problem with using them to make the lifes of persons more pleasant, etc. Should the basic assumption prove to be wrong for some species (other higher primates & cetaceans, mayhap?) I'll grant them the same rights as other persons. I even said as much in the original article. >Ever hear of "noblesse oblige?" > >Sure, we have as much right to re-arrange the ecology as does any other >species, but there has been lots of talk about conepts such as "rationality" >as opposed to force. Matter of fact, I have. The ability to build large dams doesn't mean we should. Rationality comes in deciding whether to build a dam. Only persons have a say in that decision - after all, we don't get a say in how animals alter the ecology, why should they get a say in how we alter it? The welfare of animals may enter into that decision, but how much it does is up to us, not them. >The beavers build dams in some kind of equilibrium >with the rest of the ecology: And our's aren't? Our dams make larger changes in the ecology, and take a little longer to reach a semi-stable ecology. The result is still as much an equilibrium as the beaver dam. >you didn't answer >the question about Amerinds and Homesteading, although the rationale >is the same as in the Running Dog example -- the land was unused because >no humans were using it I didn't answer the question because I considered the answer obvious, and you had it right. However, since you choose to build an insulting straw man, I'll answer it now. (This also means the quality of your posting has dropped enormously. Why does this happen at the same time it happens to Carnes?) If any persons - Amerinds being persons - were using the property before running dog fenced it off, and his fencing it off interfered with that use, their rights have been violated, and that fencing it off was wrong. Unlike statists, I think this is true even if RD is a representative of the state, and the state has ordered him to do it "for the common good." >By what morality does might make right? It is antithetic to everything >I read from Liber- Propertarians, yet seems to lie at the foundation of >their philosophy. Martin, you sound like LKK. If you don't think might makes right, then how do you defend the state using might to collect taxes from people who don't think the amount and/or use of the collected money is right? If you don't defend it, but think that it's wrong, welcome yourself to the ranks of the libertarians. Or you could just remain a statist, and let "might makes right" be not merely at the foundation of your philosophy, but the material it is woven from.