Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom and property, round 4
Message-ID: <354@umich.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 01:30:53 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.354
Posted: Tue Dec 10 01:30:53 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 22:27:34 EST
References: <1160@mtuxo.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 76
Keywords: This is the third try...
Summary: Hello out there! Care to answer some tough questions?

I have yet to hear a response to my criticism of Adam Reed's original
posting.  I would assume that this has been due to a bad newsfeed here at
my site, but it appears that Richard Carnes has seen my posting.  So, why
no response?  Perhaps because there's no way to refute my point?

Take note:  this message WILL be REPEATED as many times as it takes to get
a reply -- even if the reply is just "I'm not replying to you."  

In article <1160@mtuxo.UUCP> hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) writes:
>, I am re-casting my argument into a completely
>non-recursive form for Carnes' benefit. Here it is:
>
>A RIGHT to do something is the condition of not being subject to morally
>or politically legitimate interference in doing it, or to morally or
>politically legitimate coercion in consequence of having done it.

"Not being subject to morally ... legitimate interference" sounds like a
claim-right to me.  Is that how you meant it?  (Cf. my reply to your Round 1
for a definition of "claim-right", or if you never saw that article, ask me.)

>A RESOURCE is the ensemble of all things that may not be changed without
>interfering with a given human activity.  It follows from the previous
>definition of a right that, if one person has the right to use a resource,
>and is exercising this right, then no other person may have the right to
>change that resource, since this would subject the first person to
>interference with something that the first person has a right to do.

Indeed it does follow.  This strong consequence of the definition of a right
raises a crucial question:  WHY SUPPOSE that everyone has a *right* to use 
previously unused material?

>The condition in which one person exercises a right to use a resource,
>and no other person has a right to change this resource, will be called
>OWNERSHIP (of the resource by the person who has the right to use it).
>PROPERTY is the ensemble of resources over which a person exercises
>ownership.  It follows from the above definitions that a resource that
>has never been used by humans cannot have been owned, that is, it cannot
>have been a part of anyone's property.

Indeed it does follow, but only because OWNERSHIP has been defined to imply
that the person *exercises* the right -- currently.

>LIBERTY is the set of rights which, when applied to every person in a
>society, maximizes the aggregate of activities that people in that
>society have a right to engage in, subject to the condition that no one
>may have the right to invade the person of another. 

It must be demonstrated, not assumed, that "maximizes the aggregate of
activities ..." is a COHERENT phrase.

>Prior to the first use of resources in human history, liberty obviously
>corresponds to a condition in which every person has a right to do
>anything he or she can physically do, in any way that does not invade,
>or threaten to invade, the person of another. This logically includes
>the right to initial use of any discovered resource.

This does NOT follow.  Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that "maximum
aggregate of activities that people have the right to engage in" is a coherent
expression.  Suppose I come upon the only natural shelter in a very large
area, and proceed to occupy it.  Another person comes along the next day --
having had no help from me in finding the place, and not knowing that I am
here -- and proceeds to occupy it.  I then rise up from my inconspicuous
sitting place, whereupon the other person first notices me.  I yell "Hey
you, get out of here, I was here first!" and kick her out.

Do I have a right to do this?  Why?  How does this "maximize aggregate
activities..."?  What if the person will freeze to death without this shelter?
Tough?  By the way, don't bother trying to duck the issue by assuming, e.g.,
that her presence would not interfere with my activities.  Assume it would.  I
would have to sleep in a slightly more cramped position, say.  I'm sure
you can dream up other details as necessary.

>			Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtuxo!hfavr)

--keepin' 'em honest,
Paul V. Torek, Iconoclast for all reasons			torek@umich