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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!vlsvax1!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Property, justice, freedom
Message-ID: <28200374@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Dec-85 02:44:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200374
Posted: Sun Dec  8 02:44:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 06:26:48 EST
References: <263@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 105
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-26300:inmet:28200374:000:5412
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Dec  8 02:44:00 1985


/* Written  6:52 pm  Dec  2, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics.t */
>[Carnes treats us to another helping of the notion that a libertarian
  society involves ownership, that ownership permits exclusion, that
  exclusion limits liberty.  This, together with a great deal of private
  land ownership in Libertaria means that a given individual could be
  excluded from the great majority of the land.]

Carnes seems to think that "Brain Damaged" libertarians on the Net
have not noticed this little possibility, and to jog our creaky
noggins hands us a real noggin-jogger about an island where an extreme
case of this has evolved.  Confronted with explanations that everyone
on the island has clearly acted in their own worst interests and that
that isn't plausible, Richard fires off another article.

It seems to me that Richard is equating Libertarianism with Anarchy
(mistake #1), equating the possibility of  absolute ownership with the
likelihood that people could be fenced in by such ownerships (mistake
#2), and wondering how libertarianism could possibly work in a society
in which people follow their own worst interests (mistake #3).

To handle them in turn....

1) About half of all libertarians are Anarchists,
and thus see no proper role for state ownership or existence, so to
attack the libertarian position on this ground is only half right.  There
are minimal-state societies that I would term rather libertarian that 
would resolve this dilemma in the ways states usually do.

2) You can't get fenced into a place unless you enter,
or, having been born there, you must be in a region that nobody
else has regularly left from (such movement would prevent absolute
ownership from obtaining on the route used to leave).

Once "fenced in",
you typically could leave (I assume I need not explain to Richard that
Libertarians, like everyone else, disagree with folks who imprison them
regardless of who owns the prison walls).  Further, the establishment
of absolute property rights requires a pretty clear title.  It would
be difficult, were the US to become a libertarian society, to establish
ownership of Broadway until, say, it became impassable 
from lack of maintenance and nobody used it for
some time (Rendering it impassable yourself "doesn't count"), or you 
bought off the claim of all regular users of that road.  Once you
OWNED the road, you'd have every interest in allowing people to 
use it in non-destructive ways (so you can charge them admission).

By the way, this case was brought up some time ago in regard to buying
a house without making sure of access.  It's not all that interesting
an issue, but feel free to bring it up as often as you can bear to.

3)  Richard seems fond of postulating little libertarian enclaves in which
people act very stupidly indeed.  On Libertaria Island, the 
shipwrecked libertarians spent all their time building walls and 
assiduously avoiding acquiring partial-property rights to the paths
to the sea.  The challenge in net.politics.theory is to come up with
societies that work where people act like people, that is, they pursue
their own goals (whether they perceive them collectively or individually),
and tend to act in their own best interests, and the basic interests
change rather slowly.

I propose that Richard give up the (if accomplished, useless) task of
showing that Libertarian rules would also give Masochists just what 
THEY wanted (i.e. lots of pain and trouble) and wouldn't that be terrible?

Why a restriction on walling in, but not out?  Simple, Richard -- you 
can't get IN without using land (and either establishing rights to
use it again, or (presumably) implicitly gaining the consent of the
owner to use it again to leave.  If it were a cul-de-sac, the owner
would not have the right to imprison you, even if you couldn't pay
the toll outwards.

As for this little gem:

>The
>only objects I could freely use would be that tiny fraction that I
>owned privately.  This isn't a legal constraint on my freedom??  Get
>serious.

You seem to have missed the point entirely -- objects you use freely
as a result of ownership or permission from owners.  Owners typically
get benefits from such use, so would have a big interest not in hoarding,
but in sharing (most often for a fee, to be sure, but not always).

One may be opposed to any societal or legal restraints on freedom, but
there is the usual question of where your freedom ends and mine begins.
That you can't punch me in the nose (or rather, that you're not allowed
to) is a limit on your freedom that violates SOME dictionary definitions
of freedom but not others.  In particular, MY freedom's
intactness  may depend on not being punched in the nose as a matter of
someone else's right.

So we have the notion (surely not new to you?) that freedoms may conflict but
still be called freedoms. (Not the sticky points where they conflict, but
in the broader sense of freedom as the ability to choose).

Your "freedom" needn't include the right to do what you wanted with my
property, and perhaps mine includes the right to NOT let you use my
property.  They remain "freedom", not license.

I find no necessary conflict between the quote from Flew (whom I've not
encountered) and my own beliefs.

Of course, if you WANT to do something worthwhile about this "conflict",
why not track down Flew (if he's still alive) and ask him what he thinks of it?