Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!phri!cmcl2!csd2!sykora
From: sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Criticism of America :re to critics
Message-ID: <3630074@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 21:48:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.3630074
Posted: Sun Mar 23 21:48:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 20:59:14 EST
References: <1025@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 130

>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) /  4:48 pm  Mar 17, 1986 */

>
>A critical observation, which you failed to make, is that Sevener was
>removed from the mall by political power, not economic power (by YOUR

He was removed from the mall by physical force.  He would have been
removed by the same agent, i.e., the government, whether in the mall
or in your own living room, if you found his presence offensive.  Note
that in such a situation, you would not have been called upon to give
a reason for having him removed.

I don't know what you mean by saying that "Sevener was removed from the
mall by political power, not economic power."  Please elaborate.

As to your reference to pleased consumers, it would be more likely
for him to be removed by displeased consumres.

>But then your division of power into political and economic is sadly
>flawed, as they are interconvertable and blend imperceptibly one into the
>other.  Marcos provides a fine example of conversion in one direction:
>converted the money into economic power by investing in a host of
>corporations that satisfy consumers.

I can't comment much on this, since I don't know the deatils of Marcos'
abuses.  Nonetheless, I maintain that in a free society, economic
power and political power are separate, by definition.  Since
Mracos' Philipines was not a free society, I don't see how the
criticism applies.

>  And surely examples of economic
>power being converted to political power are abundant in the USA:
>such as the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc.

Why didn't the people of the U.S., thru the electoral process, put an end
to such abuses?

>As a matter of fact the whole idea of property is a fine example of the
>intergradation of your two categories.  While "economic power" may be the
>means of acquisition, only "political power" prevents others from making
>use of someone's property.

It seems to me that only physical force or the threat thereof prevents
others who might wish to appropriate one's property from doing so?
Is this the same thing as "political power?"

>Sykora's notions of economic and political power are here just a red
>herring distracting from the real question of what property rights our
>society should be willing to allow.  These rights are not innate: they
>are societal conventions that we create.

I believe that such rights are morally justified.  Moreover, this 
discussion began with considerations of whether absolute property
rights were morally justified, rather than practically justified.
You may well be right about what the important question is, but why
do you assert that I am responsible for steering the conversation
towards its present course?

>Private property ownership has never been absolute in the US.  Eminent
>domain, common and traditional usage, zoning, taxation, and a host of
>other exceptions make this clear.

This is quite true.  Nonetheless, the mere existence of such policies
does not justify, either morally or practically, government interference
with property rights.

>The case of expelling Sevener from a mall where he was leafletting
>shows the first signs of the dangers of unbridled libertarianism:
>corporate feudalism.

It is interesting that you introduce the term "corporate feudalism" with 
no elaboration as to what it means.  Is it such a well-known phrase that
explanation is unnnecessary?  If so, why haven't I seen it on the net
lately?  Most importantly, what does it mean?  Are corporations the
lords and we the serfs?  If so, how do you justify this analogy?

>  Where are the checks and balances?

It is not clear to me what you are asking.  Please elaborate.

>  If the mall
>served a similar sociological function to the town square of previous
>generations, why should we defend corporate control for what were
>previously free and public functions?

Beacuse it's their property.  I mean this as both a practical and moral
justification.

Besides, if mall patrons wish to here Sevener, they'll
let the mall managers know.

>The fact is that we need to jealously protect our rights.

No, we need to defend our rights to the extent that they need defending.

By the way, what are our rights?  I'd like to know so that when we
hit another "milieu" we can call you on the carpet if you claim some
new ones.

>  As our
>culture changes, we need to bring our rights with us to the new milieu.
>If our culture becomes more intimately oriented around new institutions
>such as malls, then in order for us to assert our rights, the malls
>must give up some of their conflicting rights.

Apparently, you and I differ in a fundamental way over just what a 
right constitutes.

As far as I'm concerned, the right of free speech is the right not to
be prevented from speaking, it is not the right to be supplied with a
microphone aor an auditorium at another's expense.  Nor is it the
right to be heard, i.e., the right to have an audience.

>  This example is
>relatively unimportant, but illustrates the general principle that needs
>to be applied to libertarian ideas: there ain't no such thing as a free
>lunch.

I fail to see how this (free-market oriented phrase) illustrates your
argument.  Please elaborate.

>  While libertarianism may provide improved rights of some sorts,
>it inevitably is doing so by a tradeoff.  I don't want the trade to work
>in the direction of feudalism.

Libertarianism => feudalism.  Very imaginative.

>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

Mike Sykora