Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU!fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Reply to Rich Cowan
Message-ID: <12256308604.26.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19-Nov-86 21:33:58 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12256308604.26.MCGREW
Posted: Wed Nov 19 21:33:58 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Nov-86 02:37:49 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 76
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


Rich Cowan writes:

> when Barry says:

   >> freedom to choose does not mean the ability to choose.  It means
   >> the freedom to choose from what others freely wish to part with.

> he suggests that everything we are choosing from is privatized, that
> someone owns it, and that we can be "free" to choose it without 
> having the "ability" -- i.e. financial resources -- to do so!

Basically correct.  Ability, however, isn't necessarily financial
resources, only the consent of the other party or parties.  I require
no money to get people to give charitably to me, to marry me, or to
publish my letter to the editor in a newspaper.  I require only the
appropriate consent.  The fact that money is often required simply
shows what motivates human beings.

> Would Barry Fagin therefore agree that

> -Clean water be restricted only to those who can afford to buy 
> bottled water?

No, although I do think that the right way to get clean water is to
use the market and property rights.  Allow cities to own their own
water supplies, allow people to own them and have governments pay them
fair market value, and so on.  And, of course, I'd be delighted to
hear your suggestions for providing "clean water for all".

> -Clean air be restricted to those who can build air conditioned,
> filtered environments to protect them 365 days a year?

No, see above and previous postings.

> -Nature be restricted to private parks for a select elite that pays
> high membership fees to protect the parks from commercial 
> development?

This is almost what we have now, actually.  Our national parks are
paid for by the many, enjoyed by the few.  People who enjoy nature
should be the ones to bear the costs of owning and maintaining the
land in a pristine state.  The right way to enjoy nature is to do it
through a framework of liberty: privately owned parks financed by
user's fees and contributions.  And this isn't so bad, Rich.  You
might even like it; the hiking and camping permits issued by the
Nature Conservancy are cheaper than those at Yellowstone.

In fact, private ownership as the best way to environmental protection
is the wave of the future; the previously mentioned Nature
Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Audobon Society, and
the Center for Political Economy and Natural Resources are all
embracing private ownership as the best way to preserve and protect
nature.

> -Survival be restricted to the few that can afford to be sent into
> space and live on a space station, or on Mars?

Nope.  Personally, I think government should provide law enforcement,
national defense, and bare necessities, but even these functions can
be contracted out to the private sector.  In any case, so much of what
government does is harmful that once an appreciable portion of it is
stopped, the resulting prosperous society will render survival and
poverty moot for an incredibly vast majority of Americans.

> Barry, I have a question for you.  How, under YOUR ideas for how
> "human beings and their economic institutions" should ideally
> interact, "deciding on their own what they wish to sell and under
> what terms," can we be assured that the environment won't be
> corrupted, or that the planet won't be destroyed ... Or do you deny
> the existance [sic] of the problems I mention?

I hope I have answered this adequately in my previous comments.

--Barry
-------