From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:02:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.000258.8945@lever.com>, ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge) writes:
|> In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct3004501@caisr1.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) write 
|> >1) Without property rights, what happens when two people want to use
|> >the same item at the same time, and neither is willing to back down?
|> 
|> Whoever was using it first has tenancy as long as they are not 1) using more
|> than their fair share of the earths resources 2) and the object embodies
|> only as much labor as they have contributed to society (baring those things
|> provided in the communist part of the economy by a decision of society).
|> 

	What is a fair share of the earth's resources?  Is there an objective
answe to this or is it subjective?  And if it is subjective, who gets to dtermine
this?

	HOw do you measure the value oflabor given to society?  Without money as
the standard, what would you use?  And what is a decision of society?  Do
minority or individual viewpoints count?  Suppose there isno consensus, whose
views take prcedence?

|> >2) If they get into a fight, are the allowed to proceed, or will other
|> >people forcibly break it up?
|> 
|> If the fight is non consensual it would be broken up.

	By whom?  What are people's incentives for helping out if there is direct
personal risk?  Won't the free rider effect undermine this?
|> 
|> >3) Can you use force to prevent others from entering your home, or can
|> >anyone off the street decide they want to live with you?
|> 
|> I think a majoritarian society would allow you to eject someone coming into
|> your private area, i.e. would allow for private areas, and would help you
|> eject someone who violated that privacy. Force in the sense of injury or
|> death would be reserved for self-defence. In practice the two, forced entry
|> and the threat of injury, might come together and justify the use of
|> self-defence. Comprable housing would be provided for all, or at least
|> minimal housing, reducing any self-justification for such forced entry.
|> 
	Who will provide housing?  Who will insure it will be
comparble?  Suppose, my house is bigger than average, will I be forced to have
strangers move in?

|> >4) If nobody owns anything, is anyone allowed to destroy anything?  Is
|> >nobody allowed to destroy anything?
|> 
|> If you created it, or created the equivalent in exchange, and society or the
|> earth was not harmed it would be a private act.
|> 
	What is harm to the earth?  It is not a person, it has no feelings. 
Do you have a definition of harm to the earth?

|> >5) What happens when nobody wants to do the unpleasant or boring jobs
|> >-- from working on an assembly line to shuffling papers in an office?
|> 
|> It will be automated, it won't get done, or I'll do it.

	Are you sure you would want to do those kind of jobs?	Today, people
will do those types of jobs because of pay.  I don't understand how say, garbage
collection, would be done in your type of society if pay was equalized.

				Daniel A. LaGattuta