From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:22:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.172449.7381@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>How about people who don't like the Libertartian party's stand on
>>property/economic issues?
>
>If you mean, who supports most of the Bill of Rights, but is willing
>(even eager) to trample over an individual's property rights? I think
>the Democratic party fits this description.

Hmm - what I have previously read doesn't exactly support that, ie.
the Democratic party supporting personal freedom.

Bu anyway, I didn't mean quite that - I meant what some people call
"propertianism", ie. the use of "property rights" for things like
land, "intellectual property", breathable air and such and the belief
that this "propertarianism" magically solves all the problems.  By
economic issues I meant partly social security provided by government
or government regulation on social security and partly the idea that
even though individuals have rights to do business as they like,
corporations don't have such rights.  Though I'm not sure how to get
money for social security without breaking someone's rights ;-).  One
possible would be heavy taxing on the inheritance.

>(If you also oppose
>"big government", then I've afraid you are stuck: Massive and active
>government involvement seems to go hand in hand with violating property
>rights.)

This would be an interesting issue to discuss.  But I think you're too
quick to jump into conclusions - I don't think massive and active gov.
involvment would necessarily be inevaitable, though off-can I can't
suggest what possibilities there might be.

>I hope I misunderstood you, and if so I appologize. But there is something
>repugnant to me about supporting only those rights _you_ benifit from.

I hpe this article clarifies what I meant.  My main objections of the
Libertarian system (and I admit it's not based on thorough reading of
the platform, and I haven't read too much on libertarianism in any
case) included the "land as property" etc. stuff, ie. I don't think I
have a problem with property rights as such but just the scope of
them.  For example I'm not sure if I think property rights should
extend to inheritance, and I do think property rights shouldn't be
anywhere near absolute with regards to land, air or such, to the point
where "property" would be a bad concept to use for it.  Another
disagreement is the "absolutely no social security" argument I often
see - I would like to see some basic economical survival based on
something not at the whims of "contributors" who often place all kinds
of restrictions on the use of the money, but there's the problem of
getting the money without infringing on someone else's rights.

>There is alot to be said for the indivisibility of liberty: In the 
>long run, I don't believe it is possible to retain _some_ of your basic
>rights, only all or none.

This does seem a too "ideologist" or dogmatic viewpoint to me - in
theory I agree but in practice people are bound to have different
opinions on just what belong to these basic rights.  Above I have
tried to clarify differences between what I consider basic rights and
what the Libertarian ideology considers basic rights.

I'll repeat that these are not in any way very well thought-out
thoughts, and I am open to discussion on these things.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution