From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 03:41:35 GMT

In <1992Apr8.173807.7129@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.071121.555@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>|> And how did you *gain* your property originally, if it wasn't through
>|> the initiation of force?  Yes, you might have inherited it, or bought
>|> it, but how did the original owner get it without initiating force?

>   Huh?? By definition an "unowned" piece of property could not be taken
>by force. Just whom would you be forcing? If you were forcing somebody
>that would imply that there was a question of ownership - no?

You're starting with the basic assumption that just because no one has
claimed that property, the individual who gets there first has the right
to take it and call it their own.  And then use force to defend this claim.
I disagree.  (Or, more precisely, I disagree because there is a finite amount 
of property in the world.  If there were enough for everyone, I'd agree.)

>   Perhaps you are confusing, say, the original ownership of America where
>the indians had claim to land which the settlers abrogated? It certainly
>doesn't alter the fact that they had a legitimate claim and they were
>forced to give it up. Wrong is wrong.

Exactly.  And while it would be impossible (and disastrous) to correct 
those grievances by giving Native Americans their land back, that doesn't 
mean that we should accept this wrong.  We just need a different way of
fixing it.

>|> You can accept the idea that people have the right to the results of their
>|> labor without accepting property rights.  They aren't the same thing.
>|> This is a (the?) fundamental problem with libertarianism.

>   How do they fundamentally differ? How could we "have" the results of our
>labor without owning it? This seems to be a fundamental problem, but not
>with libertarianism ;-) 

The results of your labor are not the same thing as the property itself.
For instance, if you build a house, there are 2 inputs to that house --
your labor, and the trees you cut down.  If you become a farmer, you
have put labor into the final harvest.  But you have also used land.

You shouldn't be taxed on the labor you put into it (except for those
things we all agree are legitimate functions of government, like law
enforcement), but you *should* be for using resources.  IMHO, of course.

>   Perhaps you are thinking of the contorted fascist form of governments
>concept of property where people can have the fruits of their labor so
>long as the government doesn't lay claim on it ever? This certainly isn't
>ownership, or "having" it either. At best you might consider it to be an
>infinitely retractable loan.

>-- 
>		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
>	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
>		-- Hobbes to Calvin
>		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
>		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."