From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Property is *never* "unalienable"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:56:36 GMT

In a posting to talk.environment Alan McGovern writes:

AM:Property rights are not, never have been, and never will be "unalienable".
AM:No society that ever has or ever will exist will completely detach property
AM:rights -- or *any* rights -- from all consequences. 
..... ommisions.....

Nor will libertarians.  The ownership of property or the right to own property
does not confer a right to initiate force.

AM:It never will be either, if it is founded (as it seems to be) on the principle
AM:that principle ought to override reality come hell or high water. That would
AM:be suicidal, and wise -- or even middling muddle-through -- societies are
AM:not suicidal.

Au contraire.  The right to own property is founded in reality. Property is
necessary to maintain life. How could anyone live if they or someone who
provided for them did not have the implements to secure food, clothing,
shelter, safety etc..  The Constitutional right to persue hapiness is 
precisely the right to own property. In fact the was Jefferson's original
phrasing in his list of inalienable rights in an early  draft of the Declar-
ation of Independence.


AM:When you strip away the moral absolutism from the basis of Libertarianism,
AM:and allow enough compromise to make it even slightly viable, what you get
AM:is Reaganism. We tried that, it created a disaster, and now we are paying 
AM:for it. To the extent that Libertarianism were "really" tried, it would 
AM:create an even bigger disaster.

Nonsense. Whatever Reagan was doing, it was not minimal government 
libertarianism.  Reagan, regardless of his rhetoric, was a Big Govt. inter-
ventionist.
  [ommissions]

		*	*	*	*	*	*			

AM:Yoder also spreads the usual right wing extremist, anti-democracy lie that 
AM:market values are the totality of all values, and that there are no societal
AM:political or legal values which may be adopted by due process:

>Markets for
>resources do a pretty good job of evaluating the real values people place on
>the things and processes in question and motivate other choices accordingly.
>Now, if you think that sum of economic values ought not to be followed, you 
>can hardly claim to be in any worthwhile sense in favor of "democracy"...what
>you favor is a system where your clique rules over everyone else.

Both of you have a restricted notion of market.  A market is an arrangement
for the *voluntary* exchange of values. The values can be material, i.e.
tangible objects offered for sale. They can be services. They can also be
spiritual. For example, the informed praise of an audience is part of the
"payment" that an artist receives for his/her work.

AM:What I think is that anyone who denies the right of representative government
AM:to determine societal values and actions that go beyond the "sum of (market)
AM:economic values" is denying the legitimate government of the United States
AM:of America, and is an enemy of the Constitution. Your own freedom to speak
AM:this infamy is a *nonmarket* political value which is protected by the very 
AM:Constitution and political process which you seek to undermine with your 
AM:vicious doctrine that only markets and private wealth should determine all
AM:that is valuable, and should govern every aspect of our lives. 

AM:*Citizens* of a *democracy* will not be subjugated by such a pernicious 
AM:lie -- such a latter-day Circe's spell -- which attempts to reduce us 
AM:to nothing more than *appetites* at a *supermarket*. *Citizens* recognize 
AM:that beyond market values and "economic sums" there are values of public 
AM:interest, social justice, and moral responsibility -- and that among these
AM:is the responsibility not to bequeath future generations a biosphere that 
AM:is irreversibly worse for our having existed.

In the market place of ideas, freedom of speech is the freedom to trade.
I also point out our appetite for clean air, clean water, and a good view
of the sunset is a much an object of trade as anything else. I know of 
people who have spent good money to get a good view of the ocean.

AM:You, sir, are a true enemy of Democracy and of your Country. Fortunately,
AM:you and your faction are quite powerless to do really significant harm for 
AM:the foreseeable future, though you will undoubtedly make what mischief you
AM:can at every opportunity.

Let me get this right. Someone who advocates freedom to trade and produce in
the full sense is an enemy of the Republic. The same Republic founded on the
premise that individuals own their bodies (yes I am aware of the contradict-
ion of Slavery. It took a bloody war to resolve that.) and to choose how and
where they will spend their time. I think this a clearly untrue. A real 
honest to goodness free-marketeer will not advocate a principle which under
cuts his own freedom to trade and produce.  Free markets are the most demo-
cratic institution on earth. We vote with our money, we vote with our choices,
we vote with our feet. And it can be done every day, not just on special 
Tuesday-s in November.


------------
Alan McGowen

Broaden your view Alan. Man does not live by bread alone.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"