From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Libertarians (lost the original subject)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:00:52 GMT

This seems to have been swallowed by out news reader the first time
 posted it.  Apologies if it turns out to be a duplicate.  /June
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1992Apr7.093641.1335@hemlock.cray.com>,
rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>> Whoa!  The whole basis of libertarianism is that no one should be
>> allowed to force their ideology on anyone else.
>
>Part of the problem I have with Libertarians (generalizing) is statements,
>like the one above, which tend to distort, rather than clarify, the
>Libertarian position.  Libertarians most certainly support the use of
>force to defend (the Libertarian ideological view of) property rights.

I think the phrase "force their ideology" clearly implies and
initiatory use of force.  This is what libertarians oppose.  Only
those libertarians who are also pacifists have an objection to the
use of defensive force.  Libertarians believe in property rights and
that when someone attempts to use force to violate your rights (i.e.
take your property away from you) you have a right to use force to
prevent the violation of your rights (i.e. to keep your property).
There are no half truths involved here.  You can agree or disagree
with the premise that people have property rights, but we take that
as an axiom and aren't trying to hide it in the least.

>A more accurate statement is:  The whole basis of Libertarianism is that
>one should be allowed to force their ideology (or any other conditions) on
>anyone else that wants to use their property.  This force can only be
>avoided within the property an individual personally controls or to the
>extent that a person can convince others not to use their force (on the
>property that the others control).

Owning something means being able to control it's use.  If someone
wants to use something that belongs to you they are free to agree
to your terms or not to use it.  There is no force involved.

How does not recognizing property rights improve on this situation?
What if there is a piece of land and both Ted and Bill what to use
it for different purposes.  If it is to be used for anything one
will have to either convince or force the other to go along with
their idea of what it should be used for.  It Ted gets Frank to back
him up and they "democratically" decide to use it the way Ted wants
it to be used, haven't Ted and Frank "forced" their view on Bill?

>In the Libertarian view, the government is not allowed to restrict rights
>which is not the same as saying that people have rights (such as free speech).

This is just plain silly.  How can the governmnet be prevented from
restricting rights unless there is a presumption that people have
rights.  Of course, it still leaves open the question of what those
rights are.

>People have rights to the extent of they property own or can convince others
>to allow them rights (on the property others own).  For example,  the
>Libertarian party platform says:

"We hold these rtuths to be self-evident, that man is endowed by his
creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

And any constitutional scholar will tell you that "pursuit of
happiness" is just a nicer way of saying "property as Jefferson is
clearly paraphrasing Locke whose views most of the founders
subscribed to.

>  We oppose any  abridgment of the  freedom of speech through government
>  censorship, regulation or  control of communications media, including,
>  but not limited to, laws concerning:
>  ...
>  -- Electronic bulletin  boards,  communications  networks,  and  other
>  interactive electronic media  as we hold  them to  be  the  functional
>  equivalent of speaking  halls and  printing  presses  in  the  age  of
>  electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;
>  ...
>  We oppose government  ownership or subsidy  of, or  funding  for,  any
>  communications organization.
>
>So while they say "Electronic bulletin  boards, [...] deserving of full
>freedom;", they *only* mean freedom from government restrictions.  Since
>all electronic communication would be privatly owned, the only free speech
>a person will have is on the communications equipment that the person owns
>or to the extent that the other owners of communications equiptment are
>willing to allow it, if at all.

So are you saying that if I run a bulletin board I should be
compelled to give you access to it to blather on about anything you
want?  You're right, we most certainly do not support that.

>>                                                  As for
>> name-calling, what should someone be called, if not anti- (or at
>> least un-) libertarian, when they *do* accept the imposition of
>> ideology thru force?  Democracy is a system which if not bound by a
>> constitution allows the majority to do anything they want to the
>> minority by using force if necessary.  Libertarians believe that
>> democracy is a means to an end, the end being the support of
>> individual rights, not an end in itself.
>
>This should also say that the only "individual rights" are the right
>not to be killed/tourtured and the right to own property.  For someone
>to have other "individual rights" (such as free speech) they must have
>property or convince others to allow them those rights.

Well, if you really want to get technical :-) I'd say the *only*
right is the right to be left alone so long as you are refraining
from using force or fraud against anyone else.  Everything else is
corollary.

Stated more generally, libertarians believe that all rights are
negative rights; that a right is expressed by others refraining from
action against you.  We do not believe in the concept of "positive
rights" (e.g. a right to food, housing, shelter or a job) as that
imply an obligation on the part of someone else to supply it -- an
obligation which would essentially make a slave of the supplier.

>I've tried to avoid a discussion of whether the Libertarian view is
>"good" or "bad", but focus on an accurate description of Libertarian
>ideology.

I have not said anything in the above paragraphs that has not been
said by myself and other libertarians on the net many times over.
It is not appropriate to accuse us of half truths just because you
can not grasp the full import of what we are saying without our
spelling out all of the nitty gritty details every time we say
anything.

>Russ Anderson

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc