From: davidb@ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:03:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: atlas.davidb.713772212
Organization: University of Washington


Well, I'm sort of tied up with work this week and this thread has
gotten way beyond my ability to respond specifically to each poster,
so this will have to do.  Besides, several other posters have made
many of the points I would have made in response anyway.

First of all, the issue of force being applied against corporations:

1.  Rights against force apply to human individuals, not social
fabrications like corporations and governments.  The sole legitimate
purpose of any social fabrication is to serve human needs; any such
fabrication that fails in this regard should be liquidated.

2.  Property rights are normally defended by their proponents as
being valid because they derive from some initial voluntary social
contract.  Trouble is, there is not a nation on the face of the
planet where this is the case.  Property ultimately derives from
theft, confiscation, tyranny, and subterfuge.  As an example, in
the new world, most property can be traced to the conquest, swindling,
or outright theft (in most cases by coercive state power) of land
from native peoples.

3.  As far as workplace democracy getting in the way of the property
rights of stockholders, I don't have much sympathy for that argument.
I view rights as a concept by which to _prevent_ one person from
being able to manipulate and control other people, not as a way to
legitimize said manipulation and control.  One might as well whine
and moan about how the Romanian uprising interfered with Ceausescu's
"right" to rule "his" nation as he saw fit.


Don't confuse attempts to eliminate one kind of force and coercion
as an attempt to impose others (i.e. a "socialist police" poking
its noses into people's private lives to ensure that they are being
properly productive).  Freedom cannot be given by forcing people
to act in a certain way, it can only be gained by eliminating the
obstructions that prevent them from achieving certain outcomes,
and then giving them the freedom to figure out how to achieve these
outcomes _themselves_.  (Oh dear, I suppose I'm being "fuzzy"
now....)  The mechanisms I want would be largely decentralized
and ruled from the bottom up.

Finally, realize that there's more options for ownership than
private property or state monopoly over property.  Myself, I see
the central problem with property being the idea that the _actual_
_real world_ interactions between an individual and his/her
surroundings is irrelevant -- all that matters is this what kind
of words, seals and signatures are on a scrap of paper.  Suddenly,
complex questions like "Does XYZ Corp. have the right to dump
cyanide in the Puget Sound?" ends up being answered "Well, let's
see... is this piece of paper properly signed, sealed, and notarized?"

I'd much rather see emphasis placed on making individuals free and
ensuring they have the ability to control their surroundings, secure
in one's possessions), and to take whatever "property rights" derive
from this exercise.  And no, I do _not_ think the current system
of property rights accurately does this.

Read Proudhon's work _What Is Property?_ (alas, out of print and
fiendishly difficult to find) for a discussion of some of the
shortcomings of property rights.  (Disclaimer:  I only agree with
about 50% of what Proudhon wrote in this book (he has some especially
dubious mathematical "proofs" in it), but I do agree with its
central premise.)

--
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
    Sun OpenWindows...  the JCL of graphical user interfaces.