From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:03:10 GMT

In article <Bx951K.7o6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>In <Bx8zoK.EFz@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>>	1. I am a libertarian. That is I favor the maximum amount of personal
>>	   liberty consistent with a minimum of social order and lack of 
>>	   violence.

>So does George Bush.

Unless you want to use drugs, have an abortion, burn a flag, pray
freely to a different god, have sex with someone of the same sex, vote
for whom you want, drive without being stopped at a checkpoint, carry
cash through an airport without having it stolen by federal agents, live
in your home without fear of it being searched without probable cause, etc.

(Note, I am *NOT* claiming that Bill Clinton is pro-choice on all of
these, but I think he'll be better than George Bush.)

>>	2. Property has been part of the advanced
>>	   cultures of the world since the agricultural revolution.

>Only property in the sense of land ownership, which before that was basically
>a renewable resource.  I suspect property in the sense of "possessions", as
>you use it in your next paragraph, was around long before that.

>>	   initiation of agression. Sure you own your car, but you can't drive
>>	   any where and anyway you want. Society will regulate at least in
>>	   a minimal fashion the use of property, and this is effectively
>>	   limitation of property rights. Even a libertarian must have
>>	   second thoughts about his neighbor openning a badly run toxic
>>	   waste dump next door.

>You *can* drive anywhere you want, so long as you don't trespass on the
>property of others without their permission.  Public roads?  Like other
>manifestations of publically owned property, they suffer from the tragedy
>of the commons.  If we got rid of them, there would be no social restrictions
>on the use of one's car.  As far as toxic waste dumps, "badly run" is a
>judgment call.  If the dump is leaking onto your property (or you're afraid
>that it will), sue him.  If not, you have nothing to complain about.  
>Certainly a libertarian, or any other person, would be concerned about a
>nearby waste dump, but that does not automatically imply that the best way
>to deal with the problem is government regulation, which is easily
>circumvented by greasing enough pockets.

Sometimes, however, it seems to me that government regulation (of some
sort, not necessarily the type we have now) DOES make more sense in some
environmental type cases.  Does it *really* make sense to let the
factory owner spew pollutants into the air and then force someone nearby
to wait until they develop cancer 20 years down the road and then try to
prove that the pollution caused it?

Or what about car ownership?  Individually, no car pollutes enough to be
able to identify it as the one which caused that cancer.  But collective
car use certainly *can* lead to air pollution/smog which can lead to
health problems.  So can you deal with it non-collectively?

>>	4. I stand with the principle that property use if not ownership, must
>>	   be constrained to be consistent with the principle of non-agression
>>	   and forbidding the reckless imposition of hazard.

>But who gets to decide what is "reckless"?

Me.  :)  None of this democracy majority rule crap.  I get to decide.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59437 misc.legal:19765