From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Boycott
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.053902.7546@tamsun.tamu.edu> sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
| In article <1992Sep2.030638.15123@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
| > 
| >So you argue that Mr. Fischer has the Right to Play Chess _wherever he
| >pleases_.  For example, at my house -- with or without my permission.  
| >Don't I have any private property rights?  Mr. Fischer does not have the 
| >Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ because it may please him to 
| >Play Chess at my house.  It is tyrants like Mr. Harrington who seek to 
| >deprive us of our private property rights.
| 
| I thought it was quite clear that the "wherever he pleases" clause
| in question was in regards to geographical location.

I notice that instead of responding to the substantive point of whether
Mr. Fischer's Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ is conditional
or unconditional you instead take a shot at the above.  No matter.
My main objection is with the predictable puerile tantrum to be thrown 
over yet another Right which the adepts can discern hidden within the
penumbra of what ``free-thinking individuals'' consider to be Important.

| Isn't the whole
| crux of the idealistic boycott advocates' argument that this is taking
| place in Yugoslavia?

I suppose that you would prefer every citizen conduct his own foreign
policy.  Tsk, tsk, that totalitarian Constitution has denied ``free-
thinking individuals'' the right to conduct their own foreign policy.  
Oh, that's right, according to my libertarian friends there should be 
no foreign policy ... just a happy-go-lucky band of ``free-thinking 
individuals'' pursuing their own rational interests.  

There are many levels of hostility.  A foreign policy decision might be 
taken which restricts the freedom of an individual or a corporation to 
trade or do business in a foreign country.  Such a decision is taken
to gradually step up pressure on the foreign power.  Mr. Fischer does
not have the Right to conduct his own foreign policy by granting himself
an exception to the embargo.  Of course you will argue that the Government 
has no Right to embargo another country.  In which case I suggest that 
you had better get busy because you have an entire constitution to rewrite.  

| Thus, your introduction of private property
| and the "in my house" analogy is a non-sequiter.

My introduction of the "in my house" analogy wasn't so much a non sequitur 
as it was ridicule of the extremism of your first response.  The first word 
out of libertarians' mouths always seems to be ``totalitarian'' and this
renders discourse with them .

| We're not debating
| whether Fischer should be allowed to hold a chess match in someone's
| house without consent of the property owner.

That is partially correct, we are not debating.  This is my final post on
this subject (unless something new and interesting comes up ;-).

| Those, you among them,
| that claim he hasn't the right to play are stating that he cannot
| play in an _entire_ country AND in a public locale (or otherwise
| a private locale _with_ consent of property owners). If this distinction
| isn't clear, then I suppose I'm wasting my breath...

I said that he hasn't the Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ if 
you disagree then please delineate just precisely how this _right_ is 
to be guaranteed.  What if a foreign power tries to prevent Mr. Fischer 
from exercising his Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_?  Should 
we send in the Marines to secure the desired venue?  Well, no, we can't
have any ``foreign adventures,'' so you argue that as a practical matter 
every governemnt save our own has the right to influence Mr. Fischer's 
choice of venue in pursuit of their foreign policy.
 
| Now that I've (hopefully) cleared that up, I stand by my previous
| post completely and I see nothing in your followup that answers
| my question(s) concerning just _who_ should determine what 
| Fischer is allowed to do [#include <standard disclamer.h> i.e.
| barring the victimization of others]. 

He who frames the question wins the debate.  Don't worry, Mr. Fischer's
brain is so full of woolyboogers that he will have no trouble pleading
``not guilty by reason of having a brain so full of woolyboogers that 
he will have no trouble pleading ``not guilty ...


Best regards,

-- 
Will Bralick                          |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
             wbralick@afit.af.mil     |  we must proportion our efforts to 
             bralick@cs.psu.edu       |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess