From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:19:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr8.071957.1489
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr7.210052.21324@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>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).

And how did you *gain* your property originally, if it wasn't through
the initiation of force?  Yes, you might have inherited it, or bought
it, but how did the original owner get it without initiating force?

>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.

You can accept the idea that people have the right to the results of their
labor without accepting property rights.  They aren't the same thing.
This is a (the?) fundamental problem with libertarianism.

>>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?

If Ted runs over to this piece of land and puts a sign on it, "Property
of Ted" and then gets Frank (and the rest of the government) to help him
prevent Bill from using the property, haven't Ted and Frank and the
government "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.

Yes, but Locke's defence of acquiring large amounts of private property
(ie more than subsistence level) is incredibly flawed.

[lots deleted]

>>Russ Anderson

>/June

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc