Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!grunwald From: grunwald@uiucdcsb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarianism in One Lesson Message-ID: <11000101@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Oct-84 01:02:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.11000101 Posted: Fri Oct 12 01:02:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 07:01:47 EDT References: <28100018@uicsl.UUCP> Lines: 26 Nf-ID: #R:uicsl:28100018:uiucdcsb:11000101:000:1074 Nf-From: uiucdcsb!grunwald Oct 12 00:02:00 1984 Who is to be the final arbitrater of non-interference? How does one judge "honestly obtained" property? If I "own" land and a stream runs through it, do I own the stream? The entire stream? Through-out time? Can I dump my PCB's in it? What if this affects my neighbour? I'm not touching his stream, I'm just touching mine. From this example, it should be obvious that in a peaches and cream kind of world where everyone smiles a lot, Libertanism would work just fine. But in the world of checmical waste dumps, stream pollution, air pollution, etc, some central regulation and legislation is required. This regulation and legislation is not the action of "government," it is the action of the people of which this country is composed. Certainly, not every- one agrees with all regulatory decisions, but I think that almost everyone can see the advantage in an objective, non-paritisian judge. Who pays for this arbitration? Service fees? Charged against all stream owners? Or everyone? The world is not as simple as all that. Dirk Grunwald University of Illinois