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