Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism & basketball
Message-ID: <420@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 17:30:30 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.420
Posted: Wed Jan  9 17:30:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 23:03:21 EST
References: <272@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <648@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 29

> > [Let me throw in another libertarian fable here, although it is not directly
> > relevant:  The Mayflower lands, and most of the Pilgrims remain on board to
> > settle on a political constitution.  One Pilgrim, however, sneaks ashore and
> > claims Massachusetts.  According to libertarian principles, the other
> > Pilgrims will have to rent or buy land from the one who owns Massachusetts,
> > or else move on to New Hampshire.  Anything wrong with this scenario,
> > libertarians?]
> 
> I'm not a libertarian, but there seems to be one major flaw in the
> scenario: Massachusetts was already occupied when the Pilgrims
> arrived.  Now, if I recall my history correctly (and said history
> was correct to begin with!), the people who already lived in New
> England, as it came to be called, were willing to share the land
> with the new arrivals, but eventually the new arrivals and their
> descendants almost completely displaced the original owners of the
> land, and not always in a completely scrupulous manner (to say the
> least).
> 
> So why should those who occupy the land now be allowed to keep it,
> since they obtained it, indirectly, from someone who had no right
> to it?
> 
> Gary Samuelson
> ittvax!bunker!garys

the Indians had no concept that you could restrict another's liberty
to use or roam the land by claiming something called "ownership".
Why should ANYONE be able to claim they own the land?
  tim sevener    whuxl!orb