Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Subject: belated note: another libertarian consistency problem
Message-ID: <2304@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-Jan-85 23:15:43 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2304
Posted: Sun Jan  6 23:15:43 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 07:54:19 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.politics:6651 net.philosophy:1340

The following was quoted a while back by Cipriani (I think it came
from an official libertarian party platform):
> 3.  Unowned Resources
> We oppose any recognition of fiat claims by national governments or
> international bodies to unclaimed territory.  INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT
> TO HOMESTEAD UNOWNED RESOURCES both within the jurisdictions of national
> governments and within such unclaimed territory as the ocean, Antarctica,
> and the volume of outer space.  We urge the development of objective 
> international standards for RECOGNIZING HOMESTEADED CLAIMS to private
> ownership of such forms of property as transportation lanes, broadcast
> bands, mineral rights, fishing rights, and ocean farming rights.  
[emphasis added --pvt]

Would a libertarian please explain (assuming he agrees) what is meant
by the second emphasized passage and show the first to be implied by
basic libertarian principles.  I contend that, if "homesteading" means
what it would appear to mean (i.e., acquiring a permanent, bequeathable
property right), the first emphasized passage is not (unless qualifiers
are inserted) consistent with basic libertarian principles.

		Touche, --The Accomplished Iconoclast,
			Paul V. Torek (reply-to:)wucs!wucec1!pvt1047