Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The FORCE of Property Message-ID: <1182@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 18:28:34 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1182 Posted: Fri Jan 11 18:28:34 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 00:52:44 EST References: <4521@cbscc.UUCP> <423@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 67 [] >Libertarians on the net have been constantly reiterating a concern >with the "force" of government. This is certainly a legitimate concern >and I am glad that our Constitution puts certain limits on that force. >However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property >will mean the end of all force is an error. Property can only be >maintained by force. How do I insure someone doesn't come on my land? >I use force, either calling in the force of the State or using my own >force. Either way excluding others from the use of my property requires >the use of force. If you enter my property without my permission, you have, in effect, initiated the use of force against me. Thus such force as is needed to get you off of where you have not been invited is justified. > That Libertarians and their philosophy may not lead >to reduced force and violence can be seen in their response to the >problem of gun control and the Goetz case. As I understand the situation, Mr. Goetz believed that force was begin initiated against him. > I will not say that all >Libertarians have argued in favor of the untrammelled distribution of >guns but some certainly have. And why? To inflict potentially lethal >force on people threatening their PROPERTY. So it turns out that >this proposed diminution of force is a chimera. So far as I can tell, your chimera exists only when Libertarians are threatened by others' force. In any other situation, true Libertarians simply would not use their guns (or any other kind of force). > Force >is justified (for Libertarians) in the defense of private property. >I would argue that force is to some extent *necessary* for the >existence of private property. Only in the presence of thieves and swindlers. >Once again we return to the example of the American Indians who had >no concept of land ownership. How then did the European settlers >manage to impose their definition of land ownership and claim >untamed land as private property? By brutal force. >If you wish to read about such force I would suggest "Bury My Heart >at Wounded Knee". It contains history and not fantasy about >the force involved in staking private property claims. I'll try to get a copy. > "As I was walking that ribbon of highway > I saw a sign said , "No trespassing" > But the other side of the sign said nothing > That sign was made for you and me" Woody Guthrie Why should land not be subject to the same inviolateness as any other kind of property? >tim sevener whuxl!orb -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]