Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The FORCE of Property
Message-ID: <1897@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 02:18:53 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1897
Posted: Wed Jan 16 02:18:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 10:35:17 EST
Lines: 140
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-42300:inmet:7800275:000:7334
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan 15 01:10:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb /  6:32 pm  Jan 11, 1985
>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.  

Excuse me, but I don't recall hearing any libertarian advance that 
position.  To tell people that your opponents make points that your
opponents do not in fact make is called "building a straw man".

>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.  

Agreed.  You do not mention that the threat of force is enough, but as
this is a variety of force, it counts.  Of course, no actual physical
violence need occur if people are scared to come on your property because
they know you will defend it.

>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.  

Note the smooth introduction of violence here.  Let's be clear on this
point: are you suggesting that widespread libertarian society would
involve less FORCE?  Or less VIOLENCE?  I wouldn't mind a society where
everyone wore guns (lots of FORCE) if the Homicide rate were 1/100th of
ours (less VIOLENCE).

As I understand it, Goetz felt
threatened by the four youths who asked him for money.  He reacted.  Do
you disagree with his right to defend himself?

As for the relationship between gun control and the Goetz incident
-- Goetz's gun was illegal -- he was denied a permit when he applied for
one after being mugged in Canal Street Station in New York City.  The
issue of gun control should not be a big part of this discussion because
gun control was IN FORCE against Goetz.  Sure did a lot of good, huh?

>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.  

Somebody had a good quote about this: "You are not being hanged because
you stole a horse -- you are being hanged so that horses will not
be stolen".  Another good one: "Millions for defense, but not one cent
for tribute".  The notion that people made defenseless and then 
defended by an inadequate, oddly-controlled police department will
be less in jeopardy of their lives than a similar bunch of people
able to defend themselves echoes through your argument.  People
tend not to attack those who they know can defend themselves -- that's why
self defense experts emphasize that one should walk decisively
in a "bad" neighborhood at night (if one must walk in such a place at all).

>So it turns out that
>this proposed diminution of force is a chimera.  

PING!  My bogosity meter just sounded off there -- IF you can prove that
gun control, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, reduces violence, THEN you
can make the statement that any society with gun control would be less
violent than one without it.  That's about it.  In the case of Mr.
Goetz, you are FAR from being able to prove it.  He'd been mugged before
in the subway -- that time he didn't have a gun.  This time he did have
one.  How many times would you prefer that Goetz get beaten up or shaken
down on the subway before you concede that he's got a right to defend
himself?  If statistics show a drop in such crimes in the next couple
of months, will you dismiss this as "not really a diminution" in 
violence?  By the way, somebody recently posted an article to net.flame
suggesting that all four of Goetz's victims had criminal records.  

>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.

No argument there.  It's worth repeating here, though, that libertarians
do not support the INITIATION of force or fraud, and that it is perfectly
possible to have private property if nobody initiates force, or if force
may be used to protect such property.

An important point, one you seemingly overlook, is that force is to
some extent *necessary* for the existence of public property also.  The
State historically has a hard time convincing anyone to not vandalize
short of force.  The state also tends to want to protect the "worker's
paradise", and, owning everything, may have to enforce its property 
rights by confiscating your apartment, your food, your religious
articles, and sending you off to Siberia.  Very seldom do people
go along with this sort of conduct without at least the implication
that force will be used to back up the State's claim.  If you want
to argue that NOBODY should own property (including the state) I suggest
you examine the consequences of that idea.  If you wish to argue that
private property leads to more violence than public property, let's
return to the Indians....

>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?  

OH SILLY ME!  And here I thought that the claim of land was made
by governments acting contrary to libertarian philosophy!  Silly
me!  I should have known that the Mayflower Compact was a private
undertaking, with no backing by the state!  Naturally, no state, 
particularly a socialist state, would ever use force against
an indigenous population, and certainly not to the extent that
PRIVATE COMPANIES did in the New World (or could that be wrong?).

Yessir, that privately-run US cavalry was certainly to blame, or
whoever was in charge of it, the stockholders, I guess (or could
that be wrong?).  Yes, it's a good thing that no governmental 
force was used to kick the Indians off land they'd a legitimate claim
to, and no "Trail of Tears" enforced by governmental power.

And of course, the fact that treaties were not kept with the Indians
was surely the result of private entities corrupting the
private arbitration services (somehow) right?  If not, your 
argument misses the point.

Look, if the colonial, or later, US government had been truly libertarian,
it would have been impossible to convince it to kick the Indians around
to satisfy the claims of settlers (unless the settlers could show a better
claim).  Settlers did coexist with Indians on other than "Kill them if 
they show up" terms, you know, and its no great stretch of the imagination
to imagine a libertarian government being a lot more difficult to prod
into action than the one we had.  

>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.

Excuse me, but I don't recall just what fantasy you're referring to.  If
it was the notion that libertarian (perhaps private) entities (as
opposed to governments) took this land from the Indians, you're right,
but that's YOUR fantasy.