Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarianism & basketball Message-ID: <648@bunker.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 13:51:59 EST Article-I.D.: bunker.648 Posted: Fri Jan 4 13:51:59 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 23:48:23 EST References: <272@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 24 > [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