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