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