Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech and Assembly i
Message-ID: <28200033@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 10:59:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200033
Posted: Mon Jul  8 10:59:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 04:25:27 EDT
References: <678@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 70
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-67800:inmet:28200033:000:3061
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jul  8 10:59:00 1985


>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb /  3:22 pm  Jul  5, 1985 ****/
>> From Michael Sykora: 
>> I disagree, since I believe "freedom of speech" means that neither the
>> government nor private individuals can shcoerce one to stop speaking,
>> unless such speaking violate someone's right to life, liberty and
>> justly-acquired property.
> 
>So in other words, workers cannot be fired for attempting to organize
>a union or in other ways expressing their opinions. A commendable
>stand.

Are you seriously trying to interpret Sykora that way?  I don't see
ANYTHING in his statement saying that one has the right to a particular job.
 
>> 
>> >Demonstrations typically take place on public streets and public parks.
>> >Where will they occur if all such property is privately owned and
>> >the owners don't like such dissent?
>> 
>> I suppose they won't.  I don't see this as necessarily bad.
>
>This is one of our precious freedoms as U.S. citizens.

Where will demonstrations be held if all private citizens are locked up
for tax evasion in OUR society?  Absurd?  The very word!  But just as
likely as a libertarian society where no property owner agrees with a
particular set if ideas, and no property owner is willing to tolerate
ANY set of ideas being touted.

>> 
>> >Is this really promoting either freedom or liberty?
>> 
>> Absolutely.  It is impossible for everyone to be completely free and
>> at the same time have rights.  A system based on rights to life, liberty
>> and justly-acquired property seems best able to maximize freedom
>> without anarchy.
>> 						Mike Sykora
>
>Ah, I am glad that you begin to see that there is some need to balance
>individuals' rights.  

"Begin to see"?  Tsk, Sevener.  It seems to me that Mike has said
nothing that contradicts other things he's said.  

>But I find it curious that you are so willing to
>take away a basic right of citizens in this country since its inception
>in order to protect the rights of "justly acquired property".
>Curious, but hardly surprising.....

What basic right is that?  I don't recall that freedom of assembly on
private property against the will of the owner was ever codified in 
the constitution.  I don't recall that libertarians 
(particularly minarchist libertarians) have ever argued that
all land would be in the hands of private individuals (remember, please,
that I have consistently argued on a "first claim and use" basis).

In particular, I've pointed out that an obvious thing for the each ACLU
chapter to do, should they find themselves in a libertarian society, is
to buy some land, get a trust fund to administer it (as a park, say) and
guarantee free speech to anyone who wants to speak there.  Given the traffic
in net.politics, they could probably even make money at it by charging
a dime for admission (or asking, but not insisting, on a donation).

Of course, depending on how the libertarian society came into being,
such an explicit pigeonhole for free speech would probably be unnecessary.

>               tim sevener whuxl!orb
>/* ---------- */
>