Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: The Myth of Robinson Crusoe : reply to Sykora Message-ID: <2380076@acf4.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Jul-85 02:35:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.2380076 Posted: Thu Jul 4 02:35:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jul-85 06:22:17 EDT References: <670@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: New York University Lines: 56 >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 11:24 am Jul 1, 1985 */ >Our society has created numerous laws against working at home >*for profit or exchange* NOT for one's own use. >My point was that no society, including >Communist societies have laws against creating products for *one's >own use* (unless such products themselves are banned e.g. guns and drugs). Why the differentiation between products for one's own use and products to sell, give away, destroy or whatever? In no case can the individual be considered to be harming anyone. >As a social relation between individuals the members of society have >the right to decide that certain relations should be regulated to insure >*protection of all individuals rights*. Let us say that X is engaged in voluntary trade relations with Y. Let us suppose that there is no dishonesty involved (yes, such transactions do take place). What business has anyone else of forcefully or frudulently interfering in such relations? >Most people would agree that murder is an unacceptable social relation. Murder is not a relation, but an action. >Most people would agree that workers should not be subject to arbitrary >punishment at work without the possibility of lodging greivances. >The capability to lodge grievances against the caprice of managers >who simply take a personal dislike to somebody is an important >*protection* of individual rights made possible by the labor union >movement. The only basis for judging such punishments and grievances is whether or not they violate the contract of employment. To consider anything else is tantamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game and blatantly unfair. >These advances were hardly an infringement of freedom but an >advance towards protecting individual's rights in the very important >social relation of employer-employee. Except of course when the worker had grievances with the union and the government said that the union is in charge and he has to listen to it. And when the government said that X had to join the union if he wanted to work in factory Y, even tho the manager of factory Y was willing to hire him anyway (or because he wasn't a union member). >The irony is that Libertarians wish to remove these rights in the >name of freedom and liberty! No, we wish to remove theses special priveliges in the name of freedom and liberty. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora