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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Public vs Private Property Message-ID: <2380097@acf4.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 19:28:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.2380097 Posted: Fri Jul 12 19:28:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Jul-85 21:13:38 EDT References: <656@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: New York University Lines: 17 >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:36 am Jul 11, 1985 */ >They don't? Well what if the absurd Murray Rothbard scheme of private roads >(which at least some Libertarians have supported) were implemented then >one person's single acre won't be worth much if they can't get anywhere >else from it. What if such private road owners decide they don't >like blacks using their roads or "unsavory" elements they don't like? >What Libertarians are actually proposing is not an advance but a >regression to the feudal system in which kings and nobles ostensibly >"owned" everything- "public" roads? There was no such thing- they were >all the "king's roads" at his personal whim and disposal. >The only difference would be ownership by corporations and their >wealthy stockholders rather than an aristocracy. The repression of >public rights would be the same. > tim sevener whuxl!orb What purpose is served by misrepresenting the views of libertarians?