Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech and Assembly i
Message-ID: <683@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 08:36:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.683
Posted: Thu Jul 11 08:36:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:44:06 EDT
References: <706@umcp-cs.UUCP> <28200028@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 25

>  From nrh who never signs his name: 
> >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / umcp-cs!mangoe /  8:23 pm  Jul  3, 1985 ****/
> >And the third
> >important question: how do you prevent the rich from subverting a system in
> >which the right to property is supreme?
> >Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe
> 
> The right to property is not "supreme" in the sense that it gives you
> other rights. In particular, a person who owns a million acres has
> no choices about what you do on your single acre.
> 
 
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