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!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Democracy vs. Autocracy: "Libert"arian's freedom? Message-ID: <2380072@acf4.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 03:37:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.2380072 Posted: Wed Jul 3 03:37:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:21:41 EDT References: <8472@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: New York University Lines: 43 >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:45 am Jul 2, 1985 */ >In other words, you can have a soapbox to debate political issues in >the narrow space of your own home but to provide public parks to allow >anyone to speak or to provide access to TV and radio for all public views >is wrong? You seem to have excluded the possibility that a property owner sympathetic to the cause might offer property for these purposes as well as the possibility that the group could puchase or rent property for these purposes. I see no reason for such exclusion. >Instead one should allow public debate to be decided by the democracy of money? If people wish to discuss what they perceive to be "the issues" or anything else before voting, no one will stop them. >Is public debate and the right to circulate opinions and views served >when two candidates from major parties for Senator of California are >not placed on Los Angeles TV stations to debate because the TV stations >could make more money with commercial programming? What right to circulate opinions and views? What does such a right entail? Did it ever occur to you that the reasons the broadcasting of such debates doesn't yield as great a profit as other programming is because the public prefers watching other things? Should we force them to watch these debates because you and others deem them important. Could such actions be defended in the name of "freedom of speech?" Hardly. They could in fact be attacked on the grounds that they violate this freedom. (Note that I haven't said anything about how boring political debates are. :-) >Do workers have the right to discuss unions at their place of work? That depends on the terms of the contract they voluntarily entered into with their employer. Note that this is the same principle that would govern all contracts in a libertarian society. Thus, in such a society organized labor has no special priveliges. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora