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