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?