Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Property,justice,freedom Message-ID: <324@umich.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 14:54:23 EST Article-I.D.: umich.324 Posted: Fri Nov 8 14:54:23 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 07:27:31 EST References: <1099@mtuxo.UUCP> Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 36 Summary: darn, I must have missed some real juicy stuff In article <1099@mtuxo.UUCP> hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) writes: >If I understand him correctly, Carnes objects to two libertarian >positions in particular: > >(1) In cases in which no individual living today can prove the validity >of his personal claim to a property (as in cases of property stolen a >very long time ago), and in which current ownership is not the result of >a specific, proven felony, Libertarians tend to oppose redistribution >(even though the current owner's title may not be beyond question). >[...] >The manner in which the first of these positions follows from >self-ownership is fairly straightforward. For if one is the rightful >owner of one's own person and powers, than one is also the rightful >owner of anything produced by one's person and powers, or obtained in >voluntary exchange for the services or products of one's person. But if >such ownership is rightful, then it is wrong to deny anyone the ownership >of what he or she has produced, or obtained directly or indirectly >through voluntary transactions with the producer(s). Thus one should not >be able to terminate a person's ownership of anything in the absence of >PROOF that such ownership is NOT the result of production and voluntary >exchange. Position (1) above is a special case of this principle. The second-to-last sentence doesn't follow. A preponderance of the evidence, not PROOF, should be sufficient. You emphasize that the current owner is wronged by termination of possession if he got the goods legitimately; but you ignore the other side of the coin, namely that the non-current-owner is wronged if the current owner keeps the goods and *didn't* get them legitimately. >(2) Libertarians hold that the conversion into individual property (through >use or trade) of things not previously owned by anyone is an instance of >productive creation of wealth (rather than "theft"). >[...] I will deal with (2) in a separate posting. I can't wait -- I anticipate that that argument will be even less cogent. --Paul V. Torek "turn up those flames -- I hate cold weather!"