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!"