Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis Message-ID: <4164@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 20:56:41 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.4164 Posted: Tue Nov 5 20:56:41 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 06:53:43 EST Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 50 In article <233@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Do you obtain just ownership of (say) land even if your appropriation >of it makes others, who are no longer at liberty to use the land, >worse off than they would otherwise have been? Do you have the right to stand undisturbed, even though I would like to swing my arms through the space you occupy, and I am thus discommoded by your existance? Of course you do--my right to swing ends where your nose begins. Rights of *any* kind are circumscriptions on the actions of others, and the others are thus "worse off than they would have been". >Nat's argument seems to be that the only way a person could unjustly >hold property in Libertaria is through imperfections in the judicial >system, which I would certainly allow in socialism or any other >proposed social system. But: my argument is not that Libertaria is >imperfect in practice, like all other systems. My argument is that >it permits systematic distributive injustice, i.e., it is *based on >theft* (unjust appropriation). It is not a question of random >imperfection, but of systematic blindness to questions about the >moral legitimacy of certain kinds of private property. Put simply, you don't believe in private property, so you object to any system based on it. This is a consistant position, but you are mostly wasting time debating particular points of the system. I personally believe that the market tends to redistribute property in a just way over time, so that if you were to hand property out completely at random, it would tend to approach a just distribution anyway. The reason is that people tend to use up resources, and thus large holdings tend to diminish; whereas people who are productive and frugal will amass wealth whether they had it or not at first. Since I *know* Richard disagrees with this definition of "just distribution" let me state a weaker version about which we can argue enlightenedly without merely screaming contradictory axioms: Given two different distributions of property (over the same population) A and B, over time subsequent distributions as determined by the market, A' and B', A'' and B'', ... A(n) and B(n), then A(n) and B(n) tend to approach each other, and do not continue to resemble A and B significantly. >But socialism, at least versions that I could accept, would allow >individuals to express their preference and choose between taking >risks and the security of the status quo, ... and eat their cake and have it? Sounds great, like a campaign promise, but if you really allow people to take risks *and get the consequenses*, you will *still* have paupers (having risked and lost) and capitalists (having risked and won). So let's see the details, please. --JoSH