And I would agree with that distinction. You seem to be under the impression that all Libertarians (or libertarians) are survivalists types eager for complete anarchy and zero government. My own brand of libertarianism has room for government (who else to establish and enforce the laws). In addition, I think there is another distinction I’ll bring up in passing: I’m for private property rights obviously. This doesn’t mean that ALL property MUST be private. I’m a firm believer in public lands controlled and monitored by the government.
And I would disagree with you that freedom of speech should be protected because its infinite while individual property rights should be disbanded or curtailed (which it seems is the case you are making) simply because land or other material goods are somehow finite (have you looked up lately? Big universe up there, ehe?).
I again would disagree…I think all our essential rights boil down to private property in one form or another. Again, you seem to be saying its an either or proposition…either we allow private property rights or the public must take control. This seems extreme to me. As I said…I think a mix is essential.
Perhaps US Libertarians DO hold those beliefs…doesn’t mean I’m in lock step with them. Nor are most of the other libertarians on this board. Perhaps…just perhaps mind you…you should ask for individual opinions before painting with such broad brushes, or building such strawmen? Just a thought Daniel. Especially since I know you’ve at least seen the stances of guys like Sam and John Mace and Bricker, even if you might not have seen such an obscure poster as myselfs views.
The condition you set (“finite supply”) is obviously insufficient – everything is in “finite supply”. I’m not convinced that a criterion more in line with what you presumably meant (“sufficiently limited to make cornering the market a realistic possibility”?) obtains in the case of the airwaves.
That said, the general argument is valid for some situations (such as the valley with one route in or out).
How do you enjoy the right to publish without owning a paper and printing apparatus (if the people who do own them don’t like what you have to say)?
How do you enjoy the rights generally described as “privacy” if you don’t own your living space (either outright or insofar as a set of contractual rights extends)?
How do you enjoy the right to own guns without, well, owning a gun?
This looks to me like an attempt to erect a distinction without a difference, for the ad hoc purpose of divorcing “property rights” from other rights by replacing the former with a functionally identical but differently labelled concept.
Sure. If I may remind you of my original comment that started this whole shebang off:
I’m not dismissing property rights. Instead, I’m putting them on a lower order of priority than free-speech rights. Speech (with very few exceptions, exceptions that I acknowledge) doesn’t hurt anyone in its exercise: the right to expression is exercised by expressing. The right to private property, on the other hand, is exercised by using the threat of force to keep other folks from using your property. (Note that without that threat of force, you’re just exercising a right to use things: it’s the force that makes it private property).
Where freedom of speech is very rarely trumped by other concerns, private property is often correctly trumped by other concerns. Freedom of speech is fundamental; private property is a means to an end.
Surely you realize how silly that last comment is; unless I’m unaware of the rapid pace of space colonization, the only real estate relevant to the discussion is that on earth. The infinite nature of speech means that my exercise thereof does not impinge on your exercise thereof. The finite nature of property means that my exercise thereof may impinge on your exercise thereof. That’s why the lemniscate matters.
I’ve seen formulations that arrive at this conclusion, but the ones I’ve seen strike me as impossibly torturous: it’s much simpler to derive rights from the freedom of self-determination than to derive rights from private property.
Your desire for a mix is fine; I desire a mix as well. (For example, I’ve got no problem with folks having a right to own their residence and use the residence in a way that doesn’t inconvenience their neighbors). My objection is to folks who do not see a mix, or who weight the mix too heavily in favor of private property rights out of a (mistaken, I think) belief that private property rights are fundamental, rather than secondary.
I’m familiar with all y’all, thanks; that’s why I specifically mentioned US Libertarians, capital L, in that paragraph. Perhaps I should ask for individual opinions before painting with a broad brush; on the other hand, perhaps when I specify a group that doesn’t include you, you shouldn’t assume I’m talking about you?
Fantastic questions all! If the right to free speech is inalienable, and if one needs to own a paper and printing apparatus to exercise that right, then the logical conclusion is that everyone has an inalienable right to own a paper and printing apparatus. And so forth for the answers to your other questions: one has an inalienable right to a home, and to a gun.
However, I don’t think the ownership of a paper is necessary to freedom of speech; to the extent that any such thing is true, one could only argue that significant access to mass media in one form or another is necessary, and I’m not prepared to make that argument. I do think that everyone’s got the right to a roof over their heads, although ownership of that roof is not inalienable (merely usage of it), and I don’t think there’s a legitimate right to bear arms.
Not at all a distinction without a difference. When I lived in Washington State in the mid-nineties, there was a property rights movement afoot to require the government to compensate landowners for any “takings” (i.e., reduction in property values). Incredibly, the pro-property-rights folks used, in one of their brochures, the following example (paraphrased from memory):
An orchard exists next to an elementary school. The orchard would like to spray the apple trees with a pesticide that contains known carcinogens. The government forbids the orchard owner from doing so, because of the risk that the children downwind from the orchard will develop cancer. Therefore, the government should compensate the orchard owner for any productivity lost.
Such bizarre thinking is the product of the fetishizing of property rights as absolute: the government should pay landowners not to kill children if killing those children would be profitable. Instead, I propose that we view “property rights” as “usage rights”: the person who owns the orchard has a right to use that orchard in specific ways, as long as their use of the orchard does not harm other people.
Most folks, I think, would agree with this position. I’ve encountered far too many Libertarians who would not.
And I disagree. Lets just leave it at that, shall we? Its not like we can do the standard GD protocol of tossing endless cites at each other to ‘prove’ our point here. Freedom of speech is NEVER trumped by other concerns from my perspective…it is what it is. Private property is the same…its all about ownership. Its never trumped by the ‘good of the public’, just as Freedom of Speech shouldn’t be trumped because its convient to do so. You obviously disagree. Thats cool…differences in perspective are what makes to hampsters go 'round.
And I don’t put it at a lower order…I put them on par with each other, under the general heading of ‘freedom’. Again…you disagree and see it differently. I acknowledge that you see it differently than I do. I’m not likely to change my mind about it at this late date as its central to my own world view…and I’m not trying to make you see it my way either, certainly not in a Pit thread.
You used hyperbole and I felt I’d indulge in a bit myself. In case you haven’t noticed, we aren’t exactly running out of space on the earth yet either. Perhaps you live on the east coast somewhere…I can assure you that there is plenty of space still available out here in the west. So…saying that, to paraphrase, property is finite, while true, is kind of an exaggeration, no? In addition, I actually DO believe that mining and resource gathering WILL take place in our solar system at some point. In my lifetime? Perhaps not…but then, I doubt we’ll run out of ‘private property’ in my lifetime either, so its kind of moot.
Again…I don’t believe that public need trumps private property (or free speech). To me thats a very slippery slope headed to a place I’d rather not go. Obviously YMMV on this.
And see, I’m not trying to derive rights FROM either freedom of speech OR from private property. I think they are rights in themselves, not gifts to be given or withheld at the whim of either the gubberment OR the ‘good of the people’.
Well, then we are partially in agreement, if not on the details than broadly speaking. I also object to folks who weight too heavily one side of the ‘mix’ as opposed to the other. Where the balance comes out is probably something we will just have to agree to disagree on, ehe?
Ah, perhaps I did. Certainly there is a wide variation between my own views and those of other lib posters on this board…and there is a wide difference between those views and the party line spouted by the US Libertarian party. I don’t think there is a single member of this board who is in lock step with the big ‘L’ libertarians…myself included. And if you look back at Sam’s earlier posts in this thread it seems he is more in agreement with you than me on the importance of individual property rights as well. Sorry if I included myself when you were talking about the US Libs…FWIW I would probably agree more with you than them about many subjects. I don’t find them very ‘real world’ practical, though interesting from a purely intellecutal perspective.
I assume my right to free speech does not extend so far as to trump your property rights in all cases. Otherwise I would be entitled to insist that I be allowed to make use of your printing press, Internet servers, or radio transmitter.
It sounds to me like you are arguing that a right to life trumps property rights, not simply free speech. Is that it?
I do not claim that freedom of speech is only available to the owner of a printing press; nor do I believe that the owner of a printing press may use it in any fashion that he or she desires. One has the right to express oneself without fear of reprisal for doing so, but not in whatever manner one desires to use.
When I was in college, some of my radical friends got pissed because the campus cops wouldn’t let them scrawl slogans on the sidewalk in chalk. “That’s unconstitutional!” they insisted. I alienated my friends by arguing with them, saying that as long as the restriction was content-neutral (i.e., slogans praising the cops would be equally forbidden), there was no restriction there on freedom of expression.
Same thing applies. My right to expression makes no claims about HOW I may express. I may not express my thoughts in Morse Code on your forehead, in spraypaint on your house, or in your printing press.
That’s close to right. The exercise of property rights may directly endanger life and health (viz. my previous example about the orchard and the school). When that conflict occurs, I am almost always going to side in favor of life and health. Many party Libertarians choose otherwise.
Freedom of expression never causes such a conflict: while speech may indirectly incite people to violence, it’s the violence itself that causes the problem.
No, because the right protected by freedom of speech is a negative one (i.e. the government may not prevent you from speaking), not a positive one (i.e. if your message doesn’t get out for reasons other than government interference, that’s just too bad).
This implies that the government must respect your private property rights if you have a printing press, but is not obligated to provide you with one if you don’t. Ditto for the other examples.
That became necessary when the government came up with various dodges to seize control of property “off the books” (i.e. the “owner” still has legal title, but not effective control).
The traditional doctrine of private property rights already includes this caveat (as it necessarily must to be internally consistent and universally applicable).
To make a valid comparison, either both sides must include the standard limitations (e.g. “property rights” does not include the use of property in a way that violates the property rights of others) or neither side may do so (e.g. “freedom of expression” includes sending nerve gas recipes to al-Qaeda).
It’s not very impressive to show that a cartoon of unlimited “property rights” is less defensible than a realistic picture of “freedom of expression”.
No, I didn’t think you were saying so. I was talking about cases where property rights conflict with free speech rights. I think I understand you to be saying that free speech rights do not trump property rights, since you can’t use my printing press even if you can’t express yourself without it.
That’s an interesting round.
Property rights trump free speech rights in most cases where they conflict. Life-and-health rights trump property rights in almost all cases where they conflict. But free speech rights trump life-and-health rights in some cases, because free speech cannot be limited even if it indirectly causes violence.
SteveMB - to clarify, do you define “health and life” rights as negative rights - you have the right not to be injured, but not the right to be supplied with what you need?
The gold standard? THE FUCKING GOLD STANDARD?!?!? We are supposed to place the fate of our economy in the hands of South Africa, China, Indonesia, and Russia? How about Uzbekistan, Peru, and Ghana? Mali? CANADA?!?!? Is he NUTS?!?!?
See, this is why the Libertarians have a way to go. They sound reasonable at first; maybe a bit whiny but they make some sense. Then they come running in from left field with shit like the gold standard.
The fringe lunacy of many in the Libertarian party is why it can’t crack out of the bottom 1% of the population in elections. That, plus they keep nominating terrible candidates.
But if the Libertarians would shed some of their absolutism and work towards moving the country towards more freedom on the margins, they could pick up more support. They’re not going to elect a president, but even 10% support as a third party would be dramatic and give the Libertarian position reasonable clout.
But I get the feeling the Libertarian party is just not that serious. They strike me as a fan club more than a political party, and their conventions are more like Star Trek conventions than political conventions. Lots of geeky types talking about privatizing the military and roads and building big ships on which to set up utopia (“Freedomship”).
Basically, the Libertarians need to stake out ground just slightly to the right of Republicans on economic matters, and about where the Democrats are on social issues. If they could find a charismatic leader who’s well known to the public and serious, they could be a real threat.
This next presidential election is going to provide the best chance for a third party since 1980. For the first time in over 50 years the incumbent government won’t be running a candidate, and both parties have been skidding off towards their ‘base’ leaving a very dissatisfied center. If things continue as they are, a properly positioned third party could get 20% of the vote, or maybe even more. It just won’t be the Libertarians.
The big issues in 2008 are likely to be Medicare/Social Security/government spending in general Do the Libertarians have a non-radical suggestion for these? That would play in Peoria?
But I think you are right on the money with the idea that 2008 will be a window of opportunity for a third party. I had high hopes for Ross Perot and the Independence party, but they seem to have shaded off into irrelevancy.
But I think you are correct that “fiscal conservative and social libertarian” is the wave of the future - or should be. And some kind of structural changes to government spending patterns - sunset laws, zero-base budgeting, genuine and therefore unpopular cuts - and these will have to come from someone with nothing to lose. Both the major parties have an interest in the status quo. Maybe a third party can grab enough vote (like Perot did) to get the attention of the country. Not that they would be the ones to actually implement the ideas, but the one who wins the election might be galvanized to make some real changes.
But it won’t come from populist rhetoric. Because, as I said, genuinely addressing spending problems will not be popular. And the more realistic the solutions are, the more people it will piss off.
