From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 21:35:06 MDT
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Reason wrote:
> A good view (not sure if it's the libertarian view anymore, with or without
> definition-shifting quotes) is that there shouldn't be any public places.
> Everything should be privately held; then you wouldn't have these issues, or
> indeed any need to be a busybody and worry about how other people are
> managing their lives and property.
Come now. If Spike and Max and I formed a cooperative to purchase Central
Park and take it private, only allowing people over 5'8" (my height)
to enter the park "free" (shorter people have to pay $1.00/entrance)
do you really think the need to be a "busybody" would go away?
The "need" to be a busybody would seem to be cast in the framework
that everyone *should* be equal. It is the desire to level the
playing field -- is is derived from "we hold these truths to be
self-evident" (that all men and women are created equal). Not!
Spike is a better engineer than I am, Amara is a better scientist
than I am, Eliezer is a better theoretician than I am, Max is a
better philosopher than I am, Greg may be a better logician than
I am (to be resolved at some future date). If the agenda of
libertarian privitization of "public" resources would end up
denying me access to such resources, can you make the case that
I should support that process?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:27 MST