Govt uses private investigators to watch quarantined
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/science/sciencespecial/18INFE.html?ex=1051243200&en=c0c66bc035169a16&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE They put a police guard on one patient at a hospital and have hired private security investigators to check on people in isolation. "This is a time when the needs of a community outweigh those of a single person." Ontario's health minister, Tony Clement
On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/science/sciencespecial/ 18INFE.html?ex=1051243200&en=c0c66bc035169a16&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
They put a police guard on one patient at a hospital and have hired private security investigators to check on people in isolation.
"This is a time when the needs of a community outweigh those of a single person." Ontario's health minister, Tony Clement
I will make what some here will probably think is a totalitarian sentiment: under extreme conditions, I support quarantine measures. Better yet, those seeking to avoid a disease should self-quarantine or isolate themselves. Or wear masks (I have a plentiful supply of 3M N95 respirators, for example...better to buy them when they are dirt cheap, ahead of an emergency, than to be scrambling to buy them later). A person who is known to be communicable is committing a kind of assault by spraying germs around. (Assuming the medical condition is as described.) Though it is a serious step to limit a person's freedom to move about on public property, this is one of the few cases, along with imprisonment for criminal convictions, where it is justified. I will gladly make this trade of liberties: * roll back all of the bullshit laws designed to protect people from themselves: laws against smoking, laws against other drugs, laws banning sexual practices. And get rid of 90% of all government functions and staff in general: roll things back to 1925 levels, in terms of percentages. (I would favor reducing government further, but 1925 levels would be a great start.) in exchange for: * infectious, communicable diseases may need quarantines Provided the quarantine is only for medical reasons, and is never used to isolate people as punishment, for political reasons, for economic reasons, etc., it's an extreme measure which is consistent, I believe with the Constitution. (And with anarchocapitalist principles, if we had such a system: one's insurers would likely insist on quarantine as a condition for continued coverage, for example.) A larger principle is that those who are in risky locations and/or social situations pay for their increased risk. So a person in Kansas should not pay for my earthquake risks, nor I for his tornado risks. A person living in Oregon, where essentially few natural risks exist, would be rewarded for his choice and a person living in hurricane country would be punished for his choice. Likewise, with disease. --Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill
On Friday 18 April 2003 16:04, Tim May wrote:
I will make what some here will probably think is a totalitarian sentiment: under extreme conditions, I support quarantine measures. ... Though it is a serious step to limit a person's freedom to move about on public property, this is one of the few cases, along with imprisonment for criminal convictions, where it is justified.
Another of the few powers I'd grant to the US Federal government which aren't spelled out in the Constitution is the ability to regulate the use of antibiotics. Careless use of them can lead to the development of drug-resistent bacteria, which adversely affects the whole population. I'd gladly trade increased governmental oversight of antibiotic usage for elimination of governmental meddling with drugs which don't affect anyone but the taker. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby
On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Friday 18 April 2003 16:04, Tim May wrote:
I will make what some here will probably think is a totalitarian sentiment: under extreme conditions, I support quarantine measures. ... Though it is a serious step to limit a person's freedom to move about on public property, this is one of the few cases, along with imprisonment for criminal convictions, where it is justified.
Another of the few powers I'd grant to the US Federal government which aren't spelled out in the Constitution is the ability to regulate the use of antibiotics. Careless use of them can lead to the development of drug-resistent bacteria, which adversely affects the whole population.
I'd gladly trade increased governmental oversight of antibiotic usage for elimination of governmental meddling with drugs which don't affect anyone but the taker.
I don't have a strong view on antibiotics, but to expand on my quarantine point, I think the Founders would consider it ludicrous that "civil rights" arguments might be used to allow someone with typhoid or smallpox or (perhaps) SARS to walk around in public spreading the diseases. This is why I support very limited government, so that true threats and true criminals can be stopped. Let anyone drink themselves to death, smoke themselves to death (or even let their own property be used for smoking), shoot up drugs, have damaging anal sex the way the fags do, and so on. But communicable diseases is/are one of the very few areas where "provide for the common defense" is eminently applicable. Again, provided there is no punishment aspect, no vengeance by the authorities aspect. I support this, even though I am presumably far from being in danger of being infected, for the "Rawlesian" reason that I would want these kinds of measures without knowing in advance my risk of getting the diseases. --Tim May (.sig for Everything list background) Corralitos, CA. Born in 1951. Retired from Intel in 1986. Current main interest: category and topos theory, math, quantum reality, cosmology. Background: physics, Intel, crypto, Cypherpunks
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:04:01PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
I will gladly make this trade of liberties:
* roll back all of the bullshit laws designed to protect people from themselves: laws against smoking, laws against other drugs, laws banning sexual practices. And get rid of 90% of all government functions and staff in general: roll things back to 1925 levels, in terms of percentages. (I would favor reducing government further, but 1925 levels would be a great start.)
Agreed, except for smoking in public. All smoking in public should be banned. No one has the right to pollute the air I have to breath, in any way. I shouldn't have to breath in or even smell someones else's drug as I walk down the street. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Saturday, April 19, 2003, Harmon came up with this... HS> Agreed, except for smoking in public. All smoking in public should be HS> banned. No one has the right to pollute the air I have to breath, in any way. I HS> shouldn't have to breath in or even smell someones else's drug as I walk down HS> the street. You know, by exhaling, you're releasing dangerous carbon dioxide into air, which is air pollution, so I'm going to propose a bill to prevent you from breathing in public, because you don't have the right to pollute the air I breathe. Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking. Everybody's 'second-hand smoke causes cancer' routine is based on a 1992 EPA report that manipulated data to fit their preconceived notion of what was 'bad'. They fit the facts to their hypothesis, not the other way around. They ignored legitimate studies that didn't support their hypothesis and had to actually lower their standards of risk assessment to 'prove' a connection between second-hand smoke and lung cancer. Find some real research by an INDEPENDENT party with real evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer. Cardiovascular disease is the biggest killer in America. This fraudulent EPA report estimates 3000 people die from second-hand smoke related illness each year. Almost 3000 people die EACH DAY from cardiovascular disease. Let's go over that again: second-hand smoke: 3000 per year cardiovascular disease: almost 3000 PER DAY So why are people trying to ban smoking in public instead of banning McDonalds and Burger King? Getting rid of McDonalds would surely ease America's cardiovascular strain, it would lower health insurance costs, the rest of the world might not consider us the bloated, fat-gorged leech on the ass of humanity, and Brazil might have some more forests. America would be much healthier if instead of eating at McDonalds people went to Subway, even if Subway was filled with chain-smoking nicotine fiends. But I guess it's a lot easier to pick on smoking than fast food. Car exhaust is far worse than cigarette smoke. Ban cars first. Oh wait, that'd be a bit inconvenient, wouldn't it. Wait, I know! Airplanes! They release more toxic fumes than anything! But that'd be inconvenient too. Hmmmm..... VOLCANOES! Yeah, volcanoes release more toxins into the air than the entire industrial revolution did! How do you ban volcanoes, though.... I'm sorry you don't like cigarette smoke. Don't stand downwind. Don't try to ban it, though. Banning. Ick. I'm always very distrustful of people who want to ban things. There are always better ways. -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:30:22PM -0400, stuart wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2003, Harmon came up with this...
HS> Agreed, except for smoking in public. All smoking in public should be HS> banned. No one has the right to pollute the air I have to breath, in any way. I HS> shouldn't have to breath in or even smell someones else's drug as I walk down HS> the street.
You know, by exhaling, you're releasing dangerous carbon dioxide into air, which is air pollution, so I'm going to propose a bill to prevent you from breathing in public, because you don't have the right to pollute the air I breathe.
Duh! You don't know much about biology, eh? CO2 makes plants grow. Plants and animals interact that way -- they exhale oxygen for us and we exhale CO2 for them.
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
I could care less what any report says, I get an immediate sick feeling from breathing tobacco smoke. And a great many other people do as well. (snip)
Car exhaust is far worse than cigarette smoke. Ban cars first. Oh wait, that'd be a bit inconvenient, wouldn't it.
No, actually, banning cars in cities is a great idea. And, as a matter of fact, since I ride a bicycle a lot, I often *do* get a sick feeling from breathing car exhaust, at least from some that are apparantly burning "reformutlated gasoline".
Wait, I know! Airplanes! They release more toxic fumes than anything! But that'd be inconvenient too. Hmmmm.....
Not for me it wouldn't. I'm overjoyed at the prospect of all the airlines going tits up. At least if the USG would let them instead of pumping more subsidies into them. I took my last commercial flight about four years ago -- never again.
VOLCANOES! Yeah, volcanoes release more toxins into the air than the entire industrial revolution did! How do you ban volcanoes, though....
Toxins? Particulates, yes, but not many toxins. And you're right, Mother Nature will always win in the end.
I'm sorry you don't like cigarette smoke. Don't stand downwind. Don't try to ban it, though.
"don't stand downwind" -- that's a pretty simplistic answer. Impossible to do when you're moving down the street. The bottom line is this: No one has the right to do something in their space that adversely affects my space, whether it's smoking in public or the farmer next door who sprays pesticides which drift over to my land, or puts chemicals on his land which get into my well.
Banning. Ick. I'm always very distrustful of people who want to ban things. There are always better ways.
Sure, I guess I could just walk around with a pellet gun and zap anyone whose smoke bothered me, right? Why not? After all, I'm not really seriously harming them, just more like a temporary annoyance. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Harmon Seaver wrote on April 19th, 2003 at 13:54:57 -0500:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:30:22PM -0400, stuart wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
I could care less what any report says, I get an immediate sick feeling from breathing tobacco smoke. And a great many other people do as well.
Then don't go where there's tobacco smoke.
(snip)
Car exhaust is far worse than cigarette smoke. Ban cars first. Oh wait, that'd be a bit inconvenient, wouldn't it.
No, actually, banning cars in cities is a great idea. And, as a matter of fact, since I ride a bicycle a lot, I often *do* get a sick feeling from breathing car exhaust, at least from some that are apparantly burning "reformutlated gasoline".
Well, most of us normal people _don't_ get sick from minor whiffs of car exhaust. Since you apparently do, I suggest you avoid it.
I'm sorry you don't like cigarette smoke. Don't stand downwind. Don't try to ban it, though.
"don't stand downwind" -- that's a pretty simplistic answer. Impossible to do when you're moving down the street. The bottom line is this: No one has the right to do something in their space that adversely affects my space, whether it's smoking in public or the farmer next door who sprays pesticides which drift over to my land, or puts chemicals on his land which get into my well.
Fine. Of course, this means that if I ever smell your farts, or your various odors, or start smelling rotten fish from your wife or daughter, I'll fine you $500 per offense. -- Tom Veil
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:25:55PM +0200, Tarapia Tapioco wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote on April 19th, 2003 at 13:54:57 -0500:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:30:22PM -0400, stuart wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
I could care less what any report says, I get an immediate sick feeling from breathing tobacco smoke. And a great many other people do as well.
Then don't go where there's tobacco smoke.
Right. Where is that? It's absolutely impossible to walk or ride a bike down a city street without breathing tobacco smoke. I'm always amazed at how many so-called libertarians don't get the concept that their rights end where my nose begins. Everyone should have the right to enjoy whatever drug they choose -- as long as their use of it doesn't interfere with other people's rights to not use it. So you really think some drug addict has a right to stand on the street getting his fix and at the same time forcing it upon everyone else in the immediate vicinity? I'm amazed that anyone too stupid to understand such a simple concept is even able to type on a keyboard. By the same logic, it should be alright for me to mix up some LSD and DMSO and carry it in a little squirtgun to spray smokers with, right? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Harmon Seaver wrote on April 20th, 2003 at 10:48:54 -0500:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:25:55PM +0200, Tarapia Tapioco wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote on April 19th, 2003 at 13:54:57 -0500:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:30:22PM -0400, stuart wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
I could care less what any report says, I get an immediate sick feeling from breathing tobacco smoke. And a great many other people do as well.
Then don't go where there's tobacco smoke.
Right. Where is that? It's absolutely impossible to walk or ride a bike down a city street without breathing tobacco smoke.
I've walked down many city streets, and I rarely find myself breating tobacco smoke.
I'm always amazed at how many so-called libertarians don't get the concept that their rights end where my nose begins. Everyone should have the right to enjoy whatever drug they choose -- as long as their use of it doesn't interfere with other people's rights to not use it. So you really think some drug addict has a right to stand on the street getting his fix and at the same time forcing it upon everyone else in the immediate vicinity? I'm amazed that anyone too stupid to understand such a simple concept is even able to type on a keyboard. By the same logic, it should be alright for me to mix up some LSD and DMSO and carry it in a little squirtgun to spray smokers with, right?
If you think you have the "right" to demand to not smell my tobacco smoke when you willingly enter the area, can I demand that I have the "right" not to smell your various body odors? -- Tom Veil
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Anonymous wrote:
If you think you have the "right" to demand to not smell my tobacco smoke when you willingly enter the area, can I demand that I have the "right" not to smell your various body odors?
Absolutely. A person has the right to do whatever they want. -Until- it interferes with anothers expression of their wants. Then everybody stops until a solution can be worked out. There are two, and only two paths to -any- solution. Cooperation and consent, or coercion. If one believes in equality then -any- solution involving coercion is a priori -wrong- and invokes further expressions of self-defence.
-- Tom Veil
Signing your anonymous posts is about as dumb as dirt. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
And most people find farts offensive. Should everyone be banned from eating beans? Or be forced to wear butt plugs to make you happy? So put on an air filter if the air offends you. If someone wishes to kill themselves with either smoke, drink, or Mickey D's, that's their choice. No one forces you to walk behind them, nor breathe their exhaled smoke, or farts, or car exhaust, live over Radon emitting land, stick your head in a microwave oven and disable the safety switches, etc. You can chose to be where those odors that offend you are not. Just as you can chose to not engage in unprotected sex with VD/HIV carriers, play Russian Roulette, etc. it's up to you to protect yourself. If others chose to endanger their lives and health it is their choice. Either they will wind up killing themselves weeding themselves out of the gene pool and winning a Darwin Award, or their bodies will build up tolerance improving the gene pool. Why should your standards and life choices be used to limit those of others? Who decides whose life choice should define the baseline of everyone's? And why that person? Remember Farenheight 451. Books were burned because not everyone, but someone found something offensive, and since everyone put together pretty much found everything offensive, all books were banned and everyone was forced to be happy by artificial means. That is the slippery slope you ask all humans to take with your stupidly selfish demands. And no, personally, I'm not a smoker. But I take great exception to NYC forcing everyone to quit smoking just because a few morons in power - much like yourself - except that you have no political power (thank the gods for that!), have decided to be the conscience of the public. And personally, if someone wishes to clog their arteries or lungs or destroy their liver with alcohol, or pancreas with sugar, brain cells with aspertame, no one should have to pay for their condition. Neither in welfare, social security, health insurance, nor any other means. And yes, if a corporation decides to poison the environment and their actions make everyone around them sick - without informing them of the dangers, they should be held liable. But things like second hand smoke and obesity are well known to be dangerous, so if someone inhales smoke or fat burgers, that's their life choice. Fuck'em. If someone is spreading SARS, the plague, or running around machine gunning people, they should be dealt with accordingly. But if all they're doing affects only themselves, that's their choice. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
I could care less what any report says, I get an immediate sick feeling from breathing tobacco smoke. And a great many other people do as well.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
VOLCANOES! Yeah, volcanoes release more toxins into the air than the entire industrial revolution did! How do you ban volcanoes, though....
Toxins? Particulates, yes, but not many toxins. And you're right, Mother Nature will always win in the end.
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Better do more research. Volcanoes put out all sorts of toxic chemicals; solid, liquid, gas. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, stuart wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
Bullshit line of reasoning (actually your whole line is pretty much tits up but why waste precious time). It's not a matter of 'proof'. It -is- a matter of interfering with others. Note they are not saying you can't smoke, they -are- saying that you can't make them smoke along with you. There is this concept called 'consent'. You seem to be missing it. You can do what you want until it interferes with what another wants. If they want to breath unpolluted air and drink clean water then there is nothing that gives you the right to pollute either outside of -your- immediate vicinity. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, Jim came up with this... JC> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, stuart wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
JC> Bullshit line of reasoning (actually your whole line is pretty much tits JC> up but why waste precious time). It's not a matter of 'proof'. It -is- a JC> matter of interfering with others. Note they are not saying you can't JC> smoke, they -are- saying that you can't make them smoke along with you. JC> There is this concept called 'consent'. You seem to be missing it. JC> You can do what you want until it interferes with what another wants. If JC> they want to breath unpolluted air and drink clean water then there is JC> nothing that gives you the right to pollute either outside of -your- JC> immediate vicinity. There is a line, that line is harm, not discomfort. My argument is that there are many things that cause discomfort, that's life, tough shit. If smoking actually caused harm to people near a smoker, I wouldn't protest any of these bans. But nobody has been able to prove it does. I know exactly what consent is. I don't consent to the kid next to me in my OS class who doesn't know what deodorant is stinking the room up, but it doesn't cause me any harm so the law has no right to impose speed stick on him. People aren't permitted to blast music in the middle of the night because it prevents other people from sleeping, which causes harm. When smoking is banned in places, it removes the RIGHT of the owner of that place to permit or prohibit a legal activity within their domain. Without those laws the owner could permit smoking, and patrons could then CONSENT to go to that place, or go somewhere else, where the owner has prohibited smoking. So yeah, I know what consent is, do you know what private property is? -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:17:37PM -0400, stuart wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, Jim came up with this...
JC> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, stuart wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
JC> Bullshit line of reasoning (actually your whole line is pretty much tits JC> up but why waste precious time). It's not a matter of 'proof'. It -is- a JC> matter of interfering with others. Note they are not saying you can't JC> smoke, they -are- saying that you can't make them smoke along with you. JC> There is this concept called 'consent'. You seem to be missing it.
JC> You can do what you want until it interferes with what another wants. If JC> they want to breath unpolluted air and drink clean water then there is JC> nothing that gives you the right to pollute either outside of -your- JC> immediate vicinity.
There is a line, that line is harm, not discomfort. My argument is that there are many things that cause discomfort, that's life, tough shit. If smoking actually caused harm to people near a smoker, I wouldn't protest any of these bans. But nobody has been able to prove it does. I know exactly what consent is. I don't consent to the kid next to me in my OS class who doesn't know what deodorant is stinking the room up, but it doesn't cause me any harm so the law has no right to impose speed stick on him.
People aren't permitted to blast music in the middle of the night
Or in the middle of the day, for that matter. Anyone who's car stereo can be heard outside the car should be arrested. I like the way they do that in New Zealand, the fine is progressive, third offense they confiscate the car. They should do the same with houses.
because it prevents other people from sleeping, which causes harm. When smoking is banned in places, it removes the RIGHT of the owner of that place to permit or prohibit a legal activity within their domain. Without those laws the owner could permit smoking, and patrons could then CONSENT to go to that place, or go somewhere else, where the owner has prohibited smoking. So yeah, I know what consent is, do you know what private property is?
I wasn't talking at all about private property, I was talking about public space. If only giving discomfort is okay, how about if I dump a bucket of cold water on every smoker I meet on the street? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
hi, Quarterniting people with SARS is logical to the people who has no SARA and illogical by those who have SARS.Since most people don't suffer from sars,quarteniting the infected is justifiable to them.If theree fourth of congressmen in US smoked -smoking will be encouraged :-)Its the majority and their power that defines justification,they can always justify almost any thing. Regards Sarath. --- Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, Jim came up with
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:17:37PM -0400, stuart wrote: this...
JC> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, stuart wrote:
Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick
holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
JC> Bullshit line of reasoning (actually your whole line is pretty much tits JC> up but why waste precious time). It's not a matter of 'proof'. It -is- a JC> matter of interfering with others. Note they are not saying you can't JC> smoke, they -are- saying that you can't make
JC> There is this concept called 'consent'. You seem to be missing it.
JC> You can do what you want until it interferes with what another wants. If JC> they want to breath unpolluted air and drink clean water then there is JC> nothing that gives you the right to pollute either outside of -your- JC> immediate vicinity.
There is a line, that line is harm, not discomfort. My argument is that there are many things that cause discomfort,
If smoking actually caused harm to people near a smoker, I wouldn't protest any of these bans. But nobody has been able to prove it does. I know exactly what consent is. I don't consent to
on. But the argument them smoke along with you. that's life, tough shit. the kid next to me in
my OS class who doesn't know what deodorant is stinking the room up, but it doesn't cause me any harm so the law has no right to impose speed stick on him.
People aren't permitted to blast music in the middle of the night
Or in the middle of the day, for that matter. Anyone who's car stereo can be heard outside the car should be arrested. I like the way they do that in New Zealand, the fine is progressive, third offense they confiscate the car. They should do the same with houses.
because it prevents other people from sleeping, which causes harm. When smoking is banned in places, it removes the RIGHT of the owner of that place to permit or prohibit a legal activity within their domain. Without those laws the owner could permit smoking, and patrons could then CONSENT to go to that place, or go somewhere else, where the owner has prohibited smoking. So yeah, I know what consent is, do you know what private property is?
I wasn't talking at all about private property, I was talking about public space. If only giving discomfort is okay, how about if I dump a bucket of cold water on every smoker I meet on the street?
-- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
While we're at it, there should be a law against noisy kids playing in your neighbor's back yard, postmen who step on your lawn, people who water their lawns, people who don't water their lawns, people who wear unfashionable clothes, people who wear too fashionable clothes, people who speak too loud, poeple who speak too low or in a language you can't understand, people who play their stereo's too low or too loud, people who drive over 90 miles per hour, people who drive under 89 miles per hour, people who fart in public, people who wear fur, people who wear polyester, people who wear a tie with short sleved shirts, Yenta's, people who fart in public silently, etc.... Fuck that noise, you intolerant turd. I've a better idea: There should be a law against people that say "there should be a law..." :) ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Or in the middle of the day, for that matter. Anyone who's car stereo can be heard outside the car should be arrested. I like the way they do that in New Zealand, the fine is progressive, third offense they confiscate the car. They should do the same with houses.
At 2003-04-30 01:17 +0000, stuart wrote:
There is a line, that line is harm, not discomfort. My argument is that there are many things that cause discomfort, that's life, tough shit. If smoking actually caused harm to people near a smoker, I wouldn't protest any of these bans. But nobody has been able to prove it does.
Of course! How could I have been so blind? Tar is good for your lungs. In support of this, the FDA will release a Minimum Daily Requirements update listing tar as an essential nutrient - with the caveat that it must be breathed in rather than swallowed - any day now. Those pictures of black lungs are nothing to be worried about - black lungs are more efficient, and the tar coating helps shield lungs from harmful substances like oxygen. Nicotine is good for you. All the proof needed is that it calms down hypertensive type-A personalities. The dozens of carcinogenic compounds formed by combustion of plant matter aren't really there. A lab mixup resulted in the misidentification of the compounds produced by burning cigarettes. The compounds are really vitamin A, B6, B12, C, D, E, calcium, "soy protein," and zinc. -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11
On Saturday 19 April 2003 10:02, Harmon Seaver wrote:
... All smoking in public should be banned. No one has the right to pollute the air I have to breath, in any way.
Yah. Maj Variola already beat me to the point about perfume. And what about people who don't bathe as often as I think they should?
I shouldn't have to breath in...
Feel free to stop any time. No skin off our noses. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby
On Saturday 19 April 2003 10:02, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Agreed, except for smoking in public. All smoking in public should be banned. No one has the right to pollute the air I have to breath, in any way. I shouldn't have to breath in or even smell someones else's drug as I walk down the street.
Public property was paid for by looting private individuals' pockets or appropriating it directly. The concept of regulating public activities is pure socialist bullshit. Ordinances prohibiting or regulating any activity on private property is part of our creeping nanny state totalitarianism. Any individual who enforces, or any politician who votes for a law that uses force to regulate behavior is guilty of initiating force against anyone affected by the law, and is a deserving target of retaliation. Any individual who votes for one of these political scumbags or urges them to enact such a law is also a deserving target of retaliation. David Neilson
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:55:06PM -0400, david wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2003 10:02, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Agreed, except for smoking in public. All smoking in public should be banned. No one has the right to pollute the air I have to breath, in any way. I shouldn't have to breath in or even smell someones else's drug as I walk down the street.
Public property was paid for by looting private individuals' pockets or appropriating it directly. The concept of regulating public activities is pure socialist bullshit. Ordinances prohibiting or regulating any activity on private property is part of our creeping nanny state totalitarianism.
You fucking dimwit -- public property was all there ever was. Private property is purely a construct of Euro culture, at least in this hemisphere. Who owned the whole fucking continent when the eurotrash expatriates hit the east coast? You really think you *own* a piece of Mother Earth? Guess again when that volcano erupts underneath it.
Any individual who enforces, or any politician who votes for a law that uses force to regulate behavior is guilty of initiating force against anyone affected by the law, and is a deserving target of retaliation. Any individual who votes for one of these political scumbags or urges them to enact such a law is also a deserving target of retaliation.
Some people, like this dumbfuck, don't deserve to be sucking air. "using force to regulate behavior" is wrong? Like if some shithead tries to rob me I can't "regulate" their behavior? Or my village can't hire a professional "regulator" to deal with robbers? Or for that matter, to "regulate" people who smoke in public? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Saturday 19 April 2003 16:46, Harmon Seaver wrote:
(snip) Private property is purely a construct of Euro culture, at least in this hemisphere. Who owned the whole fucking continent when the eurotrash expatriates hit the east coast? You really think you *own* a piece of Mother Earth? Guess again when that volcano erupts underneath it.
The concept of, and respect for private property are essential elements of individual liberty. They cannot be separated. There is an inverse proportion between the power the governments have over private property and freedom.
Any individual who enforces, or any politician who votes for a law that uses force to regulate behavior is guilty of initiating force against anyone affected by the law (snip)
(snip) "using force to regulate behavior" is wrong? Like if some shithead tries to rob me I can't "regulate" their behavior? Or my village can't hire a professional "regulator" to deal with robbers? Or for that matter, to "regulate" people who smoke in public?
It is the initiation of force that is wrong. People who try to rob others should have their behavior regulated by being killed by their intended victims. Hiring professionals to deal with robbers is a valid response to the robbers' initiation of force. Killing people who use force to regulate individuals who smoke in public is also a legitimate response to the their initiation of force. David Neilson
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:22:42PM -0400, david wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2003 16:46, Harmon Seaver wrote:
(snip) Private property is purely a construct of Euro culture, at least in this hemisphere. Who owned the whole fucking continent when the eurotrash expatriates hit the east coast? You really think you *own* a piece of Mother Earth? Guess again when that volcano erupts underneath it.
The concept of, and respect for private property are essential elements of individual liberty. They cannot be separated. There is an inverse proportion between the power the governments have over private property and freedom.
So the native americans here before 1492 weren't free? They did, of course, have private property -- whatever they could carry with them -- but the land was held in common. The idea that individuals could "own" land was not known to them.
Any individual who enforces, or any politician who votes for a law that uses force to regulate behavior is guilty of initiating force against anyone affected by the law (snip)
(snip) "using force to regulate behavior" is wrong? Like if some shithead tries to rob me I can't "regulate" their behavior? Or my village can't hire a professional "regulator" to deal with robbers? Or for that matter, to "regulate" people who smoke in public?
It is the initiation of force that is wrong. People who try to rob others should have their behavior regulated by being killed by their intended victims.
You're right, and it's really too bad the indigs here didn't realize soon enough that they needed to kill each and everyone of those euros who landed here and thought they could "own" land.
Hiring professionals to deal with robbers is a valid response to the robbers' initiation of force. Killing people who use force to regulate individuals who smoke in public is also a legitimate response to the their initiation of force.
People can smoke in public if they wear some sort of helmet which contains all the smoke, otherwise they are using force to invade my body and I should have the right to kill them for it. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
-- On 20 Apr 2003 at 9:03, Harmon Seaver wrote:
So the native americans here before 1492 weren't free? They did, of course, have private property -- whatever they could carry with them -- but the land was held in common.
I think you have been reading the fake Chief Seattle speech. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG GJt1bMX4Gutb48wlf55JpviT+q0p1UgTHg6kEmgW 4Go9kT1tgIxGBF48ijkgTJ9lRPs1tcMaNSHN/Ufo6
On Sunday, April 20, 2003, at 02:47 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
-- On 20 Apr 2003 at 9:03, Harmon Seaver wrote:
So the native americans here before 1492 weren't free? They did, of course, have private property -- whatever they could carry with them -- but the land was held in common.
I think you have been reading the fake Chief Seattle speech.
Which one? The one where he wrote the Federalist Papers or the one where he did the Constitution? One of the strongest arguments that Columbus was not the first European in America is the Magna Carta. It's a crass copy of the Qctzlzacopec Codex, written by the wise Aztecs hundreds of years prior to 1215. (Or so I am starting a rumor about.) --Tim May (.sig for Everything list background) Corralitos, CA. Born in 1951. Retired from Intel in 1986. Current main interest: category and topos theory, math, quantum reality, cosmology. Background: physics, Intel, crypto, Cypherpunks
On Sunday 20 April 2003 18:26, Tim May wrote:
(Or so I am starting a rumor about.)
That's nothing. Did you know Hillary Clinton appeared in just a bikini bottom in a 1960's issue of _Playboy_? It was one of the college issues, don't recall which one. I know it's true because I read it on the internet. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
So the native americans here before 1492 weren't free?
In the sense you're using it? No. In general they were members of a society that was driven by religion and strict requirements on behaviour and cast membership.
They did, of course, have private property
In general, no they didn't. -- whatever they could carry with them -- but the
land was held in common. The idea that individuals could "own" land was not known to them.
The people in general were help in common ownership, the ownership of the ruling class. If you think some Aztec could just pack up and walk off you are completely uneducated in the ways of those societies.
You're right, and it's really too bad the indigs here didn't realize soon enough that they needed to kill each and everyone of those euros who landed here and thought they could "own" land.
Another example of your ignorance. For example the word 'teo' was used for 'God' by both parties. In addition the Amerindians had cultural beliefs that led them to believe that the whites were from their God. You don't kill the messanger of ones own god.
People can smoke in public if they wear some sort of helmet which contains all the smoke, otherwise they are using force to invade my body and I should have the right to kill them for it.
You certainly have a right to prohibit them from smoking in public places and in -your- private places. Outside of that it isn't any of your business. As to killing them, that's just specious. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 05:22 PM 4/19/03 -0400, david wrote: ...
It is the initiation of force that is wrong. People who try to rob others should have their behavior regulated by being killed by their intended victims.
In order to distinguish when force has been initiated, you have to have some agreed-upon definitions of rights. The whole argument you're in here about smoking has to do with boundaries of rights. Harmon says your cigarette smoke is a form of assault. This may or may not be valid, but it's certainly possible to come up with kinds of fumes that are a violation of the rights of the people forced to endure them (think of mustard gas, or even the smell of raw sewage), so it's not obviously bogus. In practice, this is an area where simple rights arguments don't work all that well, because there are big areas of gray.
Hiring professionals to deal with robbers is a valid response to the robbers' initiation of force. Killing people who use force to regulate individuals who smoke in public is also a legitimate response to the their initiation of force.
How about if whenever I see someone smoking in public, I go stand upwind of them and open my package of Instant Sarin Mix? Which one of us is initiating force? How about if I'm more polite, and merely open my package of Instant Skunk Scent Mix? The issue is where you draw the line, and the problem is that there's no unambiguously right answer. The only way to resolve this peaceably is to have some agreed-upon standards to resolve the gray areas into solid lines. Those agreed-upon standards are sometimes in the form of written laws, sometimes in the form of precedent in case law, and are very often simply the unwritten standards of conduct that most people live by most of the time. And often they need courts of some kind to rule on gray areas that exist even within those rules.
David Neilson
--John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 08:16 AM, John Kelsey wrote:
At 05:22 PM 4/19/03 -0400, david wrote: ...
It is the initiation of force that is wrong. People who try to rob others should have their behavior regulated by being killed by their intended victims.
In order to distinguish when force has been initiated, you have to have some agreed-upon definitions of rights. The whole argument you're in here about smoking has to do with boundaries of rights. Harmon says your cigarette smoke is a form of assault. This may or may not be valid, but it's certainly possible to come up with kinds of fumes that are a violation of the rights of the people forced to endure them (think of mustard gas, or even the smell of raw sewage), so it's not obviously bogus.
In practice, this is an area where simple rights arguments don't work all that well, because there are big areas of gray.
But in practice, in real practice out on the streets, this has never been where the anti-smoking laws have been invoked. No state in the U.S., to my knowledge, bans smoking outside, on public streets. There may be a few places near public congregation areas, near air intakes, etc. There may even be a few isolated cases of towns passing "no smoking anywhere on our streets" laws. But, by and large, the anti-smoking laws are confined to restaurants, office buildings, stores, city offices, and other indoor places. So the real debate is not about Harmon's extreme example of not liking the smell of cigarettes when he walks past a smoker, but the issue of anti-smoking laws in the above examples. And here the issue is about as nearly unambiguous as one can get: it is up to the property owner to decide on smoking policies on his property. This was as it once was, and it worked very well. Some restaurants barred smoking, some permitted it, some set up different sections. Likewise, some companies barrred smoking, some permitted it, some set up smoking lounges, etc. (As a nonsmoker, as one who has never taken a single puff on any kind of cigarette or cigar or pipe, I thought smoking was incredibly wasteful, dirty, and annoying. I used to see engineers and technicians going off to take smoking breaks (they would have argued that their alertness was then raised by the nicotine hit). Whatever my views, it was up to my employer to establish his policies. It was not up to some outside party to tell my employer what to allow and what not to allow.)
How about if whenever I see someone smoking in public, I go stand upwind of them and open my package of Instant Sarin Mix? Which one of us is initiating force? How about if I'm more polite, and merely open my package of Instant Skunk Scent Mix? The issue is where you draw the line, and the problem is that there's no unambiguously right answer.
The only way to resolve this peaceably is to have some agreed-upon standards to resolve the gray areas into solid lines. Those agreed-upon standards are sometimes in the form of written laws, sometimes in the form of precedent in case law, and are very often simply the unwritten standards of conduct that most people live by most of the time. And often they need courts of some kind to rule on gray areas that exist even within those rules.
The Schelling point for such rights was agreed-upon a couple of centuries ago with the protection of property rights. My house, my rules. Your house, your rules. Examples like Sarin are not helpful, as they differ massively from the annoyance of smoking. --Tim May "As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself." -- David Friedman
At 04:30 PM 4/23/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: ...
But in practice, in real practice out on the streets, this has never been where the anti-smoking laws have been invoked. No state in the U.S., to my knowledge, bans smoking outside, on public streets.
Right, but that was what was being discussed--regulation of smoking on public property. (Which raises all kinds of interesting definitional issues, since that includes the county courthouse, the street in front of the courthouse, the river running through the middle of town, and the ocean several miles away. Nobody bans smoking in all those places, but I think almost everyone bans smoking in government buildings, and I've seen at least one city park (here in North Carolina!) where smoking is banned once you get off the parking lot.) ... [Discussing real-world antismoking laws, applied to "public places" as in places where the public happens to be--bars, restaurants, etc.]
And here the issue is about as nearly unambiguous as one can get: it is up to the property owner to decide on smoking policies on his property. This was as it once was, and it worked very well. Some restaurants barred smoking, some permitted it, some set up different sections. Likewise, some companies barrred smoking, some permitted it, some set up smoking lounges, etc.
Yep. When only consenting adults are involved on private property, the state ought not to be involved. For some non-obvious dangerous activities, the state might legitimately require a warning of some kind (e.g., "DANGER--POISON"), though in practice this usually seems to devolve to attaching a warning label to everything, with the effect that you don't always know an ass-covering warning label from an honest-to-God, drink a teaspoon of this and you're a corpse, sort of warning label. And for some dangerous activities the state might legitimately restrict children from the activity, though second-hand smoke is a couple orders of magnitude too low of a risk for this to make sense. (And the other Schelling point is to let parents make decisions for their kids until the kids are being obviously abused or subjected to horrifying risks.) ...
The Schelling point for such rights was agreed-upon a couple of centuries ago with the protection of property rights. My house, my rules. Your house, your rules.
Examples like Sarin are not helpful, as they differ massively from the annoyance of smoking.
My point was that it's not obvious where the line gets drawn for (say) offensive smells or dangerous fumes, but it is obvious that there needs to be a line there somewhere. Sarin, tear gas, or skunk smell are pretty obvious examples of fumes that, if I give them off in a public place or waft them over to your property, ought to be actionable somehow. Fumes from various inhaled/smoked drugs are somewhere in a gray area. These gray areas exist in every area of life, and a lot of libertarians seem to miss them, because they don't fit cleanly into the list-of-rights-granted-by-God/Rand/TheConstitution model. (For some discussion by a libertarian who understands them very well, see David Friedman's wonderful book _Law's Order_.)
--Tim May
--John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Tim May wrote:
But in practice, in real practice out on the streets, this has never been where the anti-smoking laws have been invoked. No state in the U.S., to my knowledge, bans smoking outside, on public streets.
Almost, some cities require that you smoke at least 15 ft. from entrances for example. Now why do they draw this distinction? Distance and diffusion. It's to provide a 'buffer of choice'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, John Kelsey wrote:
In order to distinguish when force has been initiated, you have to have some agreed-upon definitions of rights.
Rubbish. The first person who refuses to accept 'No' as a response is the instigator. You don't need to define 'right' you only need to define 'consent'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Saturday 19 April 2003 16:46, Harmon Seaver wrote:
(snip) Private property is purely a construct of Euro culture, at least in this hemisphere. Who owned the whole fucking continent when the eurotrash expatriates hit the east coast? You really think you *own* a piece of Mother Earth? Guess again when that volcano erupts underneath it.
The concept of, and respect for private property are essential elements of individual liberty. They cannot be separated. There is an inverse proportion between the power the governments have over private property and freedom.
Any individual who enforces, or any politician who votes for a law that uses force to regulate behavior is guilty of initiating force against anyone affected by the law (snip)
(snip) "using force to regulate behavior" is wrong? Like if some shithead tries to rob me I can't "regulate" their behavior? Or my village can't hire a professional "regulator" to deal with robbers? Or for that matter, to "regulate" people who smoke in public?
It is the initiation of force that is wrong. People who try to rob others should have their behavior regulated by being killed by their intended victims. Hiring professionals to deal with robbers is a valid response to the robbers' initiation of force. Killing people who use force to regulate individuals who smoke in public is also a legitimate response to the their initiation of force. David Neilson
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, david wrote:
The concept of, and respect for private property are essential elements of individual liberty. They cannot be separated. There is an inverse proportion between the power the governments have over private property and freedom.
Actually that's so much whaledreck. They in fact are -not- related at all. In fact if one talks of 'individuals' then -no- concept of 'property' -ever- arises. It is only until one brings in two or more than -any- concept of 'property' has any meaning at all. The connection between 'private freedom' and 'property' is really a strawman. What matters is life, liberty, and the -pursuit of hapiness- and not collecting more 'stuff' than your neighbor. If anything it demonstrates an exception lack of maturity and excessive insecurity. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 09:41 PM 04/20/2003 -0500, Jim wrote:
The connection between 'private freedom' and 'property' is really a strawman. What matters is life, liberty, and the -pursuit of hapiness- and not collecting more 'stuff' than your neighbor. If anything it demonstrates an exception lack of maturity and excessive insecurity.
It's a difficult problem - claiming that land is your private property implies a willingness to initiate force to enforce your rights, which is different for something like land that you didn't create than for objects that you did create. But if you can't collect "stuff", you can't insure yourself against starving to death in the short term or the more distant future, and governments in during the last century made a habit of declaring that all the land and stuff in a given area was theirs, and either starving the local population to death (if they were totalitarians) or forcing them to leave (if they were merely greedy) or just killing them. If you're looking at the world as a whole, as opposed to just the US and Canada and parts of Western Europe that aren't near Germany, insecurity about such things unfortunately demonstrates a realistic maturity. If you live in a society that guarantees liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you still need to plan for your old age, and you do that by collecting stuff, or by collecting friends and kids who will care for you. Societies that don't let you collect stuff are forcing you to depend on them for your food and housing - not much liberty there. People who are especially good at acquiring and managing stuff can retire at 35 (:-), and people who don't have families to support can argue about whether they've got more liberty or happiness with less stuff (but the classic non-materialistic hippie ethic often involved going back to the land, i.e. you and your friends owning land and farming.) And farmers can never retire, except by having their kids do the work, unless they're in high-value crops like dope that let them acquire lots of stuff...
At 10:48 AM -0700 4/21/03, Bill Stewart wrote:
It's a difficult problem - claiming that land is your private property implies a willingness to initiate force to enforce your rights, which is different for something like land that you didn't create than for objects that you did create.
But if you can't collect "stuff", you can't insure yourself against starving to death in the short term or the more distant future, and governments in during the last century made a habit of declaring that all the land and stuff in a given area was theirs, and either starving the local population to death (if they were totalitarians) or forcing them to leave (if they were merely greedy) or just killing them. If you're looking at the world as a whole, as opposed to just the US and Canada and parts of Western Europe that aren't near Germany, insecurity about such things unfortunately demonstrates a realistic maturity.
The Scottish land clearances are an interesting case study here. For generations before 1745, the scots lived in clans where the clan leaders depended on landless peasants for agricultural labor and private armies. After the Jacobite revolution, with Bonnie Prince Charlie's claim to the throne, the government tried to suppress the highland clans, banned the private armies, the playing of bagpipes, and the wearing of highland dress. Clan leaders no longer needed the peasants for private armies, and their tenancy became a financial burden. At the same time, the introduction of the potato allowed the population of peasants depending on the clans for support to almost double. These changes, along with increased economic value of wool and mutton, caused the land owners to shift their lands to sheep production. The peasants were either moved to small holdings on the poorest land (called crofts), or shipped abroad. Modern historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were removed from the land during the 19th century. The clearances did not proceed without protest, and there were frequent tenant uprisings. However, nothing in Scottish law prevented land lords from clearing their land. In 1886, the government passed the Crofter's Holding Act which provided for security of tenure, fair rents, and the crofter's right to pass the croft through inheritance. On May 3, 2000, the Scottish parliament abolished feudal tenure, ending 900 years of feudalism. [Source: The Lonely Planet, Scotland's Highlands & Islands guidebook] Now for the questions: Who owned the land? The lords? The peasants? Someone else? What does it mean to own land? Are land owners justified in evicting people who have lived on, and worked the land for generations? Cheers - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:
Now for the questions:
Who owned the land? The lords? The peasants? Someone else?
What does it mean to own land?
Are land owners justified in evicting people who have lived on, and worked the land for generations?
Excellent questions! One you missed is 'What does it mean to 'own'?'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 09:41 PM 04/20/2003 -0500, Jim wrote:
The connection between 'private freedom' and 'property' is really a strawman. What matters is life, liberty, and the -pursuit of hapiness- and not collecting more 'stuff' than your neighbor. If anything it demonstrates an exception lack of maturity and excessive insecurity.
It's a difficult problem
Not at all.
- claiming that land is your private property implies a willingness to initiate force to enforce your rights,
It does no such thing (unless of course you have a psychological disposition to the use of force).
which is different for something like land that you didn't create than for objects that you did create.
Created from what? To create something implies you had something to start with. Specious point.
But if you can't collect "stuff", you can't insure yourself against starving to death in the short term or the more distant future,
It does no such thing. In fact the more stuff you collect the bigger target you become and a larger percentage of your stuff is needed to protect your stuff. Not to mention that at some point the amount of stuff you collect deprives others of stuff they need to survive (or do you believe you're the only one who as that 'right'? - probably). The reality is that this viewpoint is a self-defeating view. It may work in the very short term but in the long run there is no way this will solve anything.
If you live in a society that guarantees liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
What society does that? Not even ours guarantees this. It does recognise that our creator gave us rights and that we create governments to -secure- (not guarantee) them. The only relevant question is secure them from whom?
you still need to plan for your old age, and you do that by collecting stuff, or by collecting friends and kids who will care for you.
Really, those are the only two options? Somehow I suspect that says more about you than the world out 'there'.
Societies that don't let you collect stuff are forcing you to depend on them for your food and housing - not much liberty there.
Really? Why? There are more than one definitions of liberty. The concept you're completely missing in this line of argument is 'consent'.
People who are especially good at acquiring and managing stuff can retire at 35 (:-),
Can they? Or do they spend the rest of their life trying to keep it? The reality is that a lot of the stuff that you think is 'yours' is only becuase it isn't worth anybody elses trouble to take it from you. And then one has to ask if that person who is especially good at collecting stuff didn't do it at the expense of others.
And farmers can never retire, except by having their kids do the work, unless they're in high-value crops like dope that let them acquire lots of stuff...
What is this 'retire' you keep talking about, you retiring from life or employment by others? Not the same thing. Stuff might help you in the latter case, it's worthless in the former. And the value and utility of all that stuff rests on one thing, the stability of the system you used to collect it. If that changes all that stuff may in fact become worthless. So, at least to some degree to protect your stuff you deprive others of their opportunity to change the society they are in to the way they feel most comfortable with. So, to 'guarantee' your 'stuff' you -must- deprive others of an opportunity to collect their stuff. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (17)
-
Anonymous -
Bill Frantz -
Bill Stewart -
david -
Harmon Seaver -
James A. Donald -
Jim Choate -
John Kelsey -
Justin -
Major Variola (ret) -
Sarad AV -
Steve Furlong -
stuart -
Sunder -
Tarapia Tapioco -
Thomas Shaddack -
Tim May