Quarantines may be justified

[Jim Choate]

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 at ssz.com                            jchoate at open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------